Nurses not neutral on lethal needle

Agent 86 says:

06:51am | 07/04/11

Yes,
Nurses will earn more than doctors
This will only happen in an alternate universe where Costello runs KAOS and Abbott (agent 99) runs the health portfolio.

Real RN says:

11:23am | 07/04/11

Hello!! Have you worked in health? Or even set foot in a hospital? Its already hierarchical to the point of dysfunction. 

Secondly, for the record, i have never felt that the ANF didn’t represent my views. Nor have I ever heard a colleague say so.

And if you think doctors and nurses aren’t already involved in euthanasia, you’re kidding yourself. We just call it compassionate care.

Against the Man says:

11:46am | 07/04/11

Hospitals have no hierarchy anymore, it is all run by nursing managers - bed managers - administrators, all of whom think they know what is best but take zero responsibility when something goes wrong. Doctors have no say in how their wards and departments are run. Hierarchy means there is a flow from top to bottom and vice versa with the right person and authority in charge and responsible ensuring that the patient gets the best. Ever see a doctor have to fight to get a bed for a patient from a NUM? Have you seen a bed manager block the transfer of a patient? Who deals with the consequences of when the crap hits the fan? I’m cluey about the dark side of hospitals and how doctors have their hands tied,  and yet are expected to get the job done under these difficult circumstances.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m not anti nurses or pro doctors. Whoever makes the decision takes FULL responsibility andd not pass the buck, if that is how things flow than no problem with me. Right now we see the Nursing union and Roxon in cahoots and my 1st link above shows that health is now a basket case.

Stream line health, STOP adding administrative and clinical layers (forget about nurse practitioners when you can’t employ and train new medical grads and when hospital are screaming out for more nurses and medicare is not coping with the additional load of hands dipping in and not adding much to the solution, the Medical Observer states 70% of nurse prac referrals are referred to the GP anyway), have a straight forward hierarchy. You know many of my nursing friends who wanted more clinical responsibilities enrolled and went through a graduate medical program and are doing a great job in medicine/GP and even ICU. There are options if people are willing to work hard and train to be able to provide the BEST care, no short cuts because people’s lives are at risk.

That is just my point of view, and with the budget blow out in health I feel justified in promoting my point of view

ps: carbon tax dollars will likely be used to cover the massive shortfall in health, ALP great economic managers my foot.

Richard says:

12:19pm | 07/04/11

That is rubbish Real RN, considering the debacle when Queensland Health stuffed its payroll system, resulting in thousands of Nurses going unpaid for months on end, and we didn’t hear a single peep out of the Nurses union, no, infact all they did was run attack ads against Abbot shortly thereafter in the federal election campaign. The nurses union abandoned their members rather than criticize the inept Qld Labor government, and would rather perpetuate misandrist attacks against Abbott then look after their own members.

True Believer says:

03:33pm | 07/04/11

@Stu
I am speaking in peacetime, I presume you mean in war. That to is awful but it is the way of man sadly.

Michael K says:

10:01am | 07/04/11

“Research-touting?” So people should just go with their gut instinct on this one? I fail to see why citing research in an article is a negative. And it might be a bit of a stretch to state that 1997 and 2009 were “decades ago,” but let’s not allow numbers to get in the way of an emotion-fueled debate.

Rob says:

07:41am | 07/04/11

Thank you for putting forward an (unfortunately rare) reasonable and rational argument on this topic.

True Believer says:

10:38am | 07/04/11

@Persephone

You say -“Doctors and nurses make these decisions at the moment. They do so illegally, with no guidelines except their own judgement.”

If this happening today that doctors and nurses are assisting suicide or murdering patients - what makes you think they will work within the constraints of any law legalising it?  It seems they don’t in Belgium and the Netherlands.  Hospice care has diminished, “euthanasia” whether voluntary or involuntary has replaced it.

If people have disdain for the law now, I fail to see how we can trust them to remain within it.

One involuntary “euthanasia” is one too many.

Timmy says:

10:45am | 07/04/11

You wrote:

“And the ability to consult with people about the decision might actually lead to less assisted deaths.”

It might is Australia. It has not in other jurisdictions that have “progressive” euthanasia laws.

You wrote:

” I also have a strong belief that, when behaviour is inevitable regardless of the law, it’s best to legalise it and thus have some kind of control over it, then make it illegal and unscrutinised. “

I don’t think that this will work, because I don’t think you will want it to apply consistently across other areas of the law. Laws do not exist to stop people from breaking them. They exist such that we set standards and can act approriately when these standards.

iansand says:

11:45am | 07/04/11

True Believer - What sort of lunatic would work outside a system, and expose themselves to prosecution, where there is a well established protocol that, if followed, will provide protection?

True Believer says:

12:02pm | 07/04/11

@iansand

Persephone said doctors and nurses “euthanase” (murder) people now - that is outside the law.

My point is if people operate outside the law as Persephone and others claim, what guarantees do we have they will operate within the constraints of protocols, law etc if “euthanasia” (murder or assisted suicide) is legalised. No guarantee at all. In countries where it is legalised there is clear evidence it is abused.  I hope that clarifies it for you. Cheers

Timmy says:

12:03pm | 07/04/11

@inasand

Because Euthanasia is a human issue and we don’t always fit into systems.

iansand says:

12:16pm | 07/04/11

True Believer - That response only makes sense if you believe medical staff are rampaging mass murderers driven by uncontrollable psychoses.  You may think that but, personally, I think it unlikely.

Timmy is channeling TimB.  What on earth do you mean by that comment?

Andrew says:

12:18pm | 07/04/11

@True Believer, yes, your’e totally right!  One involuntary euthanasia is one too many, so we should ban them all!  On a related note, one fatal traffic accident is one too many as well, so we should also ban cars, stop building roads, and repeal all the traffic laws.  All those ‘other countries’ that had cars and roads before us still had illegal activity on them, and unnecessary deaths, so why did we follow them?  Ridiculous!

Of course, I could go one step further and say that one child abused by a religious organisation is one too many, and one nutter going on a killing rampage in the name of ‘god’ is one too many, so let’s ban religion too?  Surely you agree that a child being abused is much worse than a sick, probably elderly person with not much longer to live being involuntarily euthanised, right?

