Who is euthanasia really for? A letter from a loving son

Tanya says:

01:40pm | 29/09/10

Glenn,

Sorry to hear about the pathetic treatment. You should take this to the television media eg the 7:30 Report or 60 Minutes. It may save somebody else from the same experience.

Be kind to yourself.

Steely Dan says:

12:16pm | 29/09/10

@ James Darby

“Life is terminated by a morphine overdose or injection of CO2. If you think it is “perfectly ok” to terminate life you must be a Greens.”
That’s your objection to euthanasia?!? ‘You must be a Greens (sic)’?

“Unbelief is a religion”
Like bald is a hair-colour, and not collecting stamps is a hobby.

Austin 3:16 says:

11:53am | 29/09/10

Unbelief is a religion - sure it is. Like not making sense is a sound argument I suppose. I can see where you are coming from far more clearly now.

Austin 3:16 says:

11:56am | 29/09/10

“The point is that before prostitution was legalised those who profit from the activity found it more difficult to recruit staff.”

Tosh, balderdash and rubbish. I’m a Queenslander James, old enough to remember the era before Fitzgerald. When prostituion was illegal and there was no shortage of workers. In fact when prostituion was legalised the industry initially (in Qld) struggled to attract workers.

Steely Dan says:

04:41pm | 28/09/10

@ James Darby
“Please don’t feel sorry for me.”
I can’t help it, James.  I feel for the less fortunate.

“The Australian Constitution is based on honour and respect for both God and the Crown.”
And it’s a legally binding document, whether you say an oath to it or not.  The parts of the Constitution that reference God can be legally ignored, as Section 116 is clear about.  Quoting the non-binding Hippocratic oath adds nothing to the debate.

“Just because a Godless person does not like God or the Crown does not mean that they don’t like Australia.”
What’s godlessness got to do with ‘not liking’ the Crown? Or not liking God for that matter - I can’t dislike a god any more than I dislike the Grinch.
“1973 “Soylent Green” is where the Greens plan to take Australian.”
Wow.  If people didn’t think you were a kook, they do now. 

“Any act that weakens the fabric of family and life leads to a state where libertly is denied.”
“Libertly” (sic) is not denied when somebody requests to die.  You really don’t understand what euthanasia is, do you?

“I suffer now at the thought of being put down.”
I “suffer” at the thought of certain bizarre but legal sex acts that I don’t wish to participate in, and cannot be forced to participate.  Is that reason enough to outlaw them?

Lara says:

06:49pm | 28/09/10

What is the problem with refusing medical attention? To me, that seems to be about letting nature taking its course. As an individual, surely one has the right to refuse medical assistance. It’s the intervention to intentionally create death that people have a problem with.

austin 3:16 says:

02:41pm | 28/09/10

Hey James,

So there are no illegal prostitues working in your world. How very nice for you. Seems a little discordant with reality though. Not to mention overly simplistic.

jeffb says:

02:14pm | 28/09/10

James, do you need me to explain the difference between euthanasia and suicide to you?

One is suffering from an incurable terminal illness the other is not.

Steely Dan says:

12:24pm | 28/09/10

@ James Darby

“Giving Government licence to murder is murder.”
And giving the government licence to allow doctors to assist in suicide under certain circumstances is called euthanasia.  If you can’t tell the difference, I feel sorry for you. 

Do you really want to reference the Hippocratic Oath, good Christian James?  Firstly, it’s not a legally binding oath, and secondly, it begins like this:
“I swear by Apollo, the healer, Asclepius, Hygieia, and Panacea, and I take to witness all the gods, all the goddesses…”  No need to worry about we scary godless there, James!

James Darby says:

10:04am | 28/09/10

The reason Godless and Unbelievers are involved in the examination of putting down or murdering or retiring or extinguishing or what ever else removing life is defined as is because those who do accept an afterlife of either Heaven or Hell want to go to Heaven. Suicide is a sin and therefore that person misses out on Heaven. Since law makers have become Godless laws that effect Believers must be thoroughly examined.

People like the Greens deny God as Greens’ religion is servitude to the State. A Greens has no problem with suicide as they have no problem with sin. The Greens problem is with living people. Giving Government licence to murder is murder.

As an example a young woman knows that prostitution is illegal and when an opportunity presents itself for money for sex she holds back and get a job.

As an example a young woman knows that prostitution is legal and when an opportunity presents itself for money for sex she becomes a sex worker.
Doctors have sworn to “I will prescribe regimens for the good of my patients according to my ability and my judgment and never do harm to anyone. I will not give a lethal drug to anyone if I am asked, nor will I advise such a plan;” –as part of their oath.
Does a society really want their doctors murdering under licence and their daughters provided with the easy means of their own self abuse?

Steely Dan says:

11:27am | 01/10/10

@ Dreadless

“I still think that you are running with a common misconception as to what ‘secular society’ means, especially when it comes down to legislating.  It is not about having a religionless legislation, but that a religious entity (such as the Roman Catholics or the Anglicans) having (absolute) rule.”
Not at all.  Check S116 of the Constitution.  Incidentally, I think religion is a net negative for society and I can’t wait for it to disappear.  I wouldn’t wish to see religion outlawed, but our secular constitution is what would stop me from legislating against religions if I ever had a (draconian) change of heart. 

“…the State as it functions currents has (takes) the right to legislate against peoples ‘rights’.”
Some it can’t, because they are constitutionally guaranteed (explicitly or not).

“There are legislations that are currently against many of my beliefs from mundane like the speed of cars, to more personally against my convictions as to how the poor and needy should be treated; like asylum seekers.”
As do I, but none of these examples violate rights as defined by the constitution, or that would be defended by the High Court. 

“This assumes the classic account of people as ‘atomised individuals’ who function in society seperate to each other.”
I don’t assume this at all. 

“I think that people are enmeshed in a web of relationships and continue to function within those at all times even as an individual… So i’m not sure that anyone who ends their life does so in complete isolation from others, and so therefore it doesn’t effect those other people.”
Would you see legislation that declared that Shane Warne and his ex-wife could never remarry (or get back together, if they’re just separated, I can’t remember) as legitimate?  After all, lots of people who read about their relationship in the papers were affected by their relationship. 
I don’t.  People can lay claim to being indirectly ‘affected’ by feeling bad for Simone Warne that her husband was always cheating on her, but that should be trumped by the wishes of the individuals involved, because the effect of that legislation on the couple would be much, much greater than the effect on people who read the gossip pages.
We can – and do – weigh direct and indirect effects when we talk about legislation.  And the rights of a person who wants to end the pain that they feel directly trumps the rights of the congregation down the road who will feel sad because they don’t like the idea. 

