Politics has no place in how we choose to die

Joan says:

08:37am | 03/04/11

Doctors are about healing and not killing. Dr Nitischke style slaughter house is no clinic.  Vets know how to put down/kill animals and stray dog/cat homes do it regularly.  If you think that human life is no different to that of an animal then you have little understanding of who you are and your existence. You can always `look after` yourself suicide happens… just don’t ask the government to sanction it and expect the medical profession to kill you on your command.  The out for anyone who wants it - is suicide… do it yourself as it should be . No euthansaia law needed.

Bruce says:

09:15am | 03/04/11

Mahhrat: I generally agree with you. If you have seen anyone on palliative care who wishes to die so they can be put out f their misery and die piecefully, this where Dr Nitischke has got it right. However, eathanasia should be the last option, not the first, and not left solely to the decision of one doctor. Obviously the auguement is a complex one, but I want the option of ending my life in comfort and NOT be forced into attempting a messy and sometimes unsucessfull suicide, and thats providing I have the mental capacity to do so at the time.

L. says:

09:19am | 03/04/11

“You can always `look after` yourself suicide happens”

Really Joan.?? You’re ok with it, just so long as it’s not clean, painless and administered professionally..??

“Doctors are about healing”

...and, Dr’s are also about alleviating suffering. Some people get to the point where they can’t be healed, and there suffering can’t be alleviated. These people have the right to die, in their own time, without the pain. If you don’t agree, give me one logical reason why not..

michael j says:

10:32am | 03/04/11

@ JOAN science tells me you were bred from one of the minor species of great ape.
animals deserve to be better treated than humans?
information on when and how the best method of ending a putrid rotting body
racked with pain is needed by professional people for the best outcome to be obtained,these people who may choose to end their life usually don’t get around much,so walking in front of a truck is out,if you do have a gun you probably carn’t lift your arms,so getting the right information
from a person who know’s is very important for the patient for the family,n, friends,no one is forcing anybody to take these options,
but if a patient who is very week and at home with family,and the family
GP just happened to mention that he once read a story that such a person in a weaken state had a pillow fall across their face and passed away during the night,,WHY THE HELL SHOULD ANYONE GO TO JAIL FOR TWENTY YEARS

John A Neve says:

12:06pm | 03/04/11

Joan,

I admit it, in my view my life is no different to that of any other animal. When cut I bleed, I feel pain and when I die it’s all over.
Please tell us how you differ?

Euthanasia is not about expecting “the medical profession to kill you on command”! Which by the way is the most stupid statement you have made and you’ve made many.

Euthanasia is about a persons right to die at a time and place of their choosing.

darragh scully says:

01:06pm | 03/04/11

@Joan

Its not as simple as that. There is always the issue of what legal ramifications will ensue after suicide. Who gets to manage your estate once you decide to top yourself. What will the insurance companies do when claims start flooding in for life insurance. People may even start faking their own suicides just to make claims. It does sound ridiculous though thats the point because as ridiculous as it sounds thats what ussually happens. Murphys law.

Personally I feel that suicide for any reason goes against my own religious values. With all the latest research on Stem Cells and New Diagnostic Testing for diagnosis such as Cepheid Real Time PCR and DNA as well as our own Opium Supply in Tasmania for pain relief, and Neural Electronic Stimulation Techniques many of which allready work but have not got FDA approval but are on the way as long as they get their TGA certifications that is, well do we really really really need it or do we just need to manage our peoples ailments better. I think that once we do allow the GP to become the Executioner then we are just putting a minus 2 on Dr’s and Medical Establishments to keep striving for higher standards. And thats what medicine is really all about.

On the flip side you have to wonder wether or not this is not a great solution for the Aging society and the Homeless and the Tax Man.
Then again thats just another different case all together though I think people should consieder the hidden motivations behind any such laws before they are written and sworn into law. If you ask me its radical in nature on to many levels despite its obvious advantages.

