Bartlett's Blog

Advertisement

1. philip travers

   I simply ask the question,why is the right to end ones life somehow connected with the right of Doctors to claim they know the state of mind and body,enough to regularise the ending of one’s life!?There are alternative health measures that arent experimented with,to either reduce pain or allow a mental process that is more open to the self-preparation of one’s death.Rarely sought out,rarely opined about,but still acessible.What about floatation tanks,and combining these with understandings found in Nexus Magazine and alternative states of mind inducing technologies,that have been around awhile.Musical scores,administered pre-any decision of self-termination,in floatation tanks.Morphine and floatation tanks,Colour therapy within the structure of floatation tanks.Electro-stimulation within floatation tanks,Mild aromatherapy in floatation tanks.Olive oil baths,heated,followed by a hot sea water bath,or reverse.The problem of pain is one matter,which is obviously overwhelming in these cases.The reason for self-termination,is thus a function in part or full of that associated pain.A richer person would be all to willing to try other matters besides accepting the total event immediately,if law was right for doing so.Simply because pain maybe more manageable.Palliative care should not be dominated by medical insight,after all,over -servicing maybe a reason why the individual wants to self terminate.Being free at the end of ones life from doctors could be important.

   Apr 15th, 2008

2. Thomas

   I haven’t read his comments, but I imagine that Marshall Perron’s point might be similar to this: any religious considerations on the issue are personal in nature, and that while individuals and faith communities should decide their own positions and the manner in which they’ll conduct themselves within whatever laws are passed, their necessarily subjective and personal religious ideas may be of little value in deciding an objective, practicable policy for society, as a whole, to follow.

   There are, of course, religious organisations and individuals that will bring objectively important and valuable views to the table (those that work in palliative care and community services, for instance) but I think that ignoring the more religious assertions boil down to that “I think that God said it’s bad, so we ought not let people do it” should not be contentious.

   Apr 15th, 2008

3. frank luff

   Why do some people seek authority over others? What right do they have to force them to stay alive?
   Free will is appropriate while alive, so it should be to die!
   Why do they seek power over the fundamental right to die without them leaving a mess for others to clean uo?
   fluff4

   Apr 15th, 2008

4. Lorikeet

   I think Dr Philip Nitschke is a decent fellow, who possesses a great deal of intestinal fortitude.

   I don’t think religious people should be able to decide these matters for EVERYONE – only their own individual life.

   To my knowledge, if patients are dying in agony, doctors bump up their pain relief until it eventually kills them.

   I’ve also heard that when there aren’t enough life support systems available for a sudden influx of critical patients, doctors allow the people with the least life expectancy to die. (Not much choice in it, I suppose.)

   But in the back of my mind, I’m still concerned about greedy relatives with dollar signs in their eyes.

   If 50% of euthanasias in Holland are indeed carried out without the patient’s consent, I have to be against it.

   Then there’s the fact that most people can easily finish themselves off without the benefit of lawmakers or doctors, if they so choose.

   But I’m not helping anyone commit suicide on this blog.

   Apr 15th, 2008

5. Naomi Cartledge

   I find the arguments against euthanasia quite hypocritical from the religious,politicians etc.They stand up in the parliament or pulpit & rave on about sancitity of life blah blah but have probably never cared or been close to people dying from hideous diseases.If they’re so strong on life’s sanctity they should shout out every day about the obscenity in Iraq;starvation, weapons manufacture & $$billions on bombs & land mines for example.They should run campaigns against capital punishment,instead of ‘cherry picking’ the people to defend.We should also have a discussion about the use of heroin as a last stage analgesia.I’ve read that it’s more efficient than morphine,but allows the person to engage with family/friends/rather than be in a stupor?There’s a gross hypocrisy in this regard.Check out CIA+drugs & read it yourselves,or the poppy industry in Afghanistan.A woman only a couple of days ago,suggested that those poppies be used for legal morphine sales in Europe;the growers would still receive an income,but US says a resounding “NO”- a bit like their attitude to the sancitity of life vs death penalty? If I had a terminal disease,& was in intractable pain without adequate pain relief,I should have the choice to end it-legally & with dignity.Perhaps I’ve watched too many loved ones die.I don’t recall many “right to life” people caring for them,or even supporting their family members-a bit like the abortion issue-they’re often the ones who inquire ‘on the quiet’?I’ve known about this double standard for years,having been ivolved with women’s health issues!
   Phillip Nitschke is a courageous man,who keeps on going regardless.Of course there should be protections-but we’re an intelligent lot,we can do that!They do it in Denmark & the Netherlands!There’s ‘Ethics panels’ at many hospitals -legal people!I want to make the choice!Not be dictated to by someone/s who don’t give a fig!

   Apr 16th, 2008

6. Sam Clifford

   That’s the thing, Thomas, it’s not up to religious people to make decisions for the rest of us according to their personal beliefs. The role of the state is to provide an environment in which personal choice can be exercised in the broader society.

   If you don’t like Euthanasia, don’t get Euthanised. Same for gay marriage; if you don’t like gay marriage don’t get one. Recognition that others have personal beliefs different from yours is an important part of living in a democratic society. Building a framework to allow people to live by their moral codes without interfering with each other is the big challenge.

   It is _not_ the role of government to legislate our morality for us.