True Believer says:

01:22pm | 07/04/11

@Andrew

Perhaps if those who developed cars had been able to see the carnage and wrecked lives and bodies that would spring forth from their invention they may have had a re-think, who knows?

Organizations, whether “religious” (whatever that means in this day and age) schools, scout movements, youth organizations do not abuse children. Evil people do, more so in the child’s own home than anywhere else the statistics show. 

Paedophiles creep in wherever there are children. It is to the shame of some of the organized denominations that they have chosen not to
report these crimes to the proper authorities. 

I do not condone the cover up of sexual abuse of children whether in the home or in organizations. Organizations remember are made up of people, men and women. Fallible, prone to do both good and bad things.  It has nothing to do with following Jesus.

He told of the terrible punishment there would be for any who harmed a child.  I think there will be as many parents, teachers, doctors, youth leaders, standing before Him on Judgement day as there will be those from denominations.

As for elderly people being put to death by their own hand or that of another - it is still murder or suicide no matter how euphemistically it is dressed up under another name.  Cheers.

True Believer says:

01:26pm | 07/04/11

@iansand

Save your vitriol for Persphone who said doctors and nurses already killed people outside the law. I was just responding to what she/he had inimated is happening.

iansand says:

02:33pm | 07/04/11

TB - Persephone is right, or at least what she says is consistent with what I have been told by medical practitioners (and what I have observed in one case).  Euthanasia is happening, now.  Without control.  Without regulation.  Without oversight.  At the risk to the practitioner of criminal sanctions.

I have a few questions:

Do you think that this is a good idea?
What do you think should be done about it?
Do you think that the activity should be carried on, outside the law and unregulated?
Give reasons.

True Believer says:

03:01pm | 07/04/11

@Iansand

Thank you for your comment and questions.

“I have a few questions:”

“Do you think that this is a good idea?” (that is that doctors and nurses supposedly are already murdering people)

No it is not a good idea - murder is against the law - whether it is done by doctors, nurses or lay people - killing a human being is murder.

“What do you think should be done about it?”

Well they perpetrators should be brought to justice, the same as any other murderer. If people have witnessed murder and done nothing about reporting or stopping it then surely they become an accessory after the fact?  They should be brought to justice also.

“Do you think that the activity should be carried on, outside the law and unregulated?”

No I could never condone murder or think suicide by ones own hand or assisted by another is a good thing.

“Give reasons.”

Now you are wanting me to give a Christian response - well it may surprise you to know before I became a Christian, whilst I was an atheist, I still felt murder by the hand of another, whether by the State or by medical staff is wrong, likewise suicide.  Now I am a Christian I have not changed my mind on that.

Incidentally, I have told this before, I was the carer for a severely disabled person suffering MS in its extreme form, quadraplegic, blind, incontinent, but with mind still intact. Also cancer. 

Our relationship with Jesus was what got us both through much suffering and trauma - and my friend had the peaceful death we had prayed the Lord to grant.  During this time our relationship grew stronger in Him - suffering is awful,but we learn more in the valleys than we do on the mountaintops my friend, if we are willing.

Difference is when Jesus is the Lord of one’s life one is never alone - he gives the strength and courage to endure.  Many who seek to end their own or have someone else end their life for them I suspect do not have this comfort.

Kelly says:

03:04pm | 07/04/11

“Euthanasia is happening, now.  Without control.  Without regulation.  Without oversight.  At the risk to the practitioner of criminal sanctions.”

So is sexual assault of helpless patients.

Do we legalise rape so that we can “control” it better?

Stu says:

03:25pm | 07/04/11

@ True Believer: “killing a human being is murder”.
I can think of a few examples of where that is not the case.

iansand says:

04:08pm | 07/04/11

TB - One more question - Why do you think your beliefs are so superior to mine that your beliefs should override mine?

True Believer says:

07:12pm | 07/04/11

@iansand

You have “beliefs” I don’t - I have a relationship with the Living God through His Son Jesus by the power of His Holy Spirit.

It is not a matter of superiority my friend, it is a matter of Truth.

True Believer says:

01:14pm | 11/04/11

@!Stu

So you call me a liar from your lofty perch of unbelief - your opinion,  nothing more. Does not make it true anymore than me thinking you are deluded and obsessional makes that true - but that is the way you look to me. 

Perhaps instead of harrassing me about being a Christian you can tell me of all the wonderful things being an unbeliever brings to you?? I would be interested to hear about that. :0)

True Believer says:

03:26pm | 11/04/11

@Stu

Here is the Canadian Report - argue with them…...

http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/rapidpdf/cmaj.091876v1?ijkey=7e8aeb7d487df3b7630863f09968fab81968bfdd

JoeyG says:

01:06pm | 07/04/11

Scubasteve, as a palliative care nurse and educator of nurses I say to your comment ditto! International evidence base research has argued time and time again that nurses that actually care for the dying are against any legalisation of assisted suicide and euthanasia. Our health care system does not adequately fund access and specilaised palliative care services for all Australian’s that need it, in particular in aged care facilities, remote and rural hospitals and event to our indigenous, culturally and linguistically diverse population. If as a society we are aruging for a real choice in the provision of end of life care, the at least start with improving access to specialised care rather than jumping to the conclusion that assisted dying and euthanasia is the rational choice.

scared cancer patient says:

01:23pm | 07/04/11

It is almost inevitable that if it becomes socially acceptable to “put people down” rather than caring for them until their natural death, that will be an end to any kind of advancements we might otherwise see on the hospice/palliative care front.

If the “put ‘em down” brigade were to focus their time, money & energy instead on agitating for better palliative care, we would ease the suffering of so many people!  The issue of “putting people out of their misery” wouldn’t be so much of an issue if we focused on helping to ease the misery rather than just taking the easy way out and killing the patient.