Chris L says:

01:33pm | 03/04/11

@Joan

Privately enacted suicide often has a terrible scarring effect on others. Such as the train driver you jump in front of, or the family members who come home to find you swinging from the ceiling, or the council workers who have to scrape your brains off the footpath where you landed.

If I were facing an agonising/humiliating end and no doctor would help me shuffle off the mortal coil I wouldn’t have a problem turning to a veterinary for help, or paying a homeless guy off the street or even my worst enemy who brags that he’ll be dancing on my grave. As long as it’s done right I doubt I’ll be caring about much else at that point.

Rowe says:

01:34pm | 03/04/11

Joan that was utter garbage.

Humans occupy no greater space on this rock than animals. We are no great beings, no god-like creatures.

If you’re in the type of pain that terminal illness causes then you should have the right to die with dignity not by taking a chainsaw or shotgun to your face.

MR says:

03:25pm | 03/04/11

@Joan,

Interesting that you use the “vet” and “put down” example. Yes, when your dog has some horrible disease that cannot be cured and will certainly lead to death, they are granted the right to die without prolonged pain and suffering.

As for the idea that suicide is always an option, that is generally what is being asked of. Only it would be done humanely, without suffering and in a controlled environment. So long as the person can and has signed a legal consent form, it is not up to us to chose when a person dies.

It is incredibly inhumane and cruel of us to assert that a person has to live in pain and die slowly because ‘we say so’.

And almost disturbing that you would rather them jump off buildings and in front of trains, traumatising pedestrians, drivers, workers and emergency staff, possibly dying slowly and painfully from horrific injuries, just to avoid one building where it can be done with trained and qualified staff with one needle and your loved ones by your side.

I hope you are gifted the peaceful, painless end that you would deny others.

Timmy says:

09:10pm | 03/04/11

If a dog runs out on the road and I hit and kill it with my car and I keep goind, then maybe I am guilty of being a bit heartless. The owners might find it or a council worker will come and clean it up and perhaps go to the effort of attempting to notify the owners.

If I did it to a human being, then I am guilty of fleeing from the scene of an accident. I have commited a serious crime. The police will become involved and it will likely make the TV news.

Do we see the difference between killing people and animals now?

Mahhrat says:

09:45pm | 03/04/11

Timmy, are humans more important than animals legally?  Of course.

Does this affect how we should treat them?  Of course.

Does it make one jot of difference to the argument at hand?  Of course not.

Euthanasia is about choice, pure and simple.  If I suffer terminal illness and wish to end such suffering, that is a choice.  If I cannot get a doctor to assist my legal passing, then that is the doctor’s choice.

Why are our choices so eroded?  What cost is it to anyone but myself and himself?

The legal arguments of post-death shenanigans are plainly absurd.  If an authority (and I would envisage that euthanasia would require at least two uninvolved specialists agreeing with the proposed action) moved that I was of enough sound mind and judgment to end my own life, then surely I would also be sound enough to ensure my estate and other legal requirements are well met before I leave.  Seriously guys, you need to do better than that.

Interestingly to my first post, the very original Oaths actually forbid doctors administering “deadly or lethal” medicines/drugs.  The 1964 re-write removed this and went more towards the “do no harm” thing.

Euthanasia being discussed (at least by me) is all about the alleviation of suffering when modern medicine (physiological or psychological) can no longer prevent the demise of quality of life.

@darragh: I respect your right to your beliefs, and would always support your right to palliative care if your faith dictates that euthanasia is not an option for you.

The problem I have though, Darragh, is that a lot of the spiritually-focusssed activists out there won’t provide me the same respect: the ability to decide, once medical options are exhausted, that I wish to end my life with a quiet dignity at a time and place of my choosing, and not suffer a lingering and painful slide into oblivion.

acotrel says:

10:45pm | 03/04/11

@Joan ‘Doctors are about healing and not killing.’
I totally agree.  The reality is that as you get older, if you don’t have someone by your side if you go to hospital, you will find the hospital system pretty uncaring.  If you have dementia, the doctors will write you off in a flash. - Into a nursing home with you, you’re taking a valuable bed in our hospital.  The fact is that only the medical aspects of your treatment are case managed, in many situations.  If you require home help when you return home from hospital, you must apply for an assessment through the social worker - nothing happens automatically.- even though nearly every one of us goes through the same process. And if you’re on your own and mentally deranged - you’re stuffed!  And you cannot tell me that the sytem won’t encourage early dismissals to remove old nuisances?