   Apr 16th, 2008

7. ken

   While I generally agree in principle with you there Sam – I do find it slightly ironic that those who clamour most for freewill on some issues are all for social / government regulation and control on others, or do so generally on issues that they agree or support rather than across the board.

   Apr 16th, 2008

8. Naomi Cartledge

   ken-There’s a lot of difference in things that governments should ‘control’ like taking taxes for communal needs; education, health etc and dictating how we should live or die in private. In fact, the Howard govt brought in the Law about not even discussing euthanasia by phone etc.This site could even be against their law or close to it! We can’t even read Philip’s book on euthanasia!That’s taking ‘control’ many steps further than is necessary – and is worse than a ‘big brother’ mentality! I wish they were that energetic about violent videos & games, or the ads on late at night for call girls. I’m no prude by any means,but I find them irritating and hypocritical!I’m a feminist,and find ads for the sale of women’s ‘bits’ offensive & demeaning!I should be able to read a book though, that doesn’t impinge on any one else’s privacy, or is imparting any information to anyone else! Unlike the ‘god botherers’ Philip doesn’t force his opinions on people,but the Law prevents him holding seminars for INTERESTED PEOPLE! Now that’s going too far!

   Apr 16th, 2008

9. Sam Clifford

   The limits to freedom is that you shouldn’t be reducing others’ freedom by your actions. Euthanasia doesn’t really have much of an impact on society at large and so it’s easy to justify on an individual rights level.

   Apr 16th, 2008

10. philip travers

    I cannot even get Senator Andrew Bartlett to acknowledge the realm of mind distorting technologies that work remotely,and, are hinted at in a number of magazines and sites,and are prospective,if one takes a view that, patents unpublished constitute a implied threat at least,as reported on from time to time in science journals,incl. New Scientist.All major military countries do this..and much has been written about the U.S.A. and the CIA which as an organisation sprang from criminal activity from the U.S.A.government.I say sincerely,and regretfully,that I am not attempting to sing up a conspiracy that suggest the very ill are being put through torment by remote technologies.There is little respect for suggesting such.I do so because it needs to be aired regularily,we do not know what technology is operating 24 hours a day on frequencies etc.outside our capacities to measure and locate.There is no need to ask why they,whoever they are,would do this to ill people.Having my head nearly rammed a number of times into the computer screen recently,after micro-sleeping whilst using computer,with no symptoms of long term mental or health problems,as self-evidenced by the work I can do ,where symptoms are impossible under full work conditions,but attempts on me of control still proceeding.I know what I am saying..is unavoidable fact.The fact,that I alone know it as a fact,means ,until some event translates into general acceptance of what I am saying,I am duty bound to warn and warn again,which includes the personal and deep dilemma that,this event may never translate,and yet what I observe will not make it easier for me in not warning.The lack of interest in determining wether large or very small numbers of Australians are being tormented .in many ways remotely isnt a simple subject to accept or deny, because it is all on the borders,of belief,and all the connotations of that ,which apply.Ill people driven into deeper self destruct modes,accident life-self-loathing is too much

    Apr 17th, 2008

11. Lorikeet

    I think we need to keep in mind the situation where 50% of euthanasias occurring in Holland are not agreed to by the euthanasee.

    I don’t believe in absolute freedom for anyone, Sam. That’s just as bad as totalitarianism.

    Apr 17th, 2008

12. GZG

    Such a big issue Andrew; the “sanctity of life” to which you referred is sadly incompatible with euthanasia.

    If one accepts that life is sacred (and I’m of course aware that many here are a little more cavalier in their take on life), then the question is not whether such people should have a legal right to kill themselves at all.

    Of course the best palliative care won’t negate some individuals desire to die (but it sure takes away an awful lot of the “justification” to kill yourself). Indeed good palliative care assists the surrounding loved ones as well. Focusing on improvement in palliative care would make a lot more sense than lobbying for optional death.

    Lorikeet #4: I think Nitschke is sincere but misguidedly ignores his professional obligation to “do no harm”.

    If you find 50% non-consensual euthanasias in Holland to be unacceptable, what % would hit the mark for you (as being okey dokey)?

    Naomi Cartledge #5: Doing your own bit of cherry picking I’d have thought, not to mention the broad sweeping generalisations eg. “probably never cared or been close to people dying from hideous diseases”.

    Sam Clifford: Re “If don’t like euthanasia, don’t get euthanised etc etc.” Not really a big leap to accept incest and (consensual) paedophilia or walking naked down the street is it? Let’s not complicate life with morals?

    Euthanasia’s “impact on society at large” would be far, far beyond the mere stats of some extra deaths. The sanctity of life has been a part of the fabric of western society for 1000’s of years …. what’s changed? Are we “smarter” now?

    Apr 17th, 2008

13. Lorikeet

    GZG:

    No, we are stupider now, in a lot of ways. People don’t think broadly enough about the repercussions (across a wide spectrum) of legalising previously unacceptable behaviours.

    I would prefer zero non-consensual euthanasia, but I don’t trust human nature in that regard.

    In defence of Nitschke, I don’t think he’s harming anyone if he’s ending their terminal pain and suffering – but only in specific, well-defined cases such as advanced motor neuron disease.

    Some people might successfully argue that we are kinder to our dogs.

    However, if it came to a referendum, I would vote against euthanasia.

    Quite apart from anything else, we don’t need laws to aid us in committing suicide.

