Gutless politicians don’t speak for me on ethics

Lauren says:

02:38pm | 30/09/10

And invest in IQ

catherine says:

07:25am | 01/10/10

Jason you need to do some research on voluntary euthanasia and whilst you are at it do some on Dr Nitschke. In countries where euthanasia is legal ( and those are very few, a few countries have been stupid enough to legalise it), the processes have been abused.E.g. In Oregon USA , the vast majority of people euthanased were not assessedfor clinical depression!! ( depression is a treatable condition and very often why people want to die!!). Some people have been euthanased who were found not to be terminally ill.
Some leading voluntary euthanasia advocates have openly admitted that they believe the elderly are unproductive burdens who have a duty to die and stop being a drain on the public purse. e.g. our former Governor general Bill Haydyn is on record to saying something to that effect,

Dr. Nitschke has suggested that we give prisoners the option of voluntary euthanasia ( now there is a money saver, why should the tax payer support those people, let’s just kill them it is cheaper). Dr. Nitschke. is also on record in a book he wrote that he believes that money we spend on the terminally ill etc could be better spent on other segments of the community.
The WA parliament just rejected the greens euthanasia bill so go read Hansard and find out why they voted against it. Nick GUiran’s speech is very informative and well thought out

Dave says:

02:58pm | 12/10/10

not sure you have really understood the point of the article there catherine. sure there is content talking about the morality of euthanasia and that is an important ethical question but it seems to me that the point is that there are experts in the field of ethics and these experts are not consulted in the way an economist would be if the question related to monetary policy.

a conscience vote is as Jason says, an excuse to not have to consider viewpoints other than their own. this is the problem. the issue must be resolved by the experts. trained philosophers like Singer should be advising the ministers.

the fact that neither of the politicians on the panel cared what the ethicist thought is the both point and the problem.

austin 3:16 says:

12:56pm | 30/09/10

Agreed, go to the party, download Q&A later. Ahh in the old days you could have “taped” the show….

Wayne Fehlhaber says:

09:02am | 30/09/10

acrotel :  ” Catholics become very emotional about it. “
Really ?  Have you carried out some kind of polling or maybe you stood outside a few churches and asked the right questions.
What are your credentials on euthanasia , medical , law , psychology or perhaps even religion.  ?
Personally , i don’t have a view on the subject at all . It is far too important , complex in every sense , to sit in judgement on ending a life.
Far better to leave it to those who are in a position to advance an educated opinion on whether someone should no longer live in pain or be allowed to die naturally .

Reg says:

10:22am | 30/09/10

You don’t seem to have much experience with this Wayne Fehlhaber. In hospitals they gradually reduce intravenous sustenance until the patient starves to death or has a heart attack.

What’s your gripe against emotion anyway? Do I read you correctly, you don’t have a view on this because it’s too important? In other words you wash your hands of the whole subject and leave it to someone else to make the decision.  Be-gone.

fairsfair says:

12:25pm | 30/09/10

No Reg, I think what Wayne is trying to say is that he does not have the required training/knowledge and/or expertise to comment on such a complex and emotive issue.

If only more people would take his lead.

Wayne Fehlhaber says:

01:25pm | 30/09/10

Reg :  My 49 year old brother developed cancer in the throat , his death was a slow process and extremely painful , until morphine was administered in hospital under palliative care.
A week prior to his hospital admission , he came to me and asked if i would give him my rifle ,  convey him to a secluded spot in his car , and then leave him alone. Needless to say , i could not carry out his wish ,
i loved my brother , the decision to honor his request was not mine to make as i had no qualifications to base a decision on. Instead , i chose to get him into the palliative care section in hospital where there were people qualified to care for him and attend to his pain.
Watching a person die slowly is something experienced by most families today and i’m sure that many will know what i mean , when i say
i was not qualified then to make a decision , and i am not qualified now to make such a decision , either for myself or anyone else.

David says:

01:54pm | 30/09/10

fairsfair: and you think our lawmakers do? What exactly is the requirement to gain public office? Last I checked it was simply to be an Australian citizen and over the age of 18… Sure enough many of our pollies have a law degree, a couple have other qualifications but they are not themselves going to be experts and experienced in every issue upon which they legislate and whats more neither does the vast majority of the electorate who votes them in and out of office.