“In whatever form the Euthanasia legislation takes”
We know what form it would take in relation to the current federal debate.  It would be a lifting of the federal ban (imposed in 1996) to trump NT legislation.  The exact form of any future euthanasia legislation would be up to the states and territories.

“I am trying to undermine the assumption that what I choose to do with my life doesn’t (or shouldn’t) effect others.”
Our actions do affect others.  But part of being in a civil society is accepting that you don’t always have the right to control others.

Tedd says:

07:14am | 01/10/10

” religious entity having rule” ?? Que?

Secularism in a positive sense is about creating space for all entities to do with belief having equal space, regardless of the number of adherents each has, and ensuring one does not dominate another.  Separation from State also helps this.

Dreadless says:

04:29pm | 30/09/10

Thanks again Steely

I still think that you are running with a common misconception as to what ‘secular society’ means, especially when it comes down to legislating.
It is not about having a religionless legislation, but that a religious entity (such as the Roman Catholics or the Anglicans) having (absolute) rule.

As far as how legislation should be made in a secular society; I think it is about taking stock of all voices and determining the one that makes the best account of the issue at hand. This of course is full of problems, and it usually boils down to money instead.
Also unfortunately the State as it functions currents has (takes) the right to legislate against peoples ‘rights’.
There are legislations that are currently against many of my beliefs from mundane like the speed of cars, to more personally against my convictions as to how the poor and needy should be treated; like asylum seekers.

Your answer to this I suspect is a classically “libertarian” one, which is; to remove lots of legislation and let people do what they want (within reason)

This assumes the classic account of people as ‘atomised individuals’ who function in society seperate to each other.

One of our differences in approaching this issue is that I don’t hold to that assumption either.
I think that people are enmeshed in a web of relationships and continue to function within those at all times even as an individual.
(by the way this is coming from a secular social philosophy, not religious)

So i’m not sure that anyone who ends their life does so in complete isolation from others, and so therefore it doesn’t effect those other people.

In whatever form the Euthanasia legislation takes, someone will be responsible for making the decision as to who dies and doesn’t. one of the people effected by your decision.

More problematic is the guilt or temptation that a family member(s) undergo in this situation. What about the grief of your brother who for some reason doesn’t want you to be euthanised, but sees your desire and so feels guilty in not supporting you etc.

I’m not trying to argue from here to say that on these grounds Euthanasia should be banned, but I am trying to undermine the assumption that what I choose to do with my life doesn’t (or shouldn’t) effect others.
If I haven’t done this well enough I’m willing to have another shot at it

I have not even mentioned societal shifts in perception that this sort of legislation would develop. I have no doubt that there would be some, but am less willing to speculate what than others…

Steely Dan says:

03:01pm | 30/09/10

@ Dreadless

“Why ‘should’ you have the right to do what you want…”
Here’s the simplified version - because I want that right, and so does (nearly) everybody else.  And the easiest way to accommodate these wants while minimising conflicts over competing interests is to say that we are free to do whatever we want - up to the point where it affects others.

“As far as leaving my Christian thinking behind that is impossible, because it is essentaily my idenity.”
I agree, but as I’ve mentioned, this is a secular nation.  You’re welcome to think euthanasia is wrong for whatever reason, religious or not.  But nobody has the right to legislate their religious beliefs on another.
“This becomes more tangled when we are discussing (as we are) the legislation for a nation on ethical issues. Who’s philosophies will dominate?”
I don’t know - but in theory, the reasoning must be secular.  That’s not a guarantee that religious ideas don’t get supported - they can just be covered by dodgy but secular reasoning (think of a priest saying that gay marriage will ‘harm the institution of marriage’).

“Also what I think is happening here… is not about asserting a ‘divine command’ onto unbelievers, but advocating for a position on personhood or anthropology. Our veiws of humanity appear to be in conflict, and why they have rights, dignity or value etc.”
Advocate for ‘personhood’ all you like.  But my right to voluntarily end my life does not conflict with your right not to end your life.  Legally, that’s the end of the story.

Dreadless says:

11:34am | 30/09/10

Thanks Steely Dan for your response, especially to my ‘rights’ question.
As I mentioned elsewhere I am currently studying ethics…
So I picked on ‘rights’ based arguments and wanted to see how people think along those lines, so now you have entered another of the major ethical categories for determining “the good”; ‘should’
Why ‘should’ you have the right to do what you want…
I appreciate this could be annoying, and I am really just trying to find out for my own interest what is making people tick, so if you want to ignore this feel free…

As far as leaving behind ‘preferences’ and beliefs to make a decision, as I have mentioned elsewhere that is in and of itself a idealogical positon - which you are not leaving behind.
As far as leaving my Christian thinking behind that is impossible, because it is essentaily my idenity.
I CAN attempt to think like someone else, and see things from their perspective - and this is in fact what is driving my questions about where you are coming from with ‘rights’ etc. I want to be able to do this exercise better.
However as far as ‘ethics’ goes we are essentially trying to determine what is morally good or ‘the good’. therefore ‘goodness’ must be determined from within a philosphical position whoch forms and modifies it.
This becomes more tangled when we are discussing (as we are) the legislation for a nation on ethical issues. Who’s philosophies will dominate?
Also what I think is happening here (at least from my perspective, and I think I can advocate for Michael as well if not for all Christians - unfortunately) is not about asserting a ‘divine command’ onto unbelievers, but advocating for a position on personhood or anthropology. Our veiws of humanity appear to be in conflict, and why they have rights, dignity or value etc.

Steely Dan says:

04:40pm | 29/09/10

@ Dreadless

“Yes we do live in a secular society. Protestant Christians are in fact those responsible for championing and establishing a separation of ‘Church’ and state.”
Not solely, but they were a major part of it.

“HOWEVER you seem to be saying that because I am a Christian I have no legitimate voice on any issue”
Not at all.

“or at least I need to exclude any and all of my Christianity before making any arguments.”
You’re obviously allowed to make arguments based on your beliefs, that’s not a problem.  But I would hope that you would refrain from trying to force people to live life the way you live yours.  It’s not inconsistent for yout to say ‘As a Christian, I will not commit suicide, legally or illegally.  However, if somebody else wants to have the right to euthanasia, that’s up to them. God is their judge, not me’.