    Apr 18th, 2008

14. GZG

    Lorikeet: We differ on whether death is harmful and thereby on whether Nitschke contravenes the Hippocratic oath when dealing with extremely vulnerable people. Granted that oath may be a little passé in these liberated times – Naomi Cartledge will surely vomit in recognition of it’s un-PC and paternalistic tones.

    What an ethically and legally challenging task it would be to draft “specific, well-defined” conditions conducive to murder/suicide. Surely it would require more than four words (“advanced motor neuron disease”) per case. It was so much simpler when (from past work experience) patients, typically MV accident victims, were assessed on the basis of defined responses to specific neurological stimuli with a view to cease active life support (ventilation in particular).

    Some people might successfully argue that we propose to treat fellow humans like dogs.

    Without apologies to Greens, I say let’s be human and remain humane. Life is precious.

    Apr 18th, 2008

15. Lorikeet

    GZG:

    One of my cousins (17 years old) had his skull crushed in a motor vehicle accident.

    Doctors advised my aunt and uncle to have his life support switched off and allow him to die with dignity, because he would only ever be a “vegetable”.

    They agreed, and I’m sure they made the right decision. That was 30 years ago.

    I don’t believe that ending a person’s terminal suffering in extreme circumstances is harmful at all. It may do more damage to keep them alive – to their relatives and friends as well.

    My own father died of emphysema, after many near-death experiences from asphyxiation. He was eventually found dead in a public hospital bathroom.

    But my father could still have committed suicide without the help of doctors or lawmakers, if he so chose.

    Apr 18th, 2008

16. muzzmonster

    Can someone please tell me where this figure of 50% of Holland’s euthanasia being not consensual? I find it hard to believe and have never heard this figure used before.

    Apr 18th, 2008

17. togret

    muzzmonster – one source of some stats I found ( http://www.minvws.nl/en/themes/euthanasia/ … go down the the evaluation link and follow it to the table on 2001 stats compared with 2005 stats )gives the non-consensual cases as 0.4 % — some ignorant people may believe that this is 50% – I’m not sure. I haven’t been able to find many other recent discussions of this issue – it seems to be a non-issue if you don’t rely on the ubiquitous religious-based sites that say it is a terrible practice. However, I don’t at the moment have free access to medical databases and can’t give more authoritative stats which may be there. Someone with access to the vast resources of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Library might have more luck in getting good authoritative statistics.

    Apr 18th, 2008

18. Lorikeet

    Are you people so naive as to think that doctors or politicians are actually going to give us factual statistics on how many non-consensual euthanasias are being carried out?

    Getting back to Australia, we probably have more than 0.4% non-consensual euthanasias being carried out here without ANY legislation in place.

    Many things go on, that people don’t even know about for 20 years or more, before anyone even thinks about legislation.

    I will try to find out where the figure of 50% comes from, but it may take time.

    Looking at the situation from another perspective, who’s to say that the government, while espousing a desire to alleviate suffering, isn’t actually planning to kill anyone off AT WILL?

    Apr 19th, 2008

19. togret

    Lorikeet – in that case why bring up your apparently unsourceable statistic? If you don’t know who dreamed it up, don’t believe it is possible to find out the real stats anyway and are convinced that we are being subjected to mass extinction by stealth … why bother?

    Apr 19th, 2008

20. Lorikeet

    The information came from an eminent scientist a few weeks ago. I will need to find out his source when I next see him.

    I am trying to look at the issue from as many perspectives as possible, as I hope our politicians will do also.

    That’s why I bother.

    Apr 19th, 2008

21. GZG

    Sorry Lorikeet, but you do no service to your side. I doubt that an “eminent scientist” will support your “50%” any more than I. Best I could find was cited by togret@#17, good luck to you and the “eminent scientist” who (I think) might pick you up on your misunderstanding.

    I have no problems with the withdrawal of active life assistance (to which I’ve previously referred).

    There’s death by default, and there’s death by deliberate and active intent.

    But let’s not actively kill vulnerable friends and relatives, please.

    Apr 20th, 2008

22. Lorikeet

    GZG:

    My friend is an eminent scientist, among other significant achievements. He said 50% of euthanasias occurring in Holland were non-consensual.

    Please take a look at this one. It’s about 10 years old, but I think it covers a lot of the major considerations, including a high rate of non-consensual euthanasia.

    See the first full paragraph on Page 302 in this regard.

    “Physician Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia in The Netherlands”

    http://www.nightingalealliance.org/pdf/Netherlands_Report_to_House.pdf

    Apr 20th, 2008

23. Naomi Cartledge

    Naomi Cartledge #5: Doing your own bit of cherry picking I’d have thought, not to mention the broad sweeping generalisations eg. “probably never cared or been close to people dying from hideous diseases”.Maybe so-but too many show by their attitudes that include a lack of compassion in my view.Tony Abbott on RU486 was a good example.No even handed view either!I’m yet to hear many men refer to males responsibility in relation to unwanted pregnancy-I’ve had ???years to listen!I suggest you do too!

    GZG-”But let’s not actively kill vulnerable friends and relatives, please.” No,that’s murder-voluntary euthanasia is a big difference.
    GZG-”Naomi Cartledge will surely vomit in recognition of it’s un-PC and paternalistic tones.(smart arse!)”I assume PC is politically correct.Political correctness is referring to a woman chairing a meeting as “Chairwoman”treating someone with derision only due to sex is sexism-or refusing a job or other inclusion-there’s a big difference-again!