The whole system is about lay understanding, yes it involves and often requires consultation of experts and stakeholders but it does not require their judgement to be made on an issue of electoral importance.

In a democracy lay people can’t afford not to inform themselves and develop an opinion on an issue because there often comes a time when they will be required to cast a vote and no matter what choice they make there it will be done out of ignorance.

If you want people with experience and expertise making all the important decisions for everyone else then you’re asking for some kind of meritocracy - something I doubt you really want.

Reg says:

02:06pm | 30/09/10

Motivation to explore such a complex subject can come from many sources and at any age. If I mention my teenage motivation again the moderator tor will delete it again, but there are many matters in life that demand the individual come to a decision on where he stands and this is one of those.

In light of new information one may choose to modify his position but that is no good reason not to have one.  Perhaps I should not mention religious belief because considered opinion is quite often unwelcome on this subject, but that doesn’t stop individuals from holding a firm position either way.  There is no valid excuse for not being interested in such important matters.

Reg says:

02:17pm | 30/09/10

Then Wayne you did have an opinion and decided to deny your brother his wish. As it turns out there was a less cruel alternative. I think that was very wise of you because many in his state have their reason overwhelmed by their pain and depression. I’m sorry you had to make that decision but I think you made the right one.

fairsfair says:

04:29pm | 30/09/10

David, tell me how your comment on this website makes any difference to the overall debate and will ultimately impact on what legislation ends up passing (or not passing) through parliament?

Bottom line is - there are decision makers. I like knowing that because if decisions were down to “lay” people we’d've imploded long ago.

Conroy did not dream up the NBN or the Internet Filter while watching the IT Crowd. He has a whole team of consultants, experts and policy makes behind him. He is the face of that group and has that job because he has the necessary skills of any politician (to sound like he is across what is happening, but not actually answer public enquiry). If you want to have any kind of impact on the decision - you go and study and work to get one of those jobs.

I would like the subsequent group on this topic to be the ones to supply examples of potential legislation. A heartfelt, emotion filled story about your Nanna’s final weeks/months is not conducive to effective debate. Nor is trying to tie in the religeous beliefs of a politician. That is why we go round and round in circles and nothing is achieved. Being an armchair expert or a 19 year old who feels somehow ethically misrepresented offers little.

Reg says:

08:15am | 01/10/10

Now that it’s tomorrow and I’ve had a chance to read what others have written, I am still unable to see any firm suggestion as to how this legislation should be shaped. As Wayne has said, it’s too hard, so why should we have expected members of parliament on a TV show to have presented a solution that is neat and tidy? 

I don’t understand what acotrel means by “proper controls.”  It’s one of those phrases that includes everything and nothing. If you watched Nuremberg; Tyranny on Trial, you will have seen the same problems addressed there. Legislation to end the lives of others is a very sensitive area unless you take the same cold-blooded approach as certain of those on trial.

Religious people have no difficulty, they simply turn to their appropriate book and say yes or no. The problem seems to me to hinge on the threshold of “mercy.” Which-ever action is more merciful to the sufferer should be our guide and as Wayne has shown, we have the means of minimizing pain these days. Then I see the war-time image of a pilot burning in his crashed plane and being shot to end his agony. Obviously the appropriate solution is governed by the prevailing conditions, not just a blanket yes or no.

acotrel says:

03:10am | 13/10/10

Wayne, I’ve never met a catholic who supported abortion or euthanasia.  You’ve declined to make input on this current topic.  Do you need George Pell to hold your hand?

Wayne Fehlhaber says:

07:59am | 30/09/10

A. t. M.  :  Sometimes i wonder if the Greens push for euthanasia is tied in with their Death Taxes policy. They could point to increased revenue from Death Taxes if both Bills got up . That type of reasoning would be the norm in the loopy looney fruit loop group.

Steely Dan says:

09:01am | 30/09/10

That’s right, Wayne.  The Greens promote killing people so they can tax people more.  That’s sound, rational reasoning.

remlap says:

09:19am | 30/09/10

“That type of reasoning would be the norm in the loopy looney fruit loop group. “

Wow! Just… wow! This kind of language does nothing to further your argument. Right now I’m picturing a tinfoil hat perched on your head while you set the dial on your home-made time machine for the glorious McCarthyism of the 1950’s.