“a) it is impossible to leave behind personal idealogies and preferances.”
I don’t believe that at all.

“b) To silence anyone on the grounds of their preference (especially religious) is not Democratic, or what ‘secular’ state is meant to be.”
You’re not being silenced.  You’re being asked to refrain from forcing your preferences on others in situations where you’re not affected.

“why you (all) believe you have a ‘right’ to die in the manner of your chosing?”
Because I should have the right to do whatever I want, up to the point where my actions affect someone else.  This includes taking my own life, and the right not to be jailed for assisting somebody in taking theirs with their explicit permission.

Dreadless says:

02:57pm | 29/09/10

@Steely dan et al
Yes we do live in a secular society. Protestant Christians are in fact those responsible for championing and establishing a separation of ‘Church’ and state. I want to affirm this too. I don’t want a Christian institution to be dictating life for everyone, especially for those that subscribe.

HOWEVER you seem to be saying that because I am a Christian I have no legitimate voice on any issue, or at least I need to exclude any and all of my Christianity before making any arguments.
If this is what you are saying then I want to say a few things.
a) it is impossible to leave behind personal idealogies and preferances. This assertion is a moderist/enlightenment fallicy. Post-modernism has allerted to us that every speaks from a position with preferance and bias. these include blind spots.
b) To silence anyone on the grounds of their preference (especially religious) is not Democratic, or what ‘secular’ state is meant to be.
People from all different ethical/philosophical/religious backgrounds are present in Australia and their reasons for and against should be considered and weighed.

What I am honestly interested in, and have asked previously with out response, is why you (all) believe you have a ‘right’ to die in the manner of your chosing?
What is the basis for your understanding of a ‘rights’ based answer for the ‘Euthanasia’ question.
please believe me I am not haveing a go or being cute. I really want to know.

Steely Dan says:

12:59pm | 28/09/10

@ Dreadless

“So you say “I won’t bring up my views” but that is in fact impossible.”
It’s my position that we live in a secular society.  That’s also a fact.  ‘God doesn’t want us to do it’ should not be part of the debate about the legalisation of euthanasia by the state.  If I am terminally ill and in serious pain, I should have the right to ask for a medical professional to help me end MY (emphasis added) life.  You have the right to refuse any offer to assist in your death, in accordance with your religious beliefs. 

But let’s talk about the rights you don’t have.  You don’t have the right to impose your religious beliefs on me, or anyone else for that matter.  Your rights end where mine begin.  ‘But it’ll effect society in some immeasurable, speculative way’ is not a sufficient secular argument against euthanasia, neither is ‘but it will make me sad’.

Dreadless says:

10:33am | 28/09/10

@Jeffb
I’m sorry, my point was that you cannot leave your ‘position’ behind for some sort of objective position.
There is no objective position. a non-religious position is a position which needs to be weighed against others.
So you say “I won’t bring up my views” but that is in fact impossible.

jeffb says:

11:13pm | 27/09/10

Dreadless, I was responding specifically to James’ post referring to the “Godless and non-believers” during a debate about euthanasia but to answer your question anyways, no my religious views are not more important than yours or anyone elses. You won’t see my trying to bring up my views in a policy debate either as no ones religious views should be used to influence policy that effects everyone.

You act as if intelligent people can’t separate church and state. What is moral about forcing someone else to endure a life of suffering with a terminal illness with no cure insight just because euthanasia doesn’t support your particular world view?

You need to prove you’re not being exploited or vulnerable to change Centrelink pay details. Are you trying to suggest that any euthanasia policy would somehow over look this issue?

The article is poorly written, arrogant and insensitive. It brings no new issues to the debate and address none of the existing concerns.

Chris L says:

09:51pm | 27/09/10

BTW I don’t know of any study here, but in USA atheists compose 15% of the population but less than 1% of the prison population. Maybe you’d be better off with the godless in control of the switches.

Dreadless says:

09:49pm | 27/09/10

@jeffb its not about ‘religious views’ being more or less important.
The exact same question could be posed to you; why are your non-religious views more important than mine?
The difficulty in legislating on an issue like this is that legislation like this by nature affects everyone. So different moral positions do have to be weighed against each other. What makes one more valuble than another?
One of the concerns that Michael’s piece is raising is that once enacted there would be a societal mind-shift around euthanasia which is open to abuse. Legislation would have to take this into account (as it has had to elsewhere, giving Michael’s point support).
The point is not that if Euthanasia is enacted all people will go out and kill Granny for her pension, but rather; do we want to open up the vulerable to the possibility of exploition?

austin 3:16 says:

07:59pm | 27/09/10

If you believe in an after-life what’s the problem ? Sounds like that’s a belief without a heck of a lot of conviction.

Chris L says:

06:40pm | 27/09/10

You make it sound like “involuntary” euthenasia. I don’t believe that will be on the cards.

jeffb says:

06:36pm | 27/09/10

What.

Why should your religious views be more important than an atheists? Why should anyones religious views have an impact on the social policy that governs everyone?

The current euthanasia debate is solely about the terminally ill, its not about giving people the right to kill themselves, rather a legal process to step through if a terminally ill person wishes to go down that path.

You should google ‘comfort care’, the process of sedating someone to death. Its widely practiced in Australia, passing euthanasia legislation would just bring it out into the open.

Frustrated says:

12:08pm | 28/09/10

Actually your body isn’t your property - which gives rise to a whole range of other issues…

Jaime says:

12:22pm | 28/09/10

Dreadless - Suffering promotes personal growth is unfortunately, just a speculation. It also isn’t necessarily true. Some might grow or learn from suffering. Some might not. Some might just die from it. For some, suffering is just suffering.

In your opinion, you have Jesus or hell or purgatory after death. But that is in your opinion. You know. Or you think you know. For us who do not follow your religion, we would ask you the same question you ask us: How do you really know what awaits after death? In the end, it’s just your belief.

Same for us; it is our belief that the end of suffering is the end of it. You have to expand your point of view more to see that for many, they don’t share the same doubts as you do about what happens after the end of life.

In the end, none of our beliefs should be pertinent to the debate at hand. Because someone’s religion or idea of life should not be controlling the life of another.