I don’t want to be told some day that “well, we don’t have any funding to give you hospice-in-the-home, so your only two choices are to suffer like a third-world dog or let us kill you”.

pat says:

08:47am | 07/04/11

What a surprise - another right wing conservative with a persecution complex.  Timmy if you don’t support the right to die and you happen to become terminally ill you are free to fight for as long as you are able. As a frontline health worker I can assure you that euthanasia is a fact of life, happening all over the country with a frequency that would surprise you. It is a completely legitimate medical practice for those with a terminal illness.  You say those who disagree with you frame you as controlling and out of touch, that is because you are.  You desire to control people and remove their ability to make a decision as to how they would like to die. 

You make a valid point however with regard to the similarity of the arguments for and against other “left wing” (I think you mean libitarian) veiws.  Libitarians say it’s none of your business what a person does provided there is no clear and identifiable victim, where as conservatives say the sky will fall and make up statistics to support that view.  Don’t like euthanasia? don’t take the option if you become terminally ill.  Don’t like abortion? don’t have one.  Don’t like gay marriage? don’t marry another bloke.  Don’t like drugs other than alcohol? don’t do them. Don’t like prostitution? don’t work as one or use them.  No matter what laws there are on the books, no matter how harsh the penalties, no matter how much ‘mainstream’ society tries to ignore them all of these things will continue. Don’t try and force people to follow your ideals with laws because it doesn’t work now, won’t work in the future and does alot more harm than good.

True Believer says:

10:45am | 07/04/11

@Pat

What you fail to realise as we diminish the morals, the belief in the sancity of life, the belief in our Creator, our respect for the law,  we diminish our society. 

I know atheists think they are animals, but do they have to want to force us all to accept their erroneous view?  Surely that is control? The religion of atheism appears to have no respect for those who do not follow their beliefs. They alone know how humans should behave (not)

Timmy says:

10:48am | 07/04/11

@pat

While we are all individuals, we cannot pretend that individual “victimless” actions do not affect the community in which we live. Laws do not exist so that people don’t break them, they exist to establish a standard of what it is to be a member of a community.

Speeding is largely a victimless crime, but we all accept that we have laws that impose limits on driving speed because it does occasionally create unintended victims.

I assert that we should maintain laws against Euthanasia for the same reason. In some cases we need to limit people’s choice for the good of the community.

You will note that I will try to address what you are saying and to not denegrate you or make assumptions about you. That is what I am talking about in my original post. That is how we should debate important issues such as this. A persons death is not trivial and should be discused with respect for all points of view.

pat says:

11:52am | 07/04/11

Fair enough points Timmy, however I put it to you that speeding is illegal because of the increased chance that you will hurt someone other than you.  I could for example buy a sports vehicle and attend a track day quite legally, sign the waivers and drive at excessive speed - an activity known to cause deaths and injuries.

I completely understand your reasoning that “we need to limit people’s choice for the good of the community”.  My point is that this particular issue - euthanasia is happening regardless of the law in a fairly massive way.  It is unstoppable, a fact of life (or death).  Much like the other issues I mentioned - drugs, prostitution and abortion.  You use the word community and i put it to you that folks who want assisted suicide, and their families who support them are part of this community.  As are drug addicts, prostitutes and women who have had abortions.  To say throwing them in prison is helping anyone is a lie.

As for you true believer - I was born a naked screaming animal and so were you, but I couldn’t care less what your beliefs are and I certainly won’t try and change them.  Your life, your body, your beliefs. I only ask the same respect from you.

True Believer says:

12:08pm | 07/04/11

@Pat  

I have great respect for all God’s Creation. Difference between an animal’s birth and yours is you were born with a soul/spirit.  My spirit has been born again to Father, Son and Holy Spirit. You have not responded to that invite from your Creator, but that does not make you an animal, just a lost soul missing out on what God has to offer you. Your God-given choice though and I respect that. I cannot respect your assertion I was born an animal. That is you trying to force your erroneous belief onto me. 
Cheers

PTom says:

12:42pm | 07/04/11

True Believer,
Get off your christian high horse.
I will start recpecting your beliefs when you respect mine, since you don’t I treat you with the contempt you deserve.

I choose not to believe in your venegful creator because of the why his followers act.  Given that you then don’t like people telling you not to believe in god, then why the hell should you force your system of beliefs on to me and why should you have more legal rights then me? I should have the legel right to choice how I die.

BTW who has higher morals the person that forces a human to live in pain or the one that allows one to die in peace.

@Timmy
You preach a good game but it crap. You take of individual rights and responsiblity to the law, but when someone stand up and says that law is BS and need to be change, you call it a leftist agenda and the law should stay as is because you don’t have the right.

We are a community that sets the law or change laws based on the majority, why then should a miniority fringe group have the right to keep laws that stops majority of the commnunity execrise their right.

This is not speeding where you place other people life at risk, this is to create a frame work that allows people to work with the community laws to decide how they will live.

A person death is not discused it is currently controlled by our laws which current show no respect for other views.

True Believer says:

01:11pm | 07/04/11

@PTom
I will start recpecting your beliefs when you respect mine, since you don’t I treat you with the contempt you deserve.” 

Hello there, I don’t believe we have met previously so I am not sure how I have failed to respect your particular beliefs as I have not a clue what they are.

“I choose not to believe in your venegful creator because of the why his followers act.”

I am not sure who this “vengeful creator” you say I follow. I follow Jesus - He suffered at the hands of man, scourging, scoffing, then crucifixion - I doubt any human being has suffered more - and why? So you and I could have the gift of life. You choose to reject it, your God-gven choice.

I choose to follow Jesus in his love, humility, truth and life - He said “I am the Way the Truth and the Life”  I have found Him to be so after many years of wandering in the land of the lost, unbelief/atheism what ever you wish to call that religion.

You ask about morals - well I think it is moral to uphold the law, to respect the sanctity of life and to provide services to assist those in mental or physical pain with love and care. 

Legalised “euthanasia” has been found to do none of those things, in fact it takes lives against the wishes of the person murdered.  If you wish to be taken in by the sugary sermons of the likes of Nitschke - that is your problem.

I wish you well.

scared cancer patient says:

01:15pm | 07/04/11

“Timmy if you don’t support the right to die and you happen to become terminally ill you are free to fight for as long as you are able.”