Make sure when you hide that money you don’t want the “Labor/Green/Red Alliance” to get that grubby mitts on, it isn’t under the bed… that is where the Reds are hiding.

Claude Balls says:

09:28am | 30/09/10

Wayne, surely you realise there’d be a tax rebate for the volunteers. That should rally the Liberals.

Tim says:

10:22am | 30/09/10

Steely Dan,
“The Greens” and “sound rational reasoning”  should never be mentioned in the same comment.

Steely Dan says:

10:27am | 30/09/10

@ Tim

Yeah, those Greens are too slavishly scientific to be rational!

Reg says:

10:35am | 30/09/10

Tim’s got a point there Dan. If it’s sound it’s rational and if it’s rational it’s sound. Gotta give it to Tim, he’s a giant in this field.

Tim says:

11:06am | 30/09/10

@Steely Dan,
you say scientific, I’d say hysterical.

Barry says:

02:58pm | 30/09/10

Peter Singer once was a leading candidate for the Greens Party in Victoria.  If considering infanticide and beastaility as good things aren’t too far-fetched for Greens candidates, is making a buck off people who already want to die really that far-fetched?

Wayne Fehlhaber says:

06:37pm | 30/09/10

Claude Balls :  The problem there Claude is that Labor would overturn the Tax Rebate and label it as a government grant for Community Assistance then tax the arse off the receipients.

Claude Balls says:

09:29pm | 30/09/10

Please tell me you’re making this up Wayne.

acotrel says:

03:05am | 13/10/10

Reg, ‘Proper controls’ means a situation where the risks are appropriately controlled so that potential for harm to innocents is minimised to a level tolerable to society. If euthanasia becomes murder or manslaughter, that is a problem for all of us.

bobw says:

08:54am | 30/09/10

Actually, you would seem to be the one claiming to “know everything”, most notably with respect to “what it will come to”, and what 19 year olds “would think” if it did.  By my reckoning, that would make you some kind of clairvoyant whose powers extend to reading the minds of presumably unborn future 19 year olds.  Remarkable.

Markus says:

09:39am | 30/09/10

Euthanasia does not equal murder.
Nobody has any choice in who dies besides the person themselves, and their decision must be approved by a panel of independent doctors to determine they are of sound mind in their decision. That includes ensuring they are NOT under duress.
If you decide you want to keep living in the case of a terminal illness that is your choice to make, passing this bill will have no bearing on that choice.
Why are you so worried that someone else may decide they do not wish to make the same choice?

Roja says:

04:54pm | 30/09/10

@Juju - what he was saying is that based on appearances, he was willing to debate the subject in a more mature manner than our elected representatives.  He wasn’t making value judgements, just asking for a rationional open debate.  19 year old - 1, Juju - Zero.

Charlie says:

10:13am | 30/09/10

Yes Peter- what horror, people interested in the machinery of democracy that is a disgrace, perhaps next we’ll have people making informed decisions at the ballot box or worse protesting when they do not agree with something.

Tombarina says:

08:36am | 30/09/10

When I was 17, my parents were two of the thickest, most old-fashioned, embarrassing ignoramuses around.
Now, I frequently compliment them on how much they’ve learned in the ensuing 20-odd years. These days, they have viewpoints worth considering and experience worth learning from. 
Just goes to show what people can achieve if they REALLY put their mind to it…....

Steely Dan says:

10:33am | 30/09/10

@ Joan

“The 80+ year olds I meet through my work never ask me to give them a hand to get over the line to the other side.”
My mother works with elderly people, she estimates that she gets asked 3 times a year on average.

“The queue of suffering elderly crying to be popped off by the likes of you exists only in your over active imagination….. there are no queues of elderly waiting to be euthanased- murdered legally .....”
If there is one person (there’s a lot more than that), that’s enough. 

“dying naturally are following natures course….. “
Naturalistic fallacy.  Pain is natural too, I thought you said you wanted better pain management?

“To be killed deliberately by another hand is a violent way to die….don’t be fooled by appearances.”
So what is peaceful-looking death really like, in your experience?