Tone says:

07:56am | 28/09/10

Dreadless, you speculate, verbosely.

Dreadless says:

09:10pm | 27/09/10

@Bob, I thought that 3rd question may tip off my particular bias…

As far as suffering goes, I think we often forget or overlook that much good can come from suffering and hardship. Personal growth is often the result of pain. I am not suggesting that we inflict or maximise pain in order to gain some perceived good - just that there is a tendancy in our culture to minimise pain and suffering at all costs, and as I said equate suffering with evil, when it is not necessarily the case.

As far as where people get the idea they have a right to anything, I’d still like to hear what they ground that assumption on. I do believe in rights - I just know what that grounding is for me - not for you*

With my 3rd question I was trying to provoke thought on the third assumption that people have made about Death and what happens afterwards. Some people have thought out positions on the issue, others however probably have just assumed that death is the end (because it is ‘an’ end), and I want to push that on a little.

My question was trying to raise the point that perhaps we shouldn’t be so sure that Death is the end, and think about how that affects the debate.

If you are from a Naturalist/Materialist/Atheist sort of camp, you won’t hesitate to affirm that there is nothing after death. Fair enough - that is consistant with your cosmology… but how do you know. I don’t think we can be sure, how do you KNOW that there is nothing after death?

If on the other hand you are from some sort of religious camp your religion will probably have some sort of post-mortem state. These religions will have different views on how ‘after-life’ affects ‘life’ and vice versa.

For my money I think the Authority on the matter should rest with someone who has returned from the Dead… What do they say about life death and after death?

And so you can probably see where I’m headed here.
I think there is reason enough to believe that Jesus rose from the dead. So that is why I listen to what he has to say about life and Death.

* I ground any ‘rights’ we have in our creation in the image of God. That is God gives women and men value and honour, which is why they deserve to be treated with dignity.

A further note on what these last to comments will probably provoke…
There is no reason that my vioce is illigitimate (or Michael’s for that matter) just because we have identified as Christian. We all have a bias, but that doesn’t mean that what we say is illigitimate. You may like what the Atheist says more, but they are not necessarily any more reasonable and thought through than a Christian. People from any can throw abuse around, and call names, use threats and make wild assertions. The bigot is the one who refuses to listen to what their ‘enemy’ is saying and why they hold any given point.
I hope you will think about some of my questions desipe me being a Christian and not write off what I have to say as, well any of the insulting things that have been said above about each others positions.

A Bob says:

05:11pm | 27/09/10

Good questions. I personally do not believe that items 1 or 2 are necessarily true. I do not believe that either good or evil necessarily exist in any absolute sense. “Good is merely sublimated evil”, to quote Nietzsche. But that may be wrong, too.

Where does the idea that death is an end to suffering come from? Big question, reading a few thousand years of literature should give you a hint.

I only know that I feel compelled to behave a certain way, and then second guess myself afterwards.

Austin 3:16 says:

08:08pm | 27/09/10

Hey Concerned,

Have a read of Terry Pratchett’s address at the Dimbleby lecture. He already has the diagnosis of Alzheimers and has made his decision .

To quote
And so I have vowed that rather than let Alzheimer’s take me, I would take it. I would live my life as ever to the full and die, before the disease mounted its last attack, in my own home, in a chair on the lawn, with a brandy in my hand to wash down whatever modern version of the Brompton Cocktail some helpful medic could supply. And with Thomas Tallis on my iPod, I would shake hands with Death.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/feb/01/terry-pratchett-alzheimer-assisted-suicide

It’s a good read, a heck of a lot better than any tripe the god-botherers serve up.

Concerned says:

04:39pm | 27/09/10

mickijo

Indeed that must have been a horrible thing to witness - however, do you realise at legislation for euthanasia would not address your mother and family’s distress.  The person has to be able to give consent and be examined as legally, medically and ethically able to make a decision about whether to terminate or not. Your mother would have been unable to be assessed in such a manner. This is where involuntary euthanasia, or mercy killing would raise its head. Would you want to have been the one to kill your mother? Or would you expect a doctor trained and sworn to “do no harm” do this for you??  This is why many of us are looking beyond the simplistic and emotive urgings of the pro-euthanasia proponents try to sweep under the carpet. It is more complex than these people would have us all believe.

Bobster says:

04:36pm | 27/09/10

@ Super D, by that logic we need to empty our prisons immediately. How can we be sure the people in there haven’t been subjected to miscarriages of justice?

Nope, checks and balances aren’t up to scratch so no more prison.

No more cars either - can’t be sure they won’t be used irresponsibly.

Some parents force their children to play football and then they get injured - I’ve had a buggered knee for 10 years because of this barbarous practice.

No more football.

And what about this army business I’ve been hearing about lately? Did you know there’s two wars on and young men are being ordered to get shot at? There used to be something called a draft too - bloody hell, what scope of manipulation there.

Nothing’s perfect mate, the argument here isn’t about cramming all of the oldies in a geriatric abbattoir, it’s about giving people a choice balanced by the best possible safeguards humans can muster.

Exactly how do divisive perjoratives and emotionally charged straw man arguments advance the debate about how to peacefully end suffering while minimising risk of misuse?

A Bob says:

03:41pm | 27/09/10

Names like ‘pro-euthanasia brigade’ make it sound like a black and white issue, which so often characterises the conservative position.

There are always bad eggs. My mother described families who only visited their parents at Christmas, and if various factions were unfortunate enough to turn up at the same time, they would openly war about who would get what when the old girl/boy kicked it. Right in front of them.

I too persuaded my mother to change her will when her condition was declared terminal. In my case I had her give most of my inheritance to other people. It cuts both ways.

They article is written to suggest that the negaitive case is the only possible outcome legalisation. I am not nearly so wise to make such assertions.

Shane says:

03:32pm | 27/09/10

So Super D, you don’t THINK you would push euthaniasia onto your parents? Nice.

I will assume that it was a typo rather than a demonstration of why you don’t want these laws to come in, especially if you are undecided about whether to bump off your folks.

Matt says:

03:14pm | 27/09/10

I’m not Christian and I remain opposed to legal, doctor-delivered euthanasia.

I hear of enough miscarriages of justice in the legal system to convince that any panel, however wise and objective, will not make some terrible, terrible mistakes.