    Palliative care is not working in many cases or for lots of debilitating and/or excruciating conditions;that’s why people are driven to suicide or, they know how their disease kills and don’t want it for them.They don’t wish to hurt anyone else,in fact,they believe they’re preventing loved ones anguish-their motivation is to die with dignity & IN CONTROL.Lack of control is also another motivation.They don’t want to depend on pain relief from someone else.

    I’ve often heard & read that doctors actively allow patients to die-this includes newborn babes with horrific problems.I recall hearing drs say that probably most if asked,would not answer truthfully,for obvious reasons.I don’t have the name/s,but it was in relation to an Insight program or some other current affairs program-it’s not a state secret!

    If people were fair dinkum about palliative care & patients comfort,they’d be advocating proper use of heroin as an end stage analgesic-superior to morphine with less side effects!

    Apr 20th, 2008

24. togret

    Having just had a very close relative die after wasting away in pain that couldn’t be relieved without her going to hospital/palliative care, which was contra-indicated by her claustrophobia, I think Naomi is right that such people know what awaits them and wish to avoid it. In our society they don’t have the option of dragging themselves out in the snow and waiting to die naturally – they are kept “alive” by a medical profession that takes it very personally when someone dies.

    It is good that we try to help more and more really ill people, but balancing the wishes of the patients and their families against scarce resources and the wishes of the medicos to keep on trying despite the quality of life deficit in other to buy the patient a month or two is a really difficult issue.

    In any such discussion it is probably better to stick to the facts, or if we don’t know them. not to disguise guesses as facts by attributing to yet another unknown mysterious ‘eminent’ person.

    Apr 20th, 2008

25. Lorikeet

    Here’s an interesting excerpt from the same link at post #22:

    “A close examination of the Remmelink Report shows that the 1,000
    cases of euthanasia without request are only the tip of the iceberg. The report
    confirms the alarming proclivity of Dutch physicians to make decisions about
    administering treatment or withholding treatment with the intent of ending
    their patients’ lives without the consent of the patient. In 36 percent or 8,100
    of the cases of patients who died of a morphine overdose, one of the
    physician’s intentions, or his only intention, was to end the life of the patient.
    (It is unclear how the commission distinguishes these intentional morphine
    overdoses from the cases of “deliberate life-terminating actions without
    explicit request.”) In over 50 percent or 4,941 of these cases, the physician
    administered the overdose without the patient’s consent. In other words,
    almost 5,000 Dutch patients in 1990 had their lives intentionally ended by a
    physician who did not obtain their consent. A full 27 percent of these nonconsenting patients were fully competent. The report also found that in 25,000 cases, physicians withheld or withdrew potentially effective lifeprolonging treatment without the patient’s consent.”

    Apr 20th, 2008

26. Lorikeet

    togret:

    I think you’re well aware that we can’t name private citizens on this blog. My friend doesn’t disguise guesses as facts.

    I think we need to bear in mind the number of relatives who might be willing to terminate the lives of the elderly WITHOUT the person’s consent.

    At the aged care centre I visit, there are people who have hardly any clothes, because the relatives won’t buy any. They want to keep all of the elderly person’s money for themselves.

    If they could get the person’s money a bit more quickly by underhand means, I’m sure that some would.

    In the last 6 to 9 months, there have been more deaths than ever before. The turnover of elderly people has become quite high. I think this is mainly due to the fact that most are sicker when they arrive, but who really knows what could be happening?

    The sick, elderly and vulnerable need protection from unscrupulous people, no matter who they are.

    Apr 21st, 2008

27. muzzmonster

    Obviously a major concern for those who support euthanasia is the possibility of it being involuntary.

    I’m wondering whether the issue is euthanasia itself, or the way it is (or could be) administered. If there are sufficient safeguards, then surely this is much less likely to happen.

    Apr 21st, 2008

28. togret

    I am not against the protection of the elderly from those who might treat them badly – and I know that does happen. It’s a big step from people not caring to people having people wrongly euthanased (=murdered) … but little evidence to show this is happening, apart from your unsourceable ‘feelings’.

    Apr 21st, 2008

29. Lorikeet

    togret:

    Then I take it you either didn’t read my link, or pay any attention to its content.

    The aged care centre I visit has lost more than 10% of its High Care residents to the grave in the last week alone.

    About six weeks ago, it lost more than 80% of its permanent nurses to other establishments (some to nursing agencies).

    Yesterday, the residents were being “cared for” by the only nurse left on the permanent staff, and the haphazard methodology of about 5 agency nurses.

    The permanent nurse is being paid $15 an hour, while the agency nurses take home $25 an hour during the week, and $40 at the weekend.

    Apr 22nd, 2008

30. muzzmonster

    I’m sure that for their families, those 6 people dying was sad. But your figure tells me nothing. For example, I don’t know the normal or average deaths in this unit. If it was 10, then 6 means a good week. If it is 2, then maybe – just maybe – something might be going on.

    Similarly, the number of nurses leaving has nothing to do with involuntary euthanasia – nor the hourly rate they are being paid.

    There is a significant difference between incompetent care (which I suspect you are implying) and involuntary euthanasia (murder). If you have any evidence of this occuring, you really should go to the police with this information.