Richard says:

11:21am | 30/09/10

Steely Dan, drugs are a physiological filter that can alter the mind’s perception of sensation. That is one thing, but depriving someone of their life altogether is a completely different and more sinister pursuit.

Steely Dan says:

11:35am | 30/09/10

@ Richard

“That is one thing, but depriving someone of their life altogether is a completely different and more sinister pursuit.”
Depriving?  We’re talking about euthanasia, not murder.  Do you understand the difference?

Tim says:

12:26pm | 30/09/10

Steely Dan,
define your perception of euthanasia then?
You would probably get 10 different answers if you asked 10 different people.
There is a grey area in there, and that is what the debate is about.
I would be OK with euthanasia in very limited circumstances but defining what exactly those circumstances are is extremely hard.

Steely Dan says:

02:05pm | 30/09/10

@ Tim

“define your perception of euthanasia then?... I would be OK with euthanasia in very limited circumstances but defining what exactly those circumstances are is extremely hard.”
The current political debate is quite specific - it’s about whether or not to lift a federal ban on existing NT euthanasia legislation.

Adam says:

02:42pm | 30/09/10

@Tim says:12:26pm | 30/09/10

Steely Dan,
define your perception of euthanasia then?
You would probably get 10 different answers if you asked 10 different people.
There is a grey area in there, and that is what the debate is about.
I would be OK with euthanasia in very limited circumstances but defining what exactly those circumstances are is extremely hard.

Easy, it’s the act of aquiring the means by which a terminally ill person may, at the point of their choosing, peacfully end their existance, ie procuring a susbtance and the means to administer it. This act, under legalised euthanasia would then not be subject to legal censure.

Tim says:

05:05pm | 30/09/10

Steely Dan,
the political debate in parliament may be about the NT legislation but this article and QandA the other day were more about euthanasia in general.
Adam,
define “mentally competent adult” and “terminal illness.”

The NT bill may have worked as hoped but I believe there is room for the bill to be misused.

Tim says:

05:07pm | 30/09/10

Although i will say that i’m not against the bill or euthanasia in general but I can understand why some people do have problems with it.

Adam says:

09:20am | 01/10/10

@Tim,
Terminal illness is one which reguardless of treatment will result in death of the patient
Mentally competent adult ( and it would not need to be an adult) is one which, as per the NT legislation, is assessed by at least two qualified psychiatrists as being in possesion of the capacity to understand the nature of thier illness and the full nature and implications of the assitance they are requesting. Part of this is to assertain wether or not “pressures” are being bought to bear of a familial or financial nature.

I ready the post after your query but this is a bit of a touchy subject just at this point in time for me

iansand says:

08:55am | 30/09/10

Under the NT scheme such a person would not be allowed to seek euthanasia.

Reg says:

04:23pm | 30/09/10

Assuming that anyone who seeks to end his life is suffering from depression and cannot be relied upon to make a rational decision, it is not up to anyone else to set the process in motion.

Lisa says:

10:54am | 30/09/10

Life is more black and white when you are younger. Life is also idealistic (well, it was in my youth). In fact, I did a whole political degree, and my entire understanding of the system really boiled down to : ‘Unless you’re an a**hole, you’ll vote Labor’. Wordly wise, hey?
As you get older, you see, all about, the incredibly agist attitude that most younger people have against older people.
Agism is all around. It starts with older people, for example, getting poor service in shops. But it goes a lot further than that.
My aunt had thousands of dollars stolen from her by her CARER. When we discovered the cash cheques, the nursing company and the police dissuaded us from pressing charges.
Old people are vulnerable. Many people resent having to care for them, or pay for their care. How many old people are given lesser care than they could afford, because their own children have an eye on an inheritance? My guess is very many.
There is an overwhelming ‘holier-than-thou’ attitude coming from the pro-euthenasia group. I say their position is not as perfectly clear as they so smugly suggest.
Can we, please, look at our deeply agist social attitudes, for example?

Michael C. Donovan says:

12:35pm | 30/09/10

Couldn’t agree more.  Jason, I hope we see more of your articles here on The Punch.  Bravo!