Dina says:

02:13pm | 27/09/10

Every euthanasia law I’ve seen has checks and balances in place to prevent this, though. In Washington State, for example, your request has to be approved by two doctors. You must be mentally competent when you make your request, and there is a 17 day waiting period between the initial request and receiving the prescription. This isn’t a decision your son or daughter can make for you.

If those checks weren’t in place in a law, I would be fighting against it.

Austin 3:16 says:

07:57pm | 27/09/10

Hey Matt - people living in unbearable pain waiting for a merciful release is what’s happening now. The scare mongering is make beleive.

Big difference.

Matt says:

03:11pm | 27/09/10

@Tedd. That was exactly my point. Objecting to emotional arguments from people opposed to euthanasia, when the pro-mercy killing proponents roll them out by the barrel load is a bit rich, don’t you think?

Tedd says:

12:17pm | 27/09/10

Implying a medical team would want to kill old people off, or throw them on ‘the scrap-heap’,  is about as anecdotal or “emotional” as arguments could get, Matt.

Matt says:

11:49am | 27/09/10

The argument for the killing of the terminally ill relies heavily on anecdote and on highly emotional arguments. Scare-mongering about unbearable pain and suffering is OK but “scare mongering” about old people living in the fear that their family and medical team want to kill them off is not?

Some push back the other way does not seem out of order to me.

Steely Dan says:

11:44am | 27/09/10

@ Matt

““voluntary” euthanasia”
Why the inverted commas, Matt? 

“Society is supposed to protect the most vulnerable, not legalise throwing them on the scrapheap.”
If I am in pain, and want to end my life, I want the power to appoint someone to assist me in doing so.  How is that legalising throwing people on the ‘scrapheap’?

Steely Dan says:

11:32am | 27/09/10

@ Tedd

Delighted to hear it.  Point being?

Tedd says:

11:07am | 27/09/10

Steely Dan, ArchB Jensen is all for double charity

“We try to link up aid — like aid in education or in helping people grow crops or whatever — with the growth of the gospel as well,” he says.

http://www.sydneyanglicans.net/news/stories/worldwide_aid_agency_for_sydney_anglicans/media

Steely Dan says:

05:02pm | 28/09/10

@ Moggy

Every religious reference in ‘Mein Kampf’ begs to differ.

Moggy says:

05:21pm | 27/09/10

Hitler was NOT a Christian!! He believed in the Teuton Gods & Valhala, this why he was so hung up on the music of Wagner. In fact Hiltler had quite a few Christians who were fighting what he was doing to the Jews either deported or sent to the same death camps as the Jews. I have family who witnessed this in Germany.

L. says:

03:59pm | 27/09/10

Darvio said ..“M’mmm - and Hitler was a Christian and he euthanasied 6 million Jews without their approval.”

Umm….no. “Euthanasia without concent” isn’t euthanasia,  it’s murder.

We are talking about people who do consent…massive difference.

Phil says:

03:43pm | 27/09/10

Genocide is hardly the same thing as euthanasia is it now .. talk about going OT

Trying to argue who did what and if they were atheists or religious still doesnt change what has happened or make these people or events any less evil does it?
That should be the issue (not that its related to the topic) not trying to blame or palm off “evil” as a religious or atheist trait.

Tedd says:

03:18pm | 27/09/10

Greg, by your “reasoning” at least the Catholic teachers who taught Pol Pot for 6-8 years have a lot to answer for (and if he was baptised, well ...call the Pope?). 

Stalin attended a Church School before his Seminary years, so no doubt his Priest and teachers have to answer, too.  Stalin remained privately religious all his life, too.

Steely Dan says:

02:05pm | 27/09/10

@ Greg

“atheists also have a lot to answer for.”
I assume you mean that atheists who have done something wrong have something to answer for. 

And if you want to count Stalin as an atheist, you’d have to count Mussolini as a Catholic.  Mussolini was an atheist, but became Catholic.

Greg says:

01:20pm | 27/09/10

yeah good point,

Pol Pot - atheist
Kim Ill Sung - atheist
Benito Mussolini - atheist
Slobodan Miloševi? - atheist
Jean Kambanda - atheist
Stalin - became an atheist

and the list goes on - Fair enough blaming religion for some of the world problems but get a grip an admit that atheists also have a lot to answer for.

Steely Dan says:

10:40am | 27/09/10

P. Darvio

You’re not helping.  Every time you equate murder with euthanasia you’re supporting the dolts who can’t tell the difference.

And yes, Hitler was Christian and Stalin was a seminarian - but let’s stay away from the Godwinian downward spiral, please.

cati says:

06:37am | 28/09/10

so on the end you push the button not your mother, and you can justify it to yourself this way.
As for the “we treat our animals better” has anybody asked animals if they wanted this?

Bruce says:

03:33pm | 27/09/10

Agree: We treat our animals better !

fairsfair says:

02:17pm | 27/09/10

so now it is religIon’s fault that families fight over inheritence?

I am an athiest and my parents are non-practicing christians. My mother is a protestant. We never discuss religion other than my dad’s stories on not being able to give up catholocism for the Masons. He claims he wasn’t beaten ever day of his life to give it all up now. His experiences with religion are not the same as everyone’s - we can all see that - and he has never once tried to sway us on what we “choose to do with our soul”.

Everyone fights over this sh*t because at the time getting your mitts on something that belonged to your loved one might just make it easier. It doesn’t, but at the time you aren’t thinking rationally. Sadly, this is always viewed as an act of greed by others and their refusal to recognise that having those feelings and subsequently refusing to communicate about the issue is probably just as bad as taking the stuff in the first place.

The right to choose belongs to the life. Not the family of the life. I do see the author’s point though. My grandma decided to divvy up all of her stuff before she died - that was far worse. We pleaded with her that it was not the right thing to do, but all she wanted to do was to somehow bring on her death. If euthenasia was available she would have started the process years before her death and if one of her children had of hinted at even one point brought up in this article/letter - it would have just confirmed it all for her.

Death and the loss of loved ones is horrible. It can never be prepared for and it never comes at the right time - whether or not you chose to make it happen or someone else does. I doubt anyone out there has a positive experience surrounding the division of their loved one’s property. Even when someone says “I dont’ want anything” that hurts - what is their stuff not good enough for you? Why aren’t you helping with the clean out?

We will always find an issue becuase it is an emotionally charged situation. However, imagine if you also had the fact that decisions that you and your loved one made together brought this about? Whether or not is is the “right thing” or the “best thing” - I could not live with that.

