The issue that will not die: 76% support for euthanasia

acotrel says:

07:34am | 27/09/10

I don’t have a terminal illness, and I don’t see it as my role to dictate what people in that situation should do. If the medical profession can adequately deal with the ethics, I don’t have a problem with the law allowing euthanasia.

Barry says:

08:29am | 27/09/10

Agree acotrel, except for the part about the medical profession. Who the hell are they to preach to us. Amongst the medical profession, ethics is a distant third to money and ideology.

Barry says:

09:15am | 27/09/10

I forgot to mention earlier that around 30% of the medical professions income - i do not recall the exact figure - comes from treating the old. Why kill off the goose that lays the golden egg.
If you have any doubts about the motives of the medical and dental professions, ask pensioners on the Gold Health Care Card for examples of over-servicing by both professions.

Shane From Melbourne says:

11:37am | 26/09/10

Here is a list of conditions under which Euthanasia takes place in the Netherlands:
The law allows medical review board to suspend prosecution of doctors who performed euthanasia when each of the following conditions is fulfilled:
1. The patient’s suffering is unbearable with no prospect of improvement.
2. The patient’s request for euthanasia must be voluntary and persist over time (the request cannot be granted when under the influence of others, psychological illness or drugs)
3. The patient must be fully aware of his/her condition, prospects and options.
4. There must be consultation with at least one other independent doctor who needs to confirm the conditions mentioned above.
5. The death must be carried out in a medically appropriate fashion by the doctor or patient, in which case the doctor must be present

Considering that each case is reviewed by the medical board and must meet those criteria, the number of cases involuntary euthanasia is virtually zero.

Slim says:

02:15pm | 26/09/10

Clem - do you have data/references for that claim or is it just your belief?

Gregg says:

02:26pm | 26/09/10

It would seem the Dutchies either got their legislation wrong and it is not involuntray or are figures reporting involuntary deaths as those where a person has agreed at some stage to relatives with authorisation by doctors doing what they wanted but were incapable of making the decision at the actual time through their own incapacitation.

austin 3:16 says:

02:32pm | 26/09/10

got a source for that ?

iansand says:

03:34pm | 26/09/10

Substantiation?

JRB says:

06:46pm | 26/09/10

Yes, please can you provide us with links to your data Clem?

GFC says:

10:04pm | 26/09/10

The Netherlands’ example is a good reason why we should never go near euthanasia.  Why?  Ask the architect of the legislation in that country, Els Borst “Former Dutch Health Minister Admits Error of Legalizing Euthanasia”

“The legalization of euthanasia came “far too early,” Borst said, admitting that the government did not give enough attention to palliative care and support for the dying.  “In the Netherlands, we first listened to the political and societal demand in favour of euthanasia,” she said.  “Obviously, this was not in the proper order.”

See: http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/dec/09120207.html

And this from Belgium: Over 30% of Euthanasia Cases in Belgian Region Did Not Give Consent: Study - Most were undergoing medical treatment with the hope of a cure for their illness

Source: http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/may/10051903.html

Who wants to be in an ageing population in Australia, espcially when beds are scarce?  Good luck.

We are fools to repeat the mistakes of others and we don’t have to.

Barry says:

08:58pm | 27/09/10

For YOUR god’s sake, GFC, the source you quote is a pro-life website. The Belgian article contains intentionally vague references to people being euthanased ‘without an explicit request’. And that is all it says. So, what, the doctors murdered the patients. Is that what it is saying? Of course not. The reason for making the article so vague is perfectly clear: it is a feeble and rather amateurish attempt to construct a rationale for opposing euthanasia. Well, GFC, I don’t believe in your diety and i think it is pretty sick for people labouring under primitive superstitions to try to deny others the freedom to make their own life and death choices.