Timmy says:

11:59am | 04/04/11

What may be freedom of choice for some will become a feeling of obligation for others. No legislation can prevent these feelings. People WILL be manipulated (mostly unintentionally) into choosing death.

If a future government reduces funding for paliative care (for un-related reasons of course). What choice will we have?

We need to consider this as being an issue of greater significance than personal freedom of choice.

Chris L says:

01:35pm | 03/04/11

I don’t think anyone has been invoking any deities in this discussion Ron. Mosty it’s been vague warnings about murderous family members and sadistic physicians.

sir ronald bradnam says:

03:08pm | 03/04/11

@chrisL not yet but they will they cant help themselves, I was just getting in first.

Rod Blaine says:

10:51am | 04/04/11

How is it that one can score a column-writing gig with The Punch despite never having heard of a country called “The Netherlands”?

Joan says:

08:57am | 03/04/11

Suicide…. your option… always there…..don’t be a whimp and expect others to do your killing.  Euthanasia is a weak person asking another to be a killer…. or cover a for murder.

Mitch says:

01:13pm | 03/04/11

Joan you surely can’t be serious.  How exactly could a terminally ill person on life support and morphine, possibly comatose or unconscious be capable of taking their own life?  When do you intend on including any amount of logic in your posts?

You can go which ever way you want, but it’s completely wrong for you and the religious right to believe that they should be allowed to make people’s decisions for them.  Bugger off and let us make our own choices for ourselves.

Elphaba says:

01:25pm | 03/04/11

@Joan, if the people requesting euthanasia were not so physically broken that they could not do it themselves, then they wouldn’t need to enlist others to help them.

Once again, your histrionic hyperbole brings nothing to the discussion.

michael j says:

02:16pm | 03/04/11

@Joan
you seem to be a strong willed person who has seen the best and worst of life,why are you such a sadist,to call a person who has shat their stomachs out their behind and had it forced back in and still be alive 3 1/2 weeks,later
I have had a broken neck, broken fingers,n, hands,a broken arm,and a back injury,,,but i have no idea what pain he went through probably no one does,,euthanasia is not a week person asking someone to be a killer,it is getting the best advice possible and die with dignity amongst family and friends,,,,you are making it sound like people want a state death squad going round putting a 9mm round behind the ear,,
anyway best of luck to ya,hope ya die in ya sleep,

Timmy says:

09:19pm | 03/04/11

“My lief” yes but you didn’t get to choose the time or manner of it’s beginning

“my body” yes it is

“my decision” Well, that is entirely unlikely, even if we had euthenasia laws.

“my death” well that is certain.

The right to choose when we die? The right to a dignified death? To whom do we seek justice if this right is taken away by a bus, a shark or a really bad curry?

KGrant says:

09:54am | 03/04/11

‘The problem you seem to have is that people, and subsequently, politicians, are easily swayed sheep’

It’s difficult to see how that is Lainie’s problem. 

Well written article Lainie.

malohi says:

02:55pm | 03/04/11

@KG
“And while the community debates in hysterical tones and politicians consider their navels”
“The usual fear-mongering and hand-wringing from socially conservative politicians on both sides, who believe their views on this most personal of subjects should hold sway over the vast majority of us “
“That’s shrill, moralistic hyperbole that bears no resemblance to the actual intention of the Bill”

Who gives the hysterical, fear-mongering, shrill and moralistic the floor? Big media love the controversy, it sells. Wackjobs who the author seems to detest as do I are given equal air time to what would be considered rational debate.
People are easily lead. So it is ironic that a member of the media would now take umbrage that the sheep that were spoon fed the wackjobs point of view now have opinions that are opposed to good reason, which subsequently are reflected when voting on laws.