Religion has nothing to do with the “bad experiences”.

Austin 3:16 says:

05:16pm | 27/09/10

Hey Vickim, did you read the authors bio by any chance ?

Vicki PS says:

03:43pm | 27/09/10

Exactly.  The pressure to hurry up and go needn’t be as blatant as outright abuse or coercion, but the language used is a giveaway.  It’s all I, I, I—I can’t bear to see you like this etc.  The desire to avoid giving pain to loved ones is a powerful impetus for decision-making, whether or not family members are consciously trying to influence the person.

And by the way, the kneejerk assumption that opponents of assisted suicide are driven by religious conviction is insulting as well as stupid.  It isn’t some kind of sophistry to simply recognise that the decision to end life is the only action that is irreversible.

DocBud says:

11:06am | 28/09/10

The possibility of someone abusing a right is not a justification for not granting it (we’ll not get into the argument that it is not the state’s place to grant rights). Simplistically, we don’t deny property ownership to eliminate theft. By the same logic, we should not deny people the right to make their own choices about their body and life just because some may seek to abuse that right. We should allow the right but apply appropriate controls to dissuade the potential abusers.

Similarly, supposed policy drift, thin ends of wedges and all other attempts to imply that what is clearly intended to give rights to people of sound mind and judgement will, in the blink of an eye, be used to relieve us of the unwanted and unloved, and to solve the pension time bomb, are equally not valid arguments against.

Lara says:

11:25pm | 27/09/10

‘denying rights to prevent criminal or immoral behaviour..’
Which niave state-of-mind are you living in? This is not an intellectual game here! As you get older you see more and more often the selfishness and egotism that is at the centre of so many lives. How many elderly people are passing their last years in nursing homes, isolated and lonely? Are you telling me we are doing right by our old?
Ok, so euthenasia may have to be passed by a panel… if there is legislation, it has to be done right. The damage to our culture could be huge. What, for example, of the old, unloved and aggressive woman with alzeimhers… ? Will she be protected because she is not of sound mind?
Policy drift is a reality, surely, just like taxation’s bracket creep…
All pregnant women who are at any statistical risk of Down Syndrome babies are now encouraged to screen their pregnancies…the unspoken pressure being the ‘opportunity’ to abort a potentially Down Syndrome foetus…is this correct?

DocBud says:

09:22am | 27/09/10

If the only argument those opposed to euthanasia have is that you should not have the right of choice over your own body because others might try and abuse that right, then they have no argument. Denying rights to prevent criminal or immoral behaviour is a ridiculous premise, as ridiculous as imposing one’s faith based beliefs on others who do not share those beliefs.

LC says:

08:02pm | 07/04/11

“PS a disclaimer that the author is heavily influenced by religious bias would be good on an article like this.”

Funny that you mention this.

A man who was rendered a quadriplegic after a climbing accident was allowed to refuse to be fed and end his life on his terms. Of course, the usual suspects got up in arms about it, with one group going as far as to challenge the verdict through appeal. Thankfully, the judge threw it out of court.

This is the point where it gets ironic. The religious group who wish to deny him and the public in general the right to end their lives on their terms is the SAME religious group who stopped human trials of a method that cured spinal cord injuries in lab rats. A cure which may have given him a motivation to continue living.

The sooner religion is dead, the better.

Austin 3:16 says:

04:19pm | 28/09/10

Hey Steph,

So you don’t think that the authors religous convictions in any way influenced the article?

It’s a heck of a coincidence then.

Steph says:

02:03pm | 28/09/10

There is NOTHING in this article on religion! Seriously, I just scoured through it, not a mention of faith, or God, or morals, or anything! The letter is letting the reader come to their own conclusions as to why the Euthanasia laws can be bad. What is this, “Rant on Christians because we can” week or something? did I miss the memo? Go throw your religious hate somewhere else. Like an Athiest rally or something.

Steely Dan says:

12:39pm | 28/09/10

“PS a disclaimer that the author is heavily influenced by religious bias would be good on an article like this. “
Excellent point.  Why does Michael Jensen oppose euthanasia?  Not for any of the ‘reasons’ he mentioned in the article, that’s my guess (you’re welcome to tell me I’m wrong, Michael).  I think it’s reasonable to assume that the following factors influence the author opposition of euthanasia:
1) Christian doctrine, as understood by Michael Jensen.
2) See 1)

This is the problem with people trying to invent secular justifications for positions they hold on religious grounds.  The reasoning above didn’t convince Michael Jensen that euthanasia is bad.  So why would he think it would convince anyone else?

Leto says:

09:29am | 28/09/10

Good post

riddlemethis says:

11:15am | 27/09/10

And being vulnerable, depressed and elderly will be exactly the kinds of conditions that would preclude ANY panel of medical experts from signing off on such a person opting for euthanasia.  The option of which would be available under very strict criteria & after all other avenues for that person’s well-being are exhausted.  People obviously think that professionals involved in end-of-life stage care can’t tell the difference between a desperately suffering terminally ill person & one who is being abused.

Gonzo says:

04:26pm | 27/09/10

Truth is not decided by majority vote.
- Thoureau

Isabel says:

08:34am | 27/09/10

And that’s a fact. I would not have believed until seen with my own eyes, the speed with which valuables were removed from my mother’s house on the day after her funeral so that any equal division among siblings became a farce. I can’t recall being as disgusted by any other activity I have personally witnessed. However, on retelling this over the years, it appears to be almost normal and an expression of grief as much as greed.

Pete says:

02:52pm | 28/09/10

Steph is right. And it’s not just fear of being euthanased, older people gave up their lives because they felt they were a burden on their families. That’s the problem with Euthanasia, the law effects people who are closest to death. The largest population of these people are the elderly. Personally, I’d hope my generation values them, but I don’t take that for granted given some of the attitudes I’ve encountered. For that reason alone, beyond my beliefs or anything else, I think this one of most dangerous laws possible. And if you think it doesn’t effect you, give yourself 40 or 50 years.

Steely Dan says:

02:17pm | 28/09/10

@ Steph

Source?

Steph says:

01:53pm | 28/09/10

But it has! Look at the Netherlands! IT’s common there! The elderly are afraid to enter hospital because there’s a good chance they won’t come out. Lack of beds, and hey they’ve lived a good life….