Do you promise?

Oops, looks like that’s not so.  The government is ALREADY killing people against the wishes of their next-of-kin:

[ http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/final-hours-lost-in-battle-over-wifes-right-to-life-at-gold-coast-hospital/story-e6freoof-1226034346964 ]

Timmy says:

02:42pm | 07/04/11

@ptom

Fortunately for us, the law is set democratically, but not by majority opinion. We elect people to represent us, and expect them to set up laws while considering deeply the issues at stake. Anything else would lead to anarchy.

It is one thing to say “I want this right” is another thing to consider the reality of allowing that right to all. We need to think very broadly on this issue, and past the rights of the individual.

What effect will it have on future health funding? What will health care fund do when considereing the bottom line.

I can remember getting upset with a medico because he saw my friend’s cancer as a realy interesting case, but he continually forgot her name, talked about her not to her and got frustrated when her questions took up too much of his time. What will the effect on someone like him on being allowed to oversee the process.

John A Neve says:

03:12pm | 07/04/11

Timmy,

There are laws and there are laws. I don’t believe the speed that I drive or my right to choose the time and place of my death, are in the same category.
As to our laws being democratically made, I disagree, what we have in this country is representative democracy. But right now there are many in this country and posting on this site who feel our current government is illegitimate!
Most parliamentary decisions are not conscience votes, they are in fact party dogma.

The right to choose the time and place of ones death is in my book an inalienable right. No politician should have jurisdiction over it.

persephone says:

05:38pm | 07/04/11

Timmy

I would have thought that one of the big messages Jesus was trying to get across was that moral decisions are individual ones.

You can’t legislate morality. Stopping people from sin by making the sin illegal makes a joke of the whole concept of free will.

I would think, in God’s eyes, that it wasn’t whether or not you were able to legally do something or not that determined whether or not your act was moral or not. Indeed, if we’re to take Jesus seriously, then it’s the thought that counted - the act was secondary.

So it’s not up to you (or anyone else) to decide that something is morally wrong and stop others doing it.

True conservative thinking - according to Adam Smith etc - is the same. The individual should be free to act in the way they want to, as long as their actions don’t cause harm to others.

So laws shouldn’t be governed by individual (or even group) ideas about right or wrong, but around harm prevention.

So if I decide to end my life, whether that’s sinful or not is not your judgement, or the state’s judgement, it’s God’s.

If I am allowed to make that decision without affecting or harming others, I should be allowed to make it.

If we legislate away an individual’s right to make decisions on the basis that they may make the wrong ones, the whole concept of free will becomes a bit superfluous.

scp says:

07:05pm | 07/04/11

“If we legislate away an individual’s right to make decisions on the basis that they may make the wrong ones, the whole concept of free will becomes a bit superfluous.:

Suicide is not illegal.  So go for it.

Murder IS illegal.  So be prepared to pay the price.

Timmy says:

07:43pm | 07/04/11

Persephone,

Wow! I didn’t know that that was one of Jesus’ big messages.

I though it was more like ..... Love the Lord your God wilh ALL your heart and love your neighbour as you would yourself ..... that we can not be made acceptable to God by following rules .... nothing wrong with the rules, we are the problem ..... we reject God and as a result we have issues (like euthanasia) ..... the only way we can be made right with God is through Jesus ..... through his life, death and resurection ....through faith in Jesus we can be found acceptable by God .... regardless of what we have done to God or to each other .... the evidence of our faith is love (for God and one another)

Jesus did not say to the woman caught in adultery “Your sins are forgiven, moral decisions are individual ones.” .... he said “Your sins are forgiven, go and sin no more.”

I don’t feel the need to play the God card in regards to euthanasia. I figure that most people are mildly aware that every person has failings and that those failings have consequences, most minor, but some deadly. I figure that if most people apply that awareness to the consequences of regulated euthanasia they will see issues. That as it stands now there are issues, but they not systemic issues, they are people ignoring the system. That the system aint broken, people are.

persephone says:

08:24am | 08/04/11

sep

note the qualifier - as long as your decision harms no one else. Murder harms someone else, so the state has a right to intervene.

(And, of course, give to Caesar what is Caesar’s; I ‘m certainly not arguing against the state laying down laws. I’m arguing about using religious moral codes to decide what these laws should be. The law is not - despite a common misapprehension - about right or wrong. It’s just the law).

Timmy

Jesus only left us with two rules - love the lord your God above all others and love your neighbour as yourself.

What they mean in practice and how they apply in individual circumstances is up to us to sort out and for God to judge.

Jesus did not say “By committing adultery, you have sinned. Go and sin no more.”

He left it up to the woman to decide what sins he was referring to. If she decided that her adultery wasn’t a sin, but stopped doing something else, then that was her decision and God would judge her on that.

Jesus didn’t judge.

Apart from the money keepers in the temple, he usually left the question of what sins people had committed open.

Loving others as we do ourselves means also respecting their decisions and their judgement calls.

The law and religion are quite rightly separate entities, wtih their own juirisdictions.

Religious belief should not be used to determine laws.

Timmy says:

10:48am | 08/04/11

Persephone,

You seem to confuse judgement with punishment. One should preceed the other. In the context of the story, Jesus deemed himself the only person present worthy to be judge. He then found the woman guilty and then forgave her. One cannot be forgiven, without first being found guilty. If you then consider the story within the context of the greater story of Israel then you will see, that what Jesus did was outrageous. This was something that only God could do.

Incidently, “Love the Lord you God and love your neighbour” are commandments, not rules. The difference is subtle but important

I don’t think that God will judge us on our moral opinions. I think that he will judge us on our rejection of him. Poor moral choices, or even going against that which we know to the “good” path is a symptom of that rejection.

But enough of the Theology!

persephone says:

05:15pm | 09/04/11

Timmy

tsskk! According to Jesus, thoughts matter as much as deeds.

If you look at a woman with adultery in your heart, then it’s the same as committing adultery.

Honestly. Read what the man said.

And, as I said, he didn’t specify the sin. He left it up to the woman to work it out.