Bethany says:

05:10pm | 26/09/10

Many of the Green’s favourite playthings are deeply unpopular in mainstream Australia.
“Not so!” you cry. Yet by your own admission, the Greens themselves are deeply unpopular in mainstream Australia. How do you explain this? Surely rambling partisan cheerleading by social conservatives can’t be the sole reason.

bobw says:

05:47am | 27/09/10

@Bethany:  I think it’s probably pushing it to say that the Greens are “deeply unpopular in mainstream Australia”, whatever the Oz might want us to believe.  In any event, I can think of several reasons why poll figures for the Greens may not reflect the level of community sympathy for various of their positions.  First, overall support is necessarily disconnected from single-issue judgment:  people will vote for the Greens without agreeing with all of their policies, and reject them notwithstanding areas of concurrence.  Secondly, some people vote for pragmatic or emotional reasons, without really considering matters of policy.  Thirdly, it’s reasonable to suspect that many people lack a well-developed understanding of what the Greens’ policies actually are; the media affords the party very little oxygen.  Fourthly, historical factors favour the two-party duopoly:  the Greens don’t have as large a reservoir of rusted-on, reflexive voters as the big two, and, for better or for worse, they tend not to be taken seriously as a potential party of government.

Anyway, I’m getting somewhat off-topic, but my point is that many of the Greens’ policies may be more saleable than blunt polling figures might be taken to suggest.  It’s plausible that some might also command greater support if extracted from a partisan context.

stephen says:

08:37pm | 26/09/10

Was he not able to be released home, in which case, the law possibly not enabling euthanasia would have been, let us say, invisible.
Doctors are not trained in the vagaries of putting someone to death ; to get that done, you’ll have to go to a prison… maybe in Texas.

Malcolm says:

01:24am | 27/09/10

I can add stories about my nephew, a number of relatives, and close friends in similair situations. I dont need to explain all their details to prove my point, although their deaths could be described in similair fashion. However;  I am not ashamed of my country, not cranky with my civilisation, not unhappy with Doctors estimate of time left - its not an exact science. Happy with the pallative care given to each person. (As was each of the people I mentioned) I am not ashamed of the privilege of being with my relatives and friends during their last days. Their experiences during that time don’t define them. Their humanity shined through their last days.

Gary, Victorian RN says:

08:47am | 27/09/10

As a nurse who has been involved in palliative care of stroke victims, comments like “was he not able to be released home” illustrate the gulf between what people belive happens and what actually happens. How do you take someone home who requires 24 hour specialised nursing care? How do you provide the care for the relatives who have to watch their loved ones die slowly?  It always tears me apart when a patient is deeply unconscious with massive brain injury has to be forced to die slowly by removing food and water, and medicating them until their basic reflexes that are causing them and their loved ones immense pain. That is the reality of end stage palliative care - it’s not a gentle fade away most of the time, but the determined elimination of suffering, bringing on a elimination of basic humanness, caused by our inablity to provide a dignified and peaceful death.
Get real. The only reason is that is promoted against mercy killing is that people might be forced into it for pecuniary gain. I have never seen this as a reason for people asking me to speed it up, and never offered as an inducment when I say that I can’t do anything, as it is against the law.

Malcolm says:

07:50pm | 27/09/10

The disproportionate chip on your shoulder will doom your thinking on this situation if you dont get what you want yet again.

GFC says:

10:11pm | 26/09/10

So the state should drop murder from its criminal code?

acotrel says:

07:42am | 27/09/10

‘Matters from what you do with your property and how you power your home, through what you eat, drink, read, watch and say, to how you die should have nothing to do with the state. ‘

Doc, the crime of murder has something ‘to do with the state’!

Gary, Victorian RN says:

08:50am | 27/09/10

Another comment. Once you have died, the state DOES own your corpse, and can direct what is done with it. For example, if the state decides an autopsy is needed, and you disagree, it’s not an administrative problem, but a legal one, and you’ll be vitsing the court system to try an overturn the decision. Which will be unsuccessful.