LC says:

07:38pm | 07/04/11

Firstly, don’t pretend palliative care is a treatment. It’s nothing more than a place where people are left to die.

The purpose of the panel (which would consist of 2 doctors and a psychiatrist) is:
- To make sure that the patient is well aware of his condition
- To make sure that the patient is psychologically capable of making decisions such as this. Unfortunately, just like in the Netherlands and Switzerland, that means patients suffering from Alzheimers or similar illnesses cannot get euthanasia.

Oh, and I didn’t expect to see Godwin’s law invoked so early. I am ashamed.

Chris L says:

06:17pm | 27/09/10

Just a mention of your debating style, Concerned.
“You were so quick to denigrate - you missed the point.”
Tedd was criticising the points you made, not you. If you want an example of denegration try your own post:
“The cry of a selfish, over indulged, uncaring, hedonistic generation.”
Don’t worry, you’re not alone. I see many people posting in this forum who resort to name calling and insulting the intelligence of others yet they cry victim when their own view is criticised. It makes political discussions both annoying and entertaining at the same time.

Dina says:

02:05pm | 27/09/10

This doesn’t really hold forth with what’s happened in jurisdictions where euthanasia is legal. As a case study, here are the effects of the state law in Oregon: http://law.jrank.org/pages/6602/Euthanasia-Oregon-s-Euthanasia-Law.html

Muttley says:

02:00pm | 27/09/10

Concerned, you give yourself away by stating that those who dont agree with you are obviously not as intelligent or “questioning” as you are. What a lot of arrogant rot. As someone who has watched a parent wither away in palliative care, you sir are uninformed. Palliative care is not a treatment, it is where you park people to die.

Bethany says:

12:28pm | 27/09/10

@DocBud
Well said.

DocBud says:

11:42am | 27/09/10

It is hardly surprising that the issue is about “I”, Concerned, as it is a matter of individual rights, principally the right to be able to choose what we do to our own bodies without the interference of other people’s values. You apply your values to your body, but let me apply my values to my body.

I have no desire to impose my beliefs on others, I just wish others didn’t feel so passionately about imposing their beliefs on me.

Concerned says:

11:03am | 27/09/10

Tedd
You were so quick to denigrate - you missed the point.  I said Senator Brown and his ilk (the latter covering those who blindly agree with him on the legalisation of killing human beings)  I presume you are one of the “ilk” and as such cannot comprehend or tolerate anyone with a more questioning and intelligent view.

Tedd says:

10:41am | 27/09/10

Concerned, it is not necessary to attack Senator Brown - there are many more in this debate so an ad hominem attack on one is an unfair fallacy.  the masses are a lot more thinking than they use to be.

What does God have reservations about, and why does the PM not acknowledge that?

Your first paragraph is full of straw-men.  Of course it is about not suffering, even tho ‘that is rare in Western societies with modern medical care.

Concerned says:

09:42am | 27/09/10

Sheldon You are spot on.  If one listens to the strident euthanasia proponents it is mainly all about “I” - ‘I want to be able to decide’, ‘I want the choice’, ‘I don’t want to suffer’, ‘I don’t want to watch a loved one suffer’, ‘I want,  I want, I want’ ad nauseum.  The cry of a selfish, over indulged, uncaring, hedonistic generation.

I would like the Greens and their ilk to be honest and upfront about their real agenda. Why when there are so many crying needs for helping the living in our country, to say nothing about the suffering of those in others, Senator Bob Brown’s “priority” is killing people under the guise of killing people so they can “die with dignity” - when so many cannot even live with dignity in our nation and on this planet.  You might fool the masses Bob, but there are still some intelligent, truly compassionate, thinking, caring people in our country who really question what you are really about. Even our PM, who does not acknowledge God has reservations - thank goodness. Shame some of her colleagues who are grasping after this death scheme in states, territories and nationally are not so discerning.

Interestingly the polls on this purportedly say 80% of people in Australia are for legalising assisted suicide/murder - but that in the group between 45-65 - the poll results fell to 18% approval for it among the 65 to 74 aged groups. I guess the closer death comes, the more seriously one regards how precious life really is.

Rossco says:

09:37am | 27/09/10

Godwins Law Sheldon, please wiki it.

Dr To Be says:

08:54am | 27/09/10

As a soon-to-be medical professional, I frankly find your position on this issue insulting. Studies of medical professionals in the Netherlands where euthanasia is legal show that a majority of Doctors believe that palliative care cannot, and most probably will never alleviate all of the suffering associated with terminal illness.

To make a credible addition to the argument it would be best to firstly spell ‘panel’ correctly and realise that doctors really have no vested interests in prolonging or shortening the lives of patients outside of their own patient’s best interests. Patients are more than capable of articulating their own wishes regarding end of life care, and euthanasia and palliative care both have important roles in the easing of suffering.

To deny patients the choice is to deprive patient autonomy and condemn individuals to needless suffering.

P.s. jumping to Nazi germany as an example is for high school debating, it rarely helps your case.

Tedd says:

08:08am | 27/09/10

Yes, palliative care is the way to go, and will be more than suitable for 98%+ of patients with progressive terminal disease.

To say the role of doctor will be turned from one of preserving life to one who destroys it is a false dichotomy: medicine and its practitioners are much more nuanced.

1930s Germany and women voting are unnecessary red herrings.

It will be a lot more nuanced than an individual decision or a panel of doctors (another false dichotomy) - it will involve guardianship, power of attorney, and probably a third or fourth party.  Even then, euthanasia is unlikely to be common, because palliative care is good.

iansand says:

08:07am | 27/09/10

One, if not the major, task of the “panel of doctors” is to ensure that the person seeking euthanasia wants that outcome and truly understands the consequences.

KH says:

07:59am | 27/09/10

What the?  The person who is ill makes the decision - it is confirmed by doctors.  Other people don’t make the decision.  Thats why its euthanasia, not murder.  Personally I never understood why killing yourself is illegal.  I mean its your life, do what you want with it.  Its probably some religious crap, again.

And how does wanting other people dead or women voting fit into this?  This argument is possibly worse than the article itself.