It wasn’t the only time he did that. He was big on letting people work things out for themselves.

JoeyG says:

03:26pm | 07/04/11

Hot tub political machine… Of course there are different view points between health professionals. No one is doubting that. It would be very remiss to think that this was not the case in a pluralist society such as Australia.

However, what Michael Cook has provided is an arguement that Coral Levett as ANF Federal President has failed to present an alternative view to that of Dying With Dignity in her March ANJ article. As the head of Australia’s union for nurses, she has a professional responsibility to at least consult her members in the 21st century not merely present a poll undertaken 14 years ago. She should offer the views of specialist palliative care nurse academics, clinicians and ethicists to get a reasoned position in the area of end of life care instead of only appealing to a biased political lobbying group with a set agenda. Finally she needs to provide real facts and not second guesses (her article has significant errors in this respect as Cook has indicated).

As a nurse Levett has every right to hold an opinion about an important issue such as assisted suicide ane euthanasia. However as the leader of the ANF she has the responsbility to be more objective and professional in what she has offered in the March ANJ on a really difficult social, clinical and ethical issue. What she has presented at best are ‘sloppy’, opinionated, factually incorrect and less than original arguements that are a diservice to the professional standing of all registered nurses, no matter what their position is on the issue. Paid members of the ANF deserve a better response than what has been presented by Levett on this issue.

hot tub political machine says:

03:42pm | 07/04/11

I’d agree with you JoeyG, it was a little unwise for her to comment as she did, knowing that it could be (mis) interpreted as presenting the view of all nurses. She should have considered the potential offense caused to many of her members.

PTom says:

12:53pm | 07/04/11

Yes leave the way it is, where patient life is already decide by any bureaucrat or politician forcing people to live pain because doctors and families can be changed with murder.

If doctors are families are sympathetic and caring as you claim why should they then not be allowed to assist a patient with how the live.

True Believer says:

10:48am | 07/04/11

@Slick

How then will Australia be different from Belgium and the Netherlands where involutary euthanasia is carried out in significant numbers??  What makes you think our legislators are infallible - have they been on other issues??

Michael Cook says:

11:44am | 07/04/11

“No one would ever condone VE for a teenager who has the blues or a mum with PND or a middleaged man going through a midlife crisis…”
—- Well, actually, Philip Nitschke explicitly condones VE for depressed people:
“My personal position is that if we believe that there is a right to life, then we must accept that people have a right to dispose of that life whenever they want… So all people qualify… including the depressed, the elderly bereaved, [and] the troubled teen.” see page 312, of “Killing Me Softly”, by Nitschke and Fiona Stewart.

iansand says:

11:48am | 07/04/11

TB - You keep repeating this and never provide any supporting evidence.  You will therefore understand why I think you are talking out of your arse.

True Believer says:

12:13pm | 07/04/11

@Iansand

If I did have the ability, which I don’tof speaking through my posterior, I would still be speaking the Truth. You just do not want to hear it. Your God-given choice.  However, do not assume you are right.

PTom says:

01:06pm | 07/04/11

@True Believer
And what make you right. God or your belief in God because all see is you have us the belief in that mystical beast is right.
BTW is the same beast that destroyed a whole city because the crimes of few or the one that order the excute and enslavement of tribes that did not follow him.

That is the point of the debate we don’t have that god-given right to choice because you and kind are refusing to accept our own belief system or rights.

JoeyG says:

01:16pm | 07/04/11

It is very naive to present the arguement that involuntary euthanasia is not part of any debate about the legalisation of assisted suicide and/or VE. It can not be ignored as the evidence based research by nurses is providing significant evidence for this debate. Dutch research has highlighted that nurses are breaking euthanasia laws in this country to ensure that its legal requirements are properly enacted. This is despite so called ‘tight’ clinical frameworks and legal guidelines in place aimed at preventing misinterpretation and subsequent abuse of the stated provisions. In a published June 2010 study from Belgium by Els Inghelbrecht and Co, approx 128 registered nurses have admitted to caring for a patient who received euthanasia and 120 for a patient who received life-ending drugs without the patient’s explicit request. The conclusion of these authors was ‘By administering the life-ending drugs in some of the cases of euthanasia, and in almost half of the cases without an explicit request from the patient, the nurses in our study operated beyond the legal margins of their profession.’ The ‘slippery slope’ ethical debate about involuntary euthanasia is therefore relevant in any discussion about legalisation of assisted suicide and/or euthanasia, its impact upon vulnerable members in our society, for the nurse at the bedside and the profession at large.

True Believer says:

01:29pm | 07/04/11

@PTom

I think you have your “beasts” mixed up - too many fantasy or sci fi movies/games perhaps???

I follow Jesus, having read the New Testament many time I do not recall that He indulged in the things you speak of.

Likes Joining Dots says:

01:52pm | 07/04/11

@Michael Cook. I see where you are going here, the religious defence that I have seen on the Punch works something like this:

but Nitschke said ...
but Darwin said ...
but Dawkins said ...
but Stalin said ...

Take a selected quote and run with it.

The problem with that approach is that you assume non-believers are a singular group and these people are the high priests that speak for them. That may be how it works in a religious setting, but it does not transfer to real world.

Elphaba says:

02:02pm | 07/04/11

@LJD, well said.  I personally get annoyed when people think that atheist = Dawkins disciple.

Stu says:

03:43pm | 07/04/11

@ True Believer: “Belgium and the Netherlands where involutary euthanasia is carried out in significant numbers” Where is your evidence for this? The fact that you chose to comment on iansand’s reference as to which orfice you use for discussion, rather than the issue itself would suggest that no such evidence exists.

True Believer says:

07:49pm | 07/04/11

@Stu

Here are but two of many supporting what I have said.
MailOnline “Warning to Britain as almost half of Belgium’s euthanasia nurses admit to killing without consent”
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1285423/Half-Belgiums-euthanasia-nurses-admit-killing-consent.html

“Some Dutch doctors, hearing about the British successes with palliative care, answered that they did not need to study it, as they could apply euthanasia instead.” Dutch physician Dr Karl Gunning
http://www.chninternational.com/euthanasia__the_netherlands 08.04.07.htm

There are plenty more sites from many sources - look, read and shudder.