DocBud says:

09:09am | 27/09/10

What I choose to do with my body should be my business and nobody else’s because it affects nobody else. Murder has a somewhat deleterious effect on another’s body and therefore may rightfully be proscribed. As J. S. Mill put it so eloquently:

“The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community against his will is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or to forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because in the opinions of others to do so would be wise or even right. These are good reasons for remonstrating with him, or reasoning with him, or persuading him, or entreating him, but not for compelling him, or visiting him with any evil in case he do otherwise. To justify that, the conduct from which it is desired to deter him must be calculated to produce evil to someone else.” (From On Liberty)

DocBud says:

07:52pm | 26/09/10

There are two aspects, Bethany.

Firstly, in a representative democracy, we elect people to govern on our behalf. They are expected to govern in accordance with manifesto they put forward in order to be elected. We know, of course, that Australian politicians of all hues don’t feel greatly constrained by their promises, e.g. Gillard’s backflip on a carbon tax and Howard’s non-core promises:

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-election/climate/gillard-rules-out-imposing-carbon-tax-20100816-1270b.html

One concession that is generally accorded those we elect is that in representing us, they should not be obliged to vote against their consciences. The obvious example of this being the death penalty, on which public opinion is fickle and tends to be swayed by recent events, but other examples are abortion and euthanasia.

The second point is that opinion polls are not part of democracy. The respondents are asked a question, often loaded, and give an answer without hearing arguments for and against. The turn around in opinions during public debates shows how questionable this is. Additionally, only a small proportion get asked.

A referendum on euthanasia would be a different thing entirely. Everyone gets a vote and gets to make it after hearing all the arguments. Referenda should be reserved for such issues or key constitutional changes in a representative democracy, otherwise you become a direct democracy.

stephen says:

08:30pm | 26/09/10

The majority of the population wanna be ice-cream taste- testers.
Next !

Alfred Deakin says:

11:25pm | 26/09/10

You should ask instead why this 76% of the population do not vote in candidates who support their views.

We live in a “representative democracy” not a “direct democracy”. If all those 76% of people voted for representatives who would vote that way in Parliament the law would change.

chrisozman says:

12:11am | 27/09/10

Well perhaps Bethany, (and it pains me a bit to say it) maybe most of our Politicians still understand what is right and wrong, even if the populace doesn’t. On top of that their decision is not just an egging-on-from-the -sidelines decision,  real people will actually die as a result of their vote.
How would you handle that responsibility?

I’m sure the majority of people don’t want to pay taxes either, let’s implement your democratic majority theory there shall we? All of this is only part of the current rapid escalation of evil we see at levels of society. If I said this was all predicted centuries ago “as in the days of Noah”, sadly you probably wouldn’t even know what I was talking about. It’s time to pick your side Bethany, on euthanasia and a myriad of other issues. From where will you draw your guidance on ultimate right and ultimate wrong?

bobw says:

05:49am | 27/09/10

@Bethany:  That would be because representative democracy as a system is specifically designed so as to avoid giving direct effect to majoritatian impulses!

acotrel says:

07:48am | 27/09/10

Bethany, your assertion is correct.  We still live under the old authoritarian paradigm, promoted and maintained by the religous!  The main objection to voluntary euthanasia seems based in the teachings of the Bible.  It’s an example of where MORALS are at variance with ETHICS!

acotrel says:

07:56am | 27/09/10

Chrisozman, It’s not the responsibility which makes politicians hesitate to support VE.  It’s the potential of the religous to affect the voting patterns in response to any positivity, which dictates their lack of support! There is no political advantage in supporting change - dead people cannot vote!

acotrel says:

08:12am | 27/09/10

Doc and Bethany, have you seen the movie titled ‘the rise and rise of Michael Rimmer’  In which a cynical politician puts so many things into referenda, the voters finally get sick of democracy, and accept a dictatorship?  Stars Peter Cook.

DocBud says:

09:01am | 27/09/10

Acotrel,

Yes I have. Did you read my comment? I’m not proposing regular referenda, but they do have their place in certain circumstances.