    Apr 22nd, 2008

31. Naomi Cartledge

    Lorikeet#26-It’s strange that you don’t introduce the fact,that in too many cases,the nursing homes are run by private/church? organizations for profit.I believe that all hospitals/nursing homes(and child care services for that matter)should be owned/controlled by the govt.It’s not good enough for aged citizens to be at the mercy of companies running for profit.Added to that is the disgraceful small rate of pay that nursing & other nurturing employees receive.If we really cared about our elderly compatriots,we’d demand better for them.What’s happening in these centres,and/or the abuse of vulnerable people is our joint responsibility.We’re all letting them down.

    During the 10 years my late little Mum was in a nursing home,I would say ‘hello’to all the other residents.Some I knew, hardly, if ever had visitors.I’d always spend time with them or at least greet them on arrival & when I was leaving.
    My Mum’s care was impeccable.
    I was abused by a visiting doctor when I suggested to him(away from Mum’s hearing,of course)that even considering amputating my 88yr old mother’s foot was inhumane.He accused me of wanting to euthanase her.I did my lolly!Arrogant person, what did he know? My siblings & I had a family meeting-if Mum couldn’t decide for herself, we’d say ‘no’ to this horrific surgery. Mum was smarter than all of us, and quietly & with dignity,and able to know the cricket scores(her passion) only days before,she left us!
    I always said she’d not die in front of her kids(she had 9,7 living when she died)& she didn’t!She waited until we went for a cuppa while she was being turned.I’d had my ‘finger on her pulse’ only 2? minutes before!Her last gift of love -she spared us what she thought would be too sad! Every aged person deserves to be loved and cared for like this, and it’s a shame that not every child is loved like this!Everyone who’s lucky to still have a mother-next time you see your Mum, give her 2 more hugs than usual!

    Apr 22nd, 2008

32. sublime cowgirl

    Thanks again for the thoughtful post ANdrew.

    Methinks you have your head well round the legislative issues .

    Contrary to public opinion and even different posts on this thread, the euthanasia legislation is not about death caused by the medical or personal removal of artificial life support, (which is usually legal), but the right to access active assisted intervention from another to end a life in a manner not caused by illness or accident.

    Its an important distinction i’m not sure is fully grasped by the public.

    i used to lean toward the pro euthanasia side of the debate, but after looking into a few different ethical/legal issues and reading Denial of the Soul ( a rather emotive psuedo-spiritual perspective with shaky science in some parts) by the frightfully flawed, but compelling M Scott Peck , decided my default view was possibly based more ignorant compassion, predicated on the commodification of life.

    Good luck with the process Mr B.

    (p.s. am avoiding your vegan posts for the time being for fear of the logic of the arguments . )

    Apr 23rd, 2008

33. Lorikeet

    Muzz:

    Three deaths in one week was remarked upon as unusual one year ago. There are 48 residents in High Care and we lost 5 in the last week.

    It is a state-of-the-art facility, acquiring an increasingly bad reputation. If it were possible, I would bring my mother home with me.

    I have written to the Minister for Ageing, trying to get something done about erratic non-permanent staffing, low levels of remuneration, and the likely effects on the elderly.

    I was giving remuneration as the reason most of the nurses had left; but understaffing, mistakes being made, and internal conflicts are also relevant.

    A relative of a new arrival asked me if more people were dying because of a poor standard of care.

    People come and “go” so frequently now, I couldn’t give her an answer.

    But it definitely isn’t a plus having different agency nurses each day, who don’t know the care needs of the residents – with only one young man (whom I respect very greatly) trying to direct them, while having to keep up his own cracking pace.

    Nurses are supposed to be supervised by the Registered Nurse and Clinical Nurse (boss of high care). Both are so flat out with medications, dressings, paperwork, phoning doctors, sorting out problems, arguing with disgrunted relatives etc that they are largely unavailable.

    Are our people safe in this place? No!

    On Monday, I had to break up a fight between 2 elderly women, without a staff member within cooee – in the middle of a concert.

    The HAIRDRESSER and I did a lot of the work associated with setting up for lunch. I also cleared most of the dishes (only ever one overworked kitchenhand).

    Apr 23rd, 2008

34. muzzmonster

    It seems most of Lorikeet’s post was about palliative care rather than euthanasia, which I thought was the topic of this post. Not that care for our elderly isn’t an issue – just not the one Andrew was talking about.

    Apr 23rd, 2008

35. Lorikeet

    Muzz:

    Palliative care is about pain relief. I don’t think I mentioned it at all in my last post.

    Care of the elderly is very highly connected with euthanasia, and is relevant to this thread. So is palliative care, since it is connected with the administration of potentially lethal narcotics.

    Naomi:

    I’ve mentioned greed on the part of service providers at least 2 or 3 times before on other threads. At post #29, I mentioned poor rates of pay for permanent staff (greed problem as well).

    I agree with what you’ve said in post #31.

    I also find it is appreciated if you bring along some things you have made or bought to show to the residents.

    It’s a sad fact that if you don’t have relatives or friends who visit on a regular basis, your care needs can get lost in the shuffle (or competition for minimal services available).

    If someone decided to terminate your life, who would even know or care? Because you’re old, your death could simply be passed off as being due to “natural causes”.

    Most people who’ve had relatives in nursing homes 10 years or more ago (at which time compassion was greater, and lust for the mighty dollar was lesser) don’t like what goes on now.