Stu says:

10:07am | 08/04/11

@ True Believer: I just read the Belgium article. It most certainly does not support your conclusion that “involutary euthanasia is carried out in significant numbers”. In fact, it gives no figures at all about any IV cases whatsover. What the article claims in relation to the study is that 120 Belgian nurses say that proper consent was not obtained and that according to the researchers “many were probably acting according to their patients’ wishes, ‘even if there was no explicit request’.”

True Believer says:

10:30am | 08/04/11

@Stu

They are two of many articles. I did not have the time to put them all up. I suggested you read more, but you latched onto what you wanted to see and looked no further. That is the problem with those pro-death, they are naive and happy to remain so. I tried. Hope you never find yourself at the mercy of those you wish to legalise to kill you. Cheers.

Stu says:

10:47am | 08/04/11

@ True Believer: “They are two ... I suggested you read more, but you latched onto what you wanted to see and looked no further”. I “latched” on to the article you provided TB. This begs the question why you didn’t post the articles that support your conclusion and suggests that it’s my job to do research to support your conclusions. Of course your conclusions are supported by as much evidence as your implication that I am “pro-death”.

True Believer says:

11:20am | 08/04/11

@Stu

I am too busy to just play your semantics game. I consider this question of legalisation of murder/assisted suicide as extremely important. You seem to want to turn it into some game of words. There is plenty of evidence to support what I said.

If you do not wish to make the effort to better inform yourself well that is your problem.  Go play with someone else. Come back if you wish to explore this serious question intelligently.  I leave game playing to the idle.

Stu says:

12:06pm | 08/04/11

@ True Believer: “I consider this question of legalisation of murder/assisted suicide as extremely important.” So do I (if you exclude the use of emotive terms). That’s why I don’t put false labels on people who disagree with my point of view (such as “pro death” and “game player”, equate VE with murder or provide false evidence to support my conclusions. There are sensible views on both sides of this debate TB, and yours belong on neither.

True Believer says:

12:25pm | 08/04/11

@Stu

Your opinion, just that, you are entitled to it.  Meaningless to me though.

Stu says:

12:46pm | 08/04/11

@ True Believer: “Meaningless to me though.” If it is meaningless for you to have a debate about VE which excludes false labelling and using false evidence then I am pleased your views are on the record in this forum.

True Believer says:

01:40pm | 08/04/11

@Stu
“There are sensible views on both sides of this debate TB, and yours belong on neither.”

It was your reference (above)  to my views I was referring to. You seem to need everything spelled out to you. Is English not your first language?  I should not have assumed it was I guess.

Stu says:

02:25pm | 08/04/11

@ True Believer: “Is English not your first language?” Would it be an issue if it wasn’t? And you are right, you shouldn’t assume. But it’s so much easier to call people names, make up “facts” and avoid points of substance in any discussion. Good to see you aren’t too busy to indulge in some personal insults rather than finding us some evidence to support your claim that “involuntary euthanasia is carried out in significant numbers in Belgium”.

True Believer says:

03:16pm | 08/04/11

@Stu

Whatever my friend. You just like to argue. You say I call you names and by accusing me of not having the facts (which are there if you would take the time out from being annoying and look for them) to support what I had said.  Isn’t that calling me a liar??? 

Stop playing games.  If you want to know the facts look them up just as I did.  Not too difficult - I am sure you could do it if you apply yourself to the task. Cheers.

Stu says:

09:51am | 11/04/11

@ True Believer: “the facts (which are there if you would take the time out from being annoying and look for them)”. I repeat my response to you TB, why is it my job to find facts to support your conclusion that “involuntary euthanasia is carried out in significant numbers in Belgium”?
“Isn’t that calling me a liar???” No it isn’t. But given all you have to do is paste a link to a credible source (that you cliam to already have) to back up your assertion, and given the repeated requests by myself and others for you to do so, I do suspect you are indeed lying.

Stu says:

02:02pm | 11/04/11

@ True Believer: “So you call me a liar from your lofty perch of unbelief”: Non-belief has nothing to do with it. If you have the evidence and don’t provide it, what are you hiding? If you claim an article says “involuntary euthanasia is carried out in significant numbers in Belgium” when it doesn’t, you are not telling the truth (aka lying).
“Perhaps instead of harassing me about being a Christian…” How is asking you for evidence to support your conclusions about VE in Belgium harassing you about anything?

True Believer says:

03:31pm | 11/04/11

@Stu

Few more comments for you to consider:

“Now in Holland, twenty years later, twenty years of de facto, legalized euthanasia, where doctors administer it, nearly twenty per cent of the deaths of that country every single year, 19.4% specifically, are a result of euthanasia. One in five people in Holland are euthanized…

11.3%, more than one in ten, of the total number of deaths in that country, every single year (14,691 according to the Dutch government…) are cases of involuntary euthanasia. What’s involuntary euthanasia? That’s when the patient says, ‘I don’t want to die,’ and the doctor says, ‘you’re dead,’ zap… Gregory Koukl, MA