Mark says:

12:07pm | 28/09/10

yes they will. Men kill themselves all the time out of a sense of guilt, because they feel their families would be “better off” without them. This is a complicated issue. It is not simple. There are many factors in play when a person is terminally ill. It is difficult to see how legislation could protect against the kind of letter that Michael has provided above; not an out-right demand for the patient to end her life, but the pressure of guilt and a sense that they are unwanted, that as a teminally ill person their personhood is undesirable. Once that is placed on someone who may already be depressed and will certainly be suffering it amounts to undue pressure which it is difficult to see the state finding the legislation to protect against. Unless they stop a son writing a letter to his mother expressing how he feels…

catherine says:

07:36am | 01/10/10

The author of this article in spot on. Just read former Governor Bill Haydens speech on voluntary euthanasia to Doctors a few years ago where he describedthe elderly as unproductive burdens who had a duty to die and stop being a drain on society.  My father died of dementia and was in a nursing home and every week he lived cost us money. Now we personally were fine with that, but SOME people would say “” well the old boy is dementing, he has no quality of life, the longer he lives the less money there is for us, ( thus lowering our quallity of life) etc etc
Go google Graeme Wylie. Graeme Wylie was a Sydney man who was dementing. Uniortunately for Graeme he had a 2.4 million dollar estate and a greedy de facto. who got him to rewrite his will ( when he was dementing) leaving her 2.2 of 2.4 million!! She gave him an overdose of Nembutol although as a dementing man he could not give his consent to die.The last will he made was overturned in court as the judge said hhe was not of sound mind when he made the last well. Wylie’‘s defacto was convicted of manslaughter and still got the proceeds of his original will which gave her 1.2 million as onlya murder conviction stops you from being the beneficiary.
I won’t be leaving any money to my relatives, and if voluntary euthanasia is made law I would advise other people to tell their relatives all their money has been left to charity

Cate P says:

11:51am | 28/09/10

It is honest,  not shallow.  In caring for the dying elderly, I’ve seen this sort of thing happen already time and again.  I’ve seen wealthy families take everything that wasn’t nailed down from the room before their relative has even passed away, while I’ve been sitting with the dying person; and I mean everything - they don’t even leave one clean item of clothing to dress their relative in after their death.  They have questioned the cost of final care for their relative and not even paid the priest for conducting the funeral.

Tone says:

10:59am | 28/09/10

Doctor, your extrapolation is rather simplistic.

Ish says:

10:00am | 28/09/10

I agree with Anne. This article is completely insensitive. Unless you have had to sit back and watch helplessly as a loved one is taken by a terminal illness then I really don’t believe you should be sprouting your biased point of view.

I was in this situation, I watched as my Mum was taken by cancer. I held her hand as she struggled to take her last breaths. An inheritance was the last thing on my mind, and I didn’t get one anyway. All I was worried about was losing my Mum and what was going to happen to her and how she felt.

I’m annoyed by your drivel! Perhaps euthanasia is a selfish option for those who are watching their loved one slowly being taken from them, but not due to greed. It’s the pain in watching them have to suffer, you don’t want to see them like that, you don’t want it prolonged longer than it needs to be. You want them to die with dignity.

Doctor says:

08:12pm | 27/09/10

Dear Anne,
Euthanasia may not start off with material greed (or it may).  But it will certainly end up with material greed driving it.  Take the issue of abortion for example.  When the Abortion Act was introduced in 1967, people did not believe that it will be motivated by material greed.  Look at it now, people are aborting unborn children because of money and career.  I am a doctor and when patients come to see me asking for an abortion, it’s almost always driven by material greed.

austin 3:16 says:

08:11pm | 27/09/10

Gonzo, how about instead of religious “adults who never learned to let go of imaginary friends”.  Or “over active imaginations dwelling in fantasy land”

Theology should not interfere with reality.  At least Anne seems to have put some thought into her comments.

Gonzo says:

04:24pm | 27/09/10

Anne, I’m not religious, but I think you goet it wrong when calling it “Christian message”. How about non-Christians with moral values for life?

If you think the article is insensitive, I think your comment is ignorant - and I have a basis for it, unlike you.

Phil says:

02:45pm | 27/09/10

@Jane
“Then, why such a fuss about young suicides? “

Because people love to medal in others lives thinking they know what is best for them.

Jane says:

12:44pm | 27/09/10

“People should be able to choose how they live and how they die. End of story.”

Then, why such a fuss about young suicides?

Austin 3:16 says:

12:39pm | 27/09/10

Hey Higher Nest,

Actually it’s more like saying we should keep cars, but we should scrap all road rules and regulations.  Because that would somehow be better and safer - somehow.

Higher Nest says:

10:17am | 27/09/10

Anne is right.

This whole article is pointless and entirely misses the issue.

It’s like saying we should ban cars because some people crash them or speed in them.

Maybe we should ban religion as people start wars over religious beliefs (not to mention the oppression of personal freedoms going on in the name of religion everywhere).

People should be able to choose how they live and how they die. End of story.

Rose says:

08:49am | 27/09/10

Tedd, it is because of stories like that that there is a big problem with enacting laws that allow people to end their lives. When money becomes the key motivating force in a decision about the care of a family member, there is a clear need to tread very carefully toward the enactment of such laws. I would rather see euthanasia remain illegal than see the potential unintended consequences. Oh, and yes, I have seen people close to me die of such horrible illnesses as cancer, and while my heart went out to them, palliative care was sufficient to make their deaths as comfortable as possible and they themselves showed no inclination to speed things up. If it were just about ending one’s suffering that would be one thing, but people have emotional and financial baggage that can muddy the waters.

Tedd says:

08:25am | 27/09/10

Simon, a moral compass ought to also point to the people with progressive terminal disease not relieved by optimal palliative and other care, including the care of family and friends.

Tedd says:

08:20am | 27/09/10

Rose, there have been and will be lots of stories like that.  They need to be looked at in context of a number of things, including whether there would be optimal care outside a nursing home.

Rose says:

08:08am | 27/09/10

Are you suggesting that it will not happen, because if you are you are very wrong. Just a few days ago a friend of mine was devastated when her brother’s reaction to the idea of placing their 90+ year old mother in a nursing home was to reject the idea as it would take too much money out of the inheritance. Greed exists, and once someone has taken this option to ‘protect the family’, it’s not like they can come back and tell you about it! It only needs to happen once or twice and then the laws would have failed those they are meant to protect.

Simon says:

08:02am | 27/09/10

Of course it is insensitive…Michael is trying to make a point.  I have no doubt this thought process does go on internally with SOME.  Euthanasia is one of the knottiest issues there is…but not if you have a moral compass.