    My brother put Mum in this state-of-the-art facility. It is in the north-western suburbs of Brisbane, about 5.5 km from where I live.

    I am told another facility is being built by the same service provider (I use the term loosely) – large private conglomerate – at the back of Ferny Grove.

    “ALL THAT GLITTERS IS NOT GOLD” – only collecting as much gold as possible from the unsuspecting.

    Apr 24th, 2008

36. Lorikeet

    Last night I was speaking with my Chaplain friend who lost both his mother and mother-in-law recently.

    He said his mother-in-law was in severe pain not long before her death, and was given morphine shots.

    He and his wife had to really stir up the nurses to give her the shots at appropriate times. He said she did better when they substituted a patch, which I guess must have given longer lasting relief.

    She died about 2 weeks after the morphine was started.

    In my experience, the RN can sometimes be hours behind in the administration of medications, but you’d think people on morphine ought to be given some kind of priority.

    Our experience of High Care has been only one RN to administer medications and look after wounds for close to 50 people, among other time-consuming duties.

    If the RN calls in sick, it may take hours to get a replacement nurse in from an agency. Then it will take him/her longer to do the job, because of unfamiliarity with the residents.

    Now that euthanasia is in the limelight again, I’m wondering how it ties in with Kevin Rudd talking about having us ALL on a list for organ donation without our consent, unless we advise him otherwise.

    Apr 25th, 2008

37. muzzmonster

    I agree that palliative care relates to euthanasia, but I think there’s a difference between involuntary ethanaasia (which is murder) and death through negligent nursing staff – which is also an offence but of a different scale.

    To me, euthanasia relies upon an intention for someone to die to relieve their pain (or, as you suggest occurs, to collect on the will).

    And as a transplantee, I find it offensive that you’re suggesting there’s a sinister aspect to this. My brother is also very unwell and also requires a transplant – one that he probably would have had by now if more people were on the donor list.

    Australia has a very low rate of donors, largely because it doesn’t occur for people to become donors, which many people are happy to do if you actually ask them. An opt out system will make them answer this question – and they’re welcome to opt out if they choose.

    And it has nothing to do with telling our Prime Minister. This idea has been around for many years.

    Apr 26th, 2008

38. Lorikeet

    Muzz:

    My comment was not meant to be offensive, but we need to be aware of all possibilities, no matter what the topic.

    Apr 27th, 2008

39. Naomi Cartledge

    Lorikeet,the point is that everyone is going to die.It’s certainly going to happen sooner if you’re an aged person.That’s just fact!The fact that 5 die in one week doesn’t smack of foul play in a nursing home.Care for the aged,access to this care and the costs are shameful!

    The topic under discussion is euthanasia, not assisted death or murder?Euthanasia as a deliberate act when a person wants to end their life due to their intractable pain,depression or a hideous disease of which they know the horrific end. I believe,that everyone should have the right to decide for themselves. I’d hate to be so disabled,suffering horrific pain,or unable to access care due to inability to pay-I’d rather leave the planet!

    I resent the intervention of the Howard govt on this issue. I resent the legislation that decides for me,that I can’t read a certain book or converse with another Australian, only because of their professed interests. That is a contravention of my right to having control over my life!That simple really! I don’t dictate that others should think or act like me. I don’t believe in censorship of written material for adults. If govts were really concerned about adverse advertising, loss of ‘family values’ etc let them remove the horrific violent DVD games etc. Such hypocrisy is an exhibition of dictatorial govts not one committed to so-called ‘freedom & democracy’? What a joke!
    Care for aged persons should be a topic on its own I believe! If palliative care was adequate,few people would even be interested in euthanasia? It obviously isn’t adequate!

    Apr 30th, 2008

40. Lorikeet

    Naomi:

    I think once you start divorcing one tiny aspect of a situation from the others, you are also divorcing yourself from other possible scenarios that are linked.

    I thought you would have seen it from my link at post #22. The title itself is enough.

    Yes, the government should more heavily censor horrific violent DVD games, but you can’t divorce that from some of the written material without creating hypocrisy yourself.

    Yes, care for aged persons could easily be an important topic on its own, but we cannot divorce it from other matters without other potential evils sneaking in.

    The adequacy of palliative care is not the only issue. For example, some people have religious beliefs which preclude any kind of suicide, physician-assisted or otherwise.

    Palliative care works brilliantly in some instances, but is not worth a cracker in others. It depends on the medical condition suffered by the patient.

    I think legalising euthanasia will open a hornet’s nest of involuntary terminations – to get rid of the sick, elderly and disabled; for organ grabs; and to cull the planet’s “surplus inhabitants”.

    This puts me in mind of cows.

    As it is, I’m sure most doctors know when a person is experiencing too much irreversible suffering, and will act accordingly, but within the law.