“A similar debate has broken out in Belgium, another European country that has moved in a broadly secular, permissive direction over the past few decades. But this one was very different. Buried on inside pages, small newspaper stories reported a survey of paediatric intensive-care nurses. It emerged that they had witnessed two dozen infants and children being given lethal drugs to speed their deaths. That amounts to involuntary euthanasia, which is illegal (though Belgium, like the Netherlands, has legalised euthanasia for consenting adults). Asked if the law should be changed to allow the ending of minors’ lives, 89% of nurses in the Belgian study said yes.
This was not a rogue result. In 2005 academics investigated all 292 children who died before their first birthday in a given year in Flanders, the Dutch-speaking bit of Belgium. In half the cases, doctors had taken an “end-of-life decision”, a term that takes in three distinct practices. Most often, doctors withdrew or withheld treatment keeping infants alive, which is quite a common practice. In 40 cases, painkillers such as morphine were used to alleviate suffering, but at high doses likely to hasten death: a legal grey area. In 17 cases lethal drugs or doses were illegally given to end life. Similar practices were revealed by a study in the Netherlands; that led to the appointment of a committee to review cases where a baby’s suffering seems impossible to relieve, suggesting that a swift death might be merciful.” The Economist April 11, 2011
Wesley J. Smith
“Flemish doctors not only admit to killing patients who have not requested to be euthanized, but the levels of such terminations without request or consent are barely under the rate of legal voluntary euthanasia.  From the study published in the Canadian Medical Association Journal We found that, five years after the euthanasia law was enacted in Belgium, euthanasia and assisted suicide occurred in 2.0% of all deaths in Flanders during the study period period. They predominantly involved patients less than 80 years old, patients with cancer and patients dying at home…The use of life-ending drugs without an explicit request from the patient occurred in 1.8% of the deaths in Flanders during the study period. Most of these cases involved patients 80 years or older and occurred in hospital. In the majority of cases, the patient was not involved in the decision, primarily because of coma or dementia; however, relatives and other caregivers were often consulted. Considerations involving the relatives and needless prolongation of life were reasons indicated by physicians for reaching the decision. “
Or, we could say Flemish doctors murdered their patients since explicit request is required under the supposedly “protective” euthanasia “guidelines.”

Stu says:

05:12pm | 11/04/11

@ True Believer: Neither the Canadian study or your excerpt from the Economist article support your claim that “involuntary euthanasia is carried out in significant numbers in Belgium.” Consider the Canadian study which concludes: “... without an explicit request from the patient occurred in 1.8% of the deaths in Flanders during the study period ... In the majority of cases, the patient was not involved in the decision, primarily because of coma or dementia; however, relatives and other caregivers were often consulted.” Your reference to Wesley J Smith is a quote straight from the Canadian study. In short, TB, nothing you have provided supports your claims - in fact the very credible Canadian study refutes your conclusion: ““Opponents of euthanasia often argue that legalizing the procedure will lead to a rise in the use of life-ending drugs without a patient’s explicit request, especially in vulnerable patient groups.Thus far, however, no indications of this have been found in studies of physician-assisted deaths before and after legalization in Belgium and the Netherlands.”

notSue says:

08:11pm | 07/04/11

Bahaha!

All by themselves, LJD, all by themselves!

notSue says:

11:07am | 08/04/11

Bummer. This little giggle was meant in answer to Likes Joining Dots further down.

scp says:

01:28pm | 07/04/11

Why are all you pro-death people so uniformly nasty?  I pray I don’t get you for a nurse.

notSue says:

02:07pm | 07/04/11

Nasty? Gosh, I don’t think you’ve read much on the Punch before, have you? haha!

I don’t like Mr Cook’s thesis in this article, nor have I liked his previous ones I’ve read. Also, I’m entitled to feel insulted by his snidey descriptions and dismisssal of my (former) profession.

Also, please do not assume that I’m “pro-death”. If you’d ever read any of my other posts on the subject (or this one properly) you’d see that I have strong misgivings (as most nurses wh’ve worked with the dying have, as pointed out by Scubasteve et al). However, I do believe that VE may be justifiable in some, limited circumstances.

Oh and if you’d had me for a nurse, you would not be here, right now. You see, my patients died, usually quite oeacefully.

Likes Joining Dots says:

05:31pm | 07/04/11

< casually walks by and picks up a notSue business card. Just in case.

Dan says:

11:02pm | 07/04/11

scp, nobody are pro-death (whatever that means). Some, however are pro-choice and anti-pain and suffering.

PTom says:

01:14pm | 07/04/11

Wilma, your against VE then rely on your doctor to break the law to make sure you die in peace.

VE could mean a number of doctors agree to a treatment that guarantees you are treated to your wishes legally.

notSue says:

01:38pm | 07/04/11

Please excuse me, Wilma, but it is that “bloody nurse who got her training in University” who will be wiping your bum, dressing your wounds, washing your poor dying carcass tenderly and administering your “ever -increasing doses of strong pain killers.” I’d urge you to treat them with a tad more respect. It’s a tough job, made tougher by having to watch people and their families suffer, sometimes beyond medical help. Then, I wager, you might welcome the possibility of assisted suicide.

My main problem with much of this debate is that most people cannot possibly know how they’re going to feel when the time comes. Intellecual knowledge often doesn’t match experience and doesn’t prepare you for it, no matter on which side of the fence you sit.

scp says:

01:42pm | 07/04/11

“Yes, we put dogs, cats & other animals to sleep when their health is so bad that to keep them alive would be cruel.”

As a shelter volunteer, I would like to point out that we also put down an awful lot of pets who are NOT in pain or even near death.

Sometimes it’s because they have become incontinent and the owner doesn’t want the mess of dealing with pet-diapers; sometimes it’s because an animal has skin allergies which are considered “too time-consuming and expensive to bother treating” for a given owner; sometimes it’s simply because they want to start traveling overseas, have a new girlfriend/boyfriend, want to move into a flash condo, or have taken a new time-consuming job and just can’t be bothered anymore.

Last year we tried & failed to find a home for a beautiful 4-year-old dog which would have needed an expensive hip operation, but otherwise was perfectly fine.  There was no one willing to stump up for the op, so…..

People who use the “but we put pets down, don’t we?” argument in favour of euthanasia really need to reconsider that one, as what they are really advocating is putting down people who have simply become “too expensive” or “too inconvenient” to care for.

Jason Todd says:

10:22am | 08/04/11

Sep, I take your point, and it is tragic that we put down animals that have become too expensive or inconvienient to care for. That is not however, what a lot of pro-euthanasia advocates are talking about when they use that argument. Even though we put down animals that may not be in prolonged pain and suffering, we also put down those that are. Those that are too old and sick and in pain. I certainly don’t want to be euthanised if I become inconvenient, (many would argue that I’m inconvenient now, and I’m only 25). But if I am in a terminal situation where the choices are long slow and painful death versus euthanasia, I would like to have the option

Lisa H. says:

12:17am | 09/04/11

I have worked in the animal care industry, and I agree with scp.