“I respectfully ask that you butt out of my final hours “
The media fan the flames of the controversy for the $$, the ignorant are mislead,
They have equal vote at the ballot, they don’t have to but out.
Again, look in the mirror for the problem.

Lisa H. says:

02:48pm | 04/04/11

I think this article is actually quite shallow, even silly.

Individuals make choices, but these choices impact the group. It’s called society and that’s why we have politicians in the first place. We have a legal system which aims to protect and support our individualism, within the context of the group.

If lots of individuals choose to inject themselves at a certain age, will that bring a bizarre peer pressure upon those who choose to die naturally?
What of the cost and trouble caused to younger relatives if an elder chooses to die naturally, against the perceived fashion?
Additionally, proper medical treatment and pain relief for the elderly is a substantial cost to the community through taxes and health care costs. Euthenasia would be so much cheaper, would it not?

John A Neve says:

12:48pm | 03/04/11

ZSRenn,

Asks “Why is death always Me! Me! Me!?
I would have thought the answer was obvious, I am the one who is going to die. That’s unless you want to come with me ZS?

Chris L says:

01:42pm | 03/04/11

I imagine being the one to administer the final act would have a very strong and long lasting impact. Even if performed with the courage of conviction it could well leave a lingering doubt in the back of the mind.

Perhaps the legislation could stipulate that the instruments of the deed can be put in place but the patient must be the one to trigger the dose.

Rowe says:

01:43pm | 03/04/11

You’ll be the only person involved in your own death, ZSRenn, so that’s why it’s all about you.

skepdad says:

11:21pm | 03/04/11

It’s my understanding (from my MD brother) that med students don’t take the Hippocratic Oath any more, or at least are not required to, and even so it is not taken literally.

Surgery, for instance, can involve slicing someone open from sternum to hip, or removing limbs; and there is also injecting poison (e.g. chemotherapy) or any of a bajillion other things that would in a non-medical sense be considered “harm”. 

It’s a commitment to not intentionally leaving someone permanently worse off after your intervention than they were before.  You could argue that being dead is being worse off than living in agony, but you could also easily argue the inverse.

Salacious says:

10:15am | 04/04/11

Holly I think you have Joan all wrong. You underestimate her sense of compassion.
I think Joan would take a look at the dog and decide she should put it out of it’s misery. She’s seems the type who would gut it and stretch the fur out in the sun to dry as a keepsake for you. Perhaps a little throw rug?

The Civet says:

05:03pm | 04/04/11

I’m sorry Tracy, but this-whether true or not-is one of the favourite ploys of the Catholic church.

TracyH says:

01:21pm | 04/04/11

This is the BEST response by far…so bloody true…should be mandatory reading!!!! And you are SO right about “where does it stop”...like what I was trying, but failing, to articulate. I was saying about evidence showing many of the elderly in Netherlands OPT to die out of some misguided guilt…rather than actually WANTING to die…

Kate says:

07:35pm | 04/04/11

Jade, that’s your choice. Personally, I think permanent disability is just as bad as a terminal illness, and if I became quadriplegic or paraplegic there is absolutely no way I’d want to remain alive. And if euthanasia wasn’t legal, I’d be signing every ‘do not resuscitate’ form I could get my hands on and then swallowing a large dose of something lethal.

There are some people who would have the willpower to live through a permanent disability or chronic, painful illness, and more power to them. But I personally could not, and I believe I deserve the right to end my own life in a dignified manner rather than wasting away painfully and in a humiliating fashion.

As for mental illness, I can understand anyone who chooses suicide over a lifetime of depression or anxiety. I’ve considered that choice myself, and can’t say I’d never consider it again.

Jade (the other one) says:

10:35pm | 04/04/11

@Kate - I note you carefully missed answering whether you think a child should also be allowed to make that choice.