    May 1st, 2008

41. Naomi Cartledge

    Lorikeet-”Yes, the government should more heavily censor horrific violent DVD games, but you can’t divorce that from some of the written material without creating hypocrisy yourself.”
    My point was,that it’s well documented that the viewing of extreme violence by impressionable young people is a contributor to committing acts of violence themselves.When this is combined with alcohol or other drugs etc,there is an even greater risk to community members.However,govts are loathe to ensure than these items are not available.It should be noted,that they are more likely to remove DVD’s that depict non-violent consensual sexual images?No rationale there!
    I can’t even have access to Philip Nitsche’s book?
    “The adequacy of palliative care is not the only issue. For example, some people have religious beliefs which preclude any kind of suicide, physician-assisted or otherwise.”
    Nobody is forcing anyone to commit suicide.Like abortion,removing the criminality from the act does not FORCE or even co-erce non-interested people into taking those actions.It just allows those who wish to,to have access to CHOICE/S!
    Of course there needs to be strong legislation that prohibits or impinges on greedy relative’s murderous intent. Let’s keep in mind,that killing another person is murder-euthanasia is not!
    The deaths of aged persons is inevitable.It’s quite conceivable that there could be a ‘cluster’ of deaths in 1 week.Any death not able to be furnished with a death certificate should be investigated.Anyone complicit in the death should be charged with murder.Most aged people have a collection of medical/mental conditions,that will ultimately lead to their death-pneumonia is a common end stage condition.That’s why it’s often referred to as the aged person’s ‘friend’.It certainly was in my Mum’s case.Certain medical conditions result in organs shutting down’.This puts strain on the heart,which puts strain on lung function-and pneumonia is the result.

    May 1st, 2008

42. Lorikeet

    Naomi:

    While I agree with most of what you have said, we still cannot turn a blind eye to the fact that non-consensual euthanasia will become more prevalent if laws are enacted.

    Even if the initial laws are quite stringent, they will soon be reviewed and relaxed. That’s what’s happened with lots of other issues.

    Euthanasia is not only an issue for the elderly.

    While one part of me thinks that a limited number of doctors such as Nitschke could be empowered to perform a compassionate role in this matter, I still think it would open Pandora’s box as described in post #40, third last paragraph.

    It would be interesting to know why Nitschke’s book has been censored. Perhaps the government censor thinks it might cause large numbers of people to seek termination (or commit suicide unaided), when there is a possibility that their conditions might improve (whether psychological or physical).

    It is my belief that whatever is legalised is also condoned, promoted and considered to be a societal norm – with scope for future more ambitious amendment.

    Not long ago, I met a man who became a quadriplegic after his neck was broken in a car accident. Who knows what he was thinking in the weeks and months that followed? I must ask him.

    These days he is able to walk unaided and has full use of his left arm. Although his right arm has some paralysis, he can pick up bags and carry them.

    I know him because he uses the same bus service as me, and now he goes around to all of the larger shopping centres selling toys etc for a charity.

    He goes to church every week to thank God that he is still alive. He has also written a book about his experiences, which is about to be made into a movie.

    One or two days ago, there was a television report in which doctors regrew part of a man’s finger using a growth-promoting agent known as Pixie Dust, which might also have some relevance in terms of medical advances.

    May 2nd, 2008

43. Naomi Cartledge

    Lorikeet-I disagree that there’d necessarily be an upsurge in euthanasia – there’s no evidence to indicate this. The same was said of abortion, & also the morning after pill & RU486.It’s just scare mongering.You have no proof that those aged persons deaths in 1 week wasn’t just a coincidence,or maybe a flu or stomach bug.Peoples’ lives will come to an end eventually-particularly if you’re an aged person. You can’t use gossip or coincidences, based on lack of knowledge of their individual or collective medical history,& then try to correct it via oppressing other peoples’ right to read books & decide their future for themselves.You don’t uphold human rights for 1 group by denying same for another.
    It’s pretty simple why the Howard govt ruled that book off limits-it went against the hard right-the god botherers’ view of euthanasia.Simple!Otherwise why did they over-rule the NT Law?Because they could.
    Medical discoveries,treatments etc are another issue.We all know that Muscular Dystrophy for example can only be treated at this date-not cured.We all know that it ends with death,and a pretty horrible one at that.Some cancers & other diseases likewise.Neither you nor I have the right to dictate to a person in agony that they should continue on-if,as an adult they choose not to. Ultimate act of arrogance.We don’t have to be involved,hold their hand etc just mind our own business,and respect their intelligence & capability to make their personal decision. If we prevent that,then we have a moral obligation to care for them. Are you prepared to do that? I’m not,either physically,emotionally or practically-I’m not equipped to do that!So how dare I dictate what they do?
    We should be advocating a different approach,as with abortion.Each time it’s raised,very little if any emphasis on male responsibility/education-most frustrating!If all males used protection,few unwanted pregnancies,but no,always narrow debate?Suggest education re this in schools-sky falls in!Frustrating

    May 2nd, 2008

44. Lorikeet

    Naomi:

    In the modern school, males are definitely taught to take responsibility for contraception.

    Contrary to your view, there has been a huge upsurge in abortion since it was legalised. Whenever ANYTHING is legalised that takes away human responsibility, the moral (not just sexual) standards of the society fall.

    Calling other people “God botherers” is a discrimination against a particular group. None of these issues is as simple as you would like to make it.

    May 3rd, 2008

45. Andrew Bartlett

    Naomi said “It’s pretty simple why the Howard govt ruled that book off limits-it went against the hard right-the god botherers’ view of euthanasia.”

    Firstly, the legislation that seeks to ban websites and books discussing ways to suicide was supported by both major parties, not just Howard or ‘god botherers’.

    Secondly, the rationale behind the ban was to reduce the chances of suicidal people having easy access to information on ways to kill themselves. I am not convinced such bans are overly effective, but I suspect the majority of Australians would at least support the principle that suicidal people shouldn’t be given ready access or encouragement to suicide.