Bethany says:

11:31am | 27/09/10

Thank you all for your responses.
LIke many of you, I wouldn’t wish to be governed by the lowest common denominator, which is what a direct democracy would reflect. In California, for example, this kind of self-interested voting for high spending and low taxes has sent the state broke. However, I can think of several issues that I would like to see taken to a referendum, as I’m sure can you. Euthanasia, for example, has been consistently supported by a large majority for several years (see link above) so it is hardly a whimsical notion; on the contrary, it is the clear will of the people. I would like to see some system in place that would allow the people’s voice to be heard.
@DocBud: Thanks for that considered reponse. Unfortunately, the major parties’ populist manifestos are just that, populist. The Labor party is well-known for refusing to allow its members to vote their consciences. How can we deal with the hard issues, if they don’t even make it onto the agenda?
@steven: Quite so, California is a case in point.
@Alfred Deakin: Neither of the major parties represents my views and they are the ones who will form a government.
@chrisozman: I have picked my side, as you have yours. Unlike you, however, I don’t wish to impose my views on everyone else.
@bobw: I get the feeling that my views are unrepresented in the corridors of power. I’m sure a lot of people feel this way.
@acotrel: I believe, as you do, that the major parties are beholden to the religious vote
@DocBud: I think regular (five-yearly?) referenda is a sterling idea. Do you have a specific objection to them?
Thanks again for your comments.

bobw says:

12:10pm | 27/09/10

@Bethany:  Perfectly understandable and I’m sure you are right.

acotrel says:

08:18am | 27/09/10

Jack Ruby, The bloke who murdered Lee Harvey Oswald had a terminal illness.  Should he have received the death penalty?

pat says:

08:10am | 27/09/10

So it is ok as long as no-one helps you end your life?  Is buying the appropriate drug and using it after medical consultation all right, or must I throw myself off somethig high or blow my brains out?  I think the laws would likely come with a test similar to the refusal of treatment test used by ambos , voluntary, informed, free of coersion and with the capacity to make the decision.

Bethany says:

03:23pm | 27/09/10

@Vicki
I’m not looking for anyone to help. It is entirely my own choice. I just want to be able to buy a bottle of something that will allow me a peaceful death.

iansand says:

04:03pm | 27/09/10

How could that happen?  3 doctors at least, one of them a psych, will have to be bribed or make a mistake.  Just how will it become “involuntary”?

Annie says:

08:45am | 28/09/10

That is sad that you’d think that of your relatives, Julie, but I doubt that it will be as simple as your family wanting to off you and this law giving them the ability to do so.
You’d have to come to the decision to off yourself and you’d have to consistantly ask it of your doctor before they went to a panel of doctors who would decide. Your murderous rels would have to think of another way…

I’d prefer to respect the needs of those in the position where euthenasia is something they need to consider rather than catering to what others MIGHT be afraid of happening.

LC says:

11:47am | 07/04/11

The slippery slope is still a logical fallacy, Robert.

There are only two gaurantees in life, and one of them is death. If we find a cure for stage 4 cancer, for inoperable brain tumors etc that’s great. But that won’t stop people from dying. And in the interm, if the person has a terminal illness, they should be allowed to have the option to end their life peacefully and on their own terms, and not have to jump out in front of a quickly moving and heavy object, off something tall or hang/shoot themselves. He/she recieved euthanasia anyway, and in the process caused extra distress to relatives who dicover him or the council workers who have to clean up what’s left of him.her off the road/footpath.

Futhermore, I’d personally like to see how you’d fare if you had to spend the “golden” years of your life feeling pain beyond comprehension (don’t say morphine because if you need it constantly, your body becomes desensitized to it and the dosage needs to be increased, and it eventually gets to a point where the amount of morphine or other painkiller becomes incompatiable with life), unable to fuction independently, tubes in most of your orifices, needing a nurse to clean up your poo off your hospital bed and/or nappy everyday…get the picture? I’d like to see how “brave” you’d be if you had to live out your final weeks/months (years?) like that. If I ever get to that point, it provides comfort to know the option if available, wether or not you CHOOSE to take it.