The fact that you think that a mentally ill person should be allowed to kill themselves if they want to shows that you actually have no grasp of the situation. The very fact that someone has been diagnosed as mentally ill means that they are not in a fit state of mind to make the decision to end their life. If we do not allow someone in that state of depression to manage their own affairs or make legal decisions, how can we so cheapen their life that we would allow them to make the decision to end it?

Furthermore, by suggesting that its quite alright for someone to kill themselves because they are quadriplegic, paraplegic or become otherwise disabled demonstrates that you hold very little value to human life. Where do you draw the line on this? Someone who becomes diabetic and would rather die than give up eating sugar and junk food? Someone who loses their sight and can’t bear to give up reading or watching tv? Someone who loses their sense of hearing and doesn’t want to live in a world without Mozart? A teenager who gets a melanoma cut out and doesn’t want to go through life disfigured?

Would you permit those people to kill themselves too? If not, you are being hypocritical in the extreme. And if you would, I certainly would not want you in a position to make decisions about my medical future, considering the low respect you have for human life.

Troy says:

02:28pm | 21/05/11

Jade, you ask “where do we draw the line”? and you ask in a highly emotive way. Every system the law makers has pro’s and con’s, good and bad. To argue about small children choosing to die with dignity is a non-question, what if they do? Just because they are 12 they are somehow not entitled to a certain “quality” of life, and that is the argument here… Quality of life.

The euthinasia debate is hijacked by all they hypothetical arguments and at the end of the day it should be if a person has decided that their life no longer has the quality that they want, then they should be able to choose the time and place of them deciding to leave. No one else should have a say in the matter, the alternative for these people is a painful slow demise in pallative care or opting for suicide. At least with euthinasia they can be surounded by the people that love them when they decide to go….. suicide, they don’t get that option.

Pallitive care, whilst it works to a point isn’t the whole answer and if you have spent any time on a pallitive care ward you would understand that the “quality” of life is almost nonexistant and that isn’t due to the lack of effort from medical proffesionals, modern drugs and the disease process strip all dignity from these people. Modern medicine doesn’t have the answers, not all of them anyway.

So pose all your hypothetical arguments and conspiracy theories, but the fact still remains it is an argument about quality of life and the choice of the person, no other person should dictate what happens. It doesn’t matter if they are 12 years old, a quadriplegic, or 70 suffering a dibilitating disease process…. If the “Quality” of life has diminished and it can be assertained that it is in fact that persons wish, then why should some do-gooder or religious fanatic get to decide otherwise?

notSue says:

12:51pm | 04/04/11

Arrrrgh! Triple Arrrrgh! Again, (and I’ll say it til I’m blue in the face!) THIS Bill ISN’T about VE!

However I agree with you.

1) How do we legislate against psychological pressure to end one’s life early to save our families from suffering and to save the system money? We CAN’T!

2) I also agree that if VE becomes a reality, what’s to stop the funds for palliative care drying up?They need to ne increased, not diminished! Everyone should have access to top-flight PC!

I do differ on this point though -

I believe *firmly* that if symptoms are intractable and suffering of the patient is unbearable whilst the patient is recieving PC, if the PATIENT wishes,  (NOT the families!) then VE should be an available choice.. but with Philip Nitscke nowhere in sight! 

notSue says:

12:54pm | 04/04/11

and there IS a difference!!! treatment with death as a side effect versus treatment with death AS AN INTENTION.

Timmy says:

01:51pm | 04/04/11

@notSue

I was commenting on the article, not the bill

I welcome the adding of shades of grey that this Bill brings to death being a side effect of treatment. This is not what Euthanasia is. This is not administering drugs that bring death. This is easing pain to the point that death occurs.

It was the article that brought the VE phrase to the floor.

notSue says:

02:33pm | 04/04/11

@ Timmy “It was the article that brought the VE phrase to the floor.”

Yes, exactly, thats my problem with it.

Jade (the other one) says:

12:52pm | 04/04/11

Does that equally apply to the chronically depressed? The permanently disfigured or disabled? Those who simply don’t want to lose their youthful good looks? Terminally ill children?

After all, “it’s their life, to keep or to end.”