Generally, animals are put to sleep if they lose continence, or if they are old and become expensive to treat / provide palliative care for.

Euthanasia is not usually a response to intense pain - that is just the euphemism used.

Most animal owners seem largely impervious to their dog’s ongoing pain, eg a dog is crippled with arthritis, rotten teeth etc

A surprisingly large proportion of pet-owners are reluctant to pay for pain relief medication following a spey!

True Believer says:

02:12pm | 07/04/11

@James Hunter

Straight away you put foot in mouth.  Dementia sufferers would be unable to give permission for someone to murder them - so are you proposing others be given permission impose what they assume the patient wants???? 

Dangerous ground your standing on there. Think Hitler had similar sentiments about the mentally ill and intellectually disabled. Do you really want us to follow in his footsteps?

scp says:

02:34pm | 07/04/11

You have the right to kill your pet if it has become burdonsom to you or even if it just “cramps your style”.  You do not have the same right to kill your aged mother, father, etc just because you can’t be bothered with their mess and inconvenience anymore.

And that is as it should be.

See above for why the “we put dogs down don’t we?” argument ultimately hurts your cause more than helps it.

True Believer says:

03:08pm | 07/04/11

@notsue

Well how would we know if the dementia sufferer wants to die? If we take their lives how can it be “voluntary euthanasia” - you see these are the tricky bits.  Someone other than the person is going to decide that person’s life it not worth living - dangerous ground to get into.

It is not straightforward and many ethicists those of faith and those of none will tell you the dangers of casualisation of the taking of life in the name of “mercy killing.”  Man is not well known for his mercy if one looks at history or even the present day.

notSue says:

03:58pm | 07/04/11

@TB, I was actually agreeing with you. I guess you’re not used to that! LOL!
Just to be clear though, many Alzheimer’s sufferers are quite lucid in lengthy patches, until the disease overtakes them. During this period, they’d be “compus mentis’ enough to leave instructions about their treatment after they lose insight and reacha vegetative state.

I’m not recommending VE for them, but watching someone die this way is torturous for their families,although not for them once they are that far gone…and there’s the rub.

True Believer says:

08:04pm | 07/04/11

@notSue

Apologies - you are right standing against killing people does not earn me many that agree.  Thank you for pointing that out to me.

I agree with you to have families see a loved relative suffering Alzheimers/dementia is a tortuous thing, but surely “euthanasia” is about the person being killed not the feelings of those around them??

See this is where it gets murky. Are we talking about the person who’s life is at risk or the unfortunate and undeniabe emotional pain suffered by family members?  If it is the latter (which many posters use to promote “euthanasia) then it is extremely questionable.

People living with autistic children/adults, physically or intellectually disabled children/adults, mentally ill family members suffer terribly too - does this give them the right to say - put that person down, they are causing me pain??  Not that I think very many would stoop to such a request.

Can you see what I am trying to get at?? Cheers.

notSue says:

11:30am | 08/04/11

TB, you do not need to point out the murkiness of this subject nor the influence of the suffering of family members to me. I’m way ahead of you, from my experience both as a nurse and as a person with friends and relatives, some of whom are/have been severely disabled.

True Believer says:

11:52am | 08/04/11

notSue

Thanks for your reply. Yes your certainly would know as I do having been a long time carer and working professionally in the health area.
Others may not realise the seriousness of these decisions though, so hopefully they may have read it. :0)
Cheers. Have a good weekend.

notSue says:

04:24pm | 07/04/11

Not as I understand it, Kelly. 

Here’s Wiki on the subject :
“Godwin’s law (also known as Godwin’s Rule of Nazi Analogies or Godwin’s Law of Nazi Analogies)[1][2] is a humorous observation made by Mike Godwin in 1990[2] which has become an Internet adage. It states: “As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1.”[3][2] In other words, Godwin put forth the hyperbolic observation that, given enough time, in any online discussion—regardless of topic or scope— someone inevitably criticizes some point made in the discussion by comparing it to beliefs held by Hitler and the Nazis.”

I read that to mean he analogy does not have to be invalid to satisfy Godwin’s criteria. Inevitability is all that matters.

Timmy says:

07:27am | 08/04/11

Consider this scenario:

VE is now legal and regulated. You visit the doctor and you are told that you will live for maybe two more years, but as the sickness progresses you will have severe pain .... you are already in pain at various times of the day and struggle to sleep….. the doctor then brings up options.

You can “sign up for it” and end it (the beruacratic hoops only take about three weeks to get through) ... you can live through it ... or you can have pain management and eventually paliative care.

As you are struggling financially, you have no private health care. The doctor then says that due to funding cuts to paliative care services that quietly came in after the VE legislation was enacted, you are unlikely to get a paliative care bed. So now you have two choices ..... death .... or lots of pain then death.

lol It’s pretty simple isn’t it?

I have a friend who is ardently against abortion. She came under intense pressure to have an abortion when scans revealed that her child was likely to be born severly disabled. From being told how hard life would be for her, right through to being made guilty for choosing to have a child that would be a burden on the public health system ... this presure came from medical people. Very few medical people were supportive of her choice. Think about how easy it will be to choose if you come up against this attitude when it comes time to die.

lol It’s pretty simple isn’t it?

I am not paranoid about this, I am being realistic. It is not the intended consequenses of VE that I am against, it is the unintended consequences. It becomes my business because I don’t want to be put into the position of choosing between death and death with pain. I don’t want the system to be able to encourage others to mainpulate me into a quick death. This is very much my business. Euthanasia laws will effect everyone, not just those who want it.

lol It’s not that simple is it?

True Believer says:

11:42am | 08/04/11

If You don’t like it…...........

Pretty naive comment. It is rather more serious than that. That is why intellligent thinking people of “religion” whatever that generalisation means to you and those who are concerned for how legalised killing has been abused in the Netherlands, Belgium etc. I suggest you do a bit of research and give the matter some serious consideration.  It is not something to be flippant about I assure you.

scared cancer patient says:

01:44pm | 08/04/11

Timmy, thank you.  That is exactly the point I was trying to make above.