Defes says:

02:19pm | 30/09/10

I could point out the irony of congratulating someone who agrees with you for taking place in this debate while simultaneously telling a whole swathe of the community that doesn’t to butt out (i.e. those dabbling in “non-science”) but I figured that you were probably already aware of the double standard….

Rose says:

10:25am | 01/10/10

According to the polls there is overwhelming community support for euthanasia, therefore wouldn’t voting against it would require more bravery. I am not convinced that legalized euthanasia is a good path to travel down as there really are far too many complexities. People have emotional, financial and relationship baggage that is always going to cloud the decision, we cannot get away from that.

Tim says:

10:35am | 30/09/10

Actually I just decided this article is just an advertisement for Foxtel IQ or Telstra T-Box.
The first scene has poor Jason stuck at home so he can watch his precious QandA whilst the party is raging at his mates place.
The second scene has Jason (after he has purchased the necessary hardware) at the party engaging in some general debauchery, safe in the knowledge that QandA is being taped at home for later viewing.

Nicole says:

10:57am | 30/09/10

@David C, I’ve read this twice and I do believe you are correct. A cheap shot at the Liberals. And Jason, get pay TV. You can record with that.

Shifter says:

03:39pm | 30/09/10

Thank God our Prime Minister is an atheist, eh?

Bobster says:

04:20pm | 30/09/10

Won’t make much difference so long as the general population, and by extension their elected reps, still labour under the idea that you can take a short-cut to ethical behaviour by claiming divine inspiration.

Shifter says:

05:58pm | 30/09/10

Yes. Thank God for that too. We have a lot to be thankful for from God

Or not, as the case may be. My irony is as strong as Alanis it seems.

James1 says:

03:08pm | 30/09/10

So you think ethicists are wanky, but Taoism and Zen is not?

Jonno says:

09:04pm | 30/09/10

I disagree very much so ‘Richard’. To begin its not very constructive to explain your opinion on the existence of morality… its an abstract label. Its like saying ‘I don’t believe in consumerism exists.’ People or groups of people have basic, set beliefs on what they believe to be right, and that is immediately labelled as a ‘moral’. Additionally, perhaps there is ‘value’ in suffering, i certainly don’t know, I thankfully haven’t suffered a lot in my life, but i would certainly rather that I in the future, and as many people as possible go through as little pain as possible. I can see no constructive, positive outcome of an old man, lying in bed in agony with no chance of the pain for ending years and years. I am certainly not saying that euthanasia is the right or wrong thing to do in a situation like this, but i certainly wouldn’t sit down next to the man and tell him “you should be thankful for this pain there’s a lot of “intrinsic value in your suffering.” Won’t make sense to him and it certainly doesn’t seem logical to an uneducated person such as myself… Be careful in speaking about concepts that are very easily debatable and that many don’t believe, as fact! It makes you FAR less agreeable.

Reg says:

11:35am | 30/09/10

It’s so easy to berate politicians for not giving a direct and full answer that will satisfy the questioner. It may not be direct enough, not full enough or not the answer you want to hear.

I’ve been in this position in a technical field. Been asked a technical question by a technical person and had to respond with a barrage of questions.  If the questioner is not aware of all the relevant side issues, he can never ask the correct question. Is that too hard to comprehend? Excuse me for saying so, but many questioners, journalists included, are raw beginners.

That won’t stop them propounding their view that ” they will never give a direct answer.”  The proper response from the questioned should often take the form of some of Keating’s replies, denigrating the questioner for not properly researching his questions before having the audacity to ask them. It’s not the questioner who’s in the spotlight, and entrapment is an ever present issue for a politician.  How can a new paradigm alter this?

Reg says:

11:40am | 30/09/10

NASO, it’s school holidays, you’re flailing the young and inexperienced. They’re the ones who think he should have chosen to party etc.

Bobster says:

02:17pm | 30/09/10

@ KEN BURKE

Apparently you go to Bible College.

Reg says:

06:09pm | 30/09/10

You just proved you’re a fruit cake and not entitled to make such a decision. But they could if the whole family of 14 agreed to do likewise. I have a suggestion for recycling that would reduce you footprint even further but this wouldn’t get published if I mentioned it.

Ellie says:

01:27am | 02/10/10

Perfectly put, Izzy!!