    The fact that it is difficult to quarantine ‘general’ suicide from what is generally viewed as euthanasia is one of the reasons why legislating in this area is difficult, and also why loose usage of terms like ‘a right to die’ or even ‘death with dignity’ are difficult to consistently apply without spilling over into wider types of suicide.

    May 3rd, 2008

46. Naomi Cartledge

    I still maintain,that the ‘god botherers’ had a lot to do with it,and there’s plenty of them from both sides of parliament.They try to dominate the rest of us!

    Andrew,it’s the hypocrisy that gets me. If politicians are so concerned and hold high the sanctity of human life,why aren’t they screaming daily re the horrific deaths of over 1 million Iraqis,or the act of wilful killing in an illegal war/s? Why aren’t govts taking more steps on protecting people from the mining of minerals?The example of Mt Isa is a case in point?Why the hypocrisy?Some lives by some means are more important or sacred than others?The act of sending that pregnant woman to China has been raised by Marilyn-good for her?How many others have been sent home to certain death or worse?

    It’s obvious to me, that where capital is concerned,anything goes. Courts have been full of people trying to get justice over being made sick or dying due to practices that are/have been allowed in order to make money. If a person really wants to kill themselves – they will & they have.I’ve heard psychologists,psychiatrists, clerics etc attest to this when comforting grief stricken, guilt ridden family members/friends.Instead of govts having an open inquiry into suicides, ages, sex etc(some of us know some facts)eg young men aged 18-24 or men over 45 why aren’t there programs,alternatives to hopelessness than are present now? Suicide due to intractable pain shouldn’t be thrown into the same ‘mix’ as suicide due to hopelessness or mental illness. We have more people in jails with a mental illness than in hospitals.Why isn’t that changed?Govts don’t want to spend money on the alternatives-they’d rather prop up the war machine or?!Refusal to investigate heroin as an end stage analgesic, or marijuana ‘cookies’for treatment of side affects of chemotherapy?Still a crime??
    Then,there’s the ultimate act of hypocrisy-the protestations over some death penalties, but’quiet’support of others?

    May 4th, 2008

47. Lorikeet

    Sounds good to me, Andrew. Thanks for the clarification.

    May 4th, 2008

48. Lorikeet

    Naomi:

    Suicide due to intractable pain is already in the same mix as suicide due to hopelessness or mental illness. We don’t need to throw it in there, and I don’t think any amount of argument will extract it either.

    Yes, young and middle-aged men can sometimes have a lot of problems. That’s why the government needs to keep them from reading Nitschke’s book.

    The society as a whole could try having a little more respect for the extensive experience of workers over 40. Dealing with the younger men are a much tougher challenge.

    Our GP recommended a book for my husband and I to read. It was called: “The Road Less Travelled” by M. Scott Peck. We also read another book about mid-life issues. Within 2 years, we were divorced!

    M. Scott Peck eventually became a Zen Buddhist, no doubt after ruining plenty of other relationships with his increasingly weird books, which don’t concern themselves at all with the welfare of children.

    May 5th, 2008

49. apprentice

    I suppose that one of the reasons I struggle with the issue of suicide is related to why I struggle with abortion: one would rather that people who were driven to such extreme measures were at least able to get help to not damage themselves by doing it inefficently. Suicide attempts that don’t work can leave peopel damaged and a futher burden to themselves and the rest of us, as they probably see it, and some of us do. (When I say “them” and “us” I’m being a bit ironic here – I have suffered from mental illness and suicidal thoughts … I believe that once you’d crossed the barrier to suicidal thoughts you are never really the same again.)

    I wish our society were better at helping the mentally ill, whether temporarily deranged by grief or other pain, or intractably inasane. At least we don’t now prosecute the survivors of suicide attempts by charging them with criminal acts. Sadly, we know that many who need mental health care are not cared about by most of us … and many of them frighten us or make us uncomfortable.

    If I thought that those who oppose Dr Neitscke were spending the rest of their time working for assistance for the mentally ill and their children or the terminally ill and their families I’d have more time for them. Some might do that, most don’t.

    PS Lorikeet: M Scott Peck’s biographical details in several places on the Net, not to mention his books, say he was interested in Zen when he was 18, and ‘eventually went to Christianity in his 40s. That doesn’t necessarily mean, from a buddhist point of view, that he stopped being a buddhist, but whatever your point was, he described himself as a Christian. Just thought you’d like to know.

    May 6th, 2008

50. Lorikeet

    Hi apprentice:

    I had forgotten that M. Scott Peck was a psychiatrist. I think a large percentage of people practising that profession have more problems than the people they treat.

    My information was that he became a Zen Buddhist after writing 3 or more of his increasingly weird books. But in any case, I think he was a weirdo, regardless of either religious preference or profession.

    May 6th, 2008

51. Naomi Cartledge

    Yesterday I listened to an interview on ABC Conversation Hour of a year ago(Richard Fydler)with a journalist who died last week from cancer.She made the point,that an overwhelming number of people in Australia consistently vote in favour of voluntary euthanasia,which is true. She also spoke of the many ways that medical science, individual medical practitioners,churches etc FORCE people to stay alive, regardless of how THEY feel.I’d add, that people force others to stay alive, while they,personally, don’t take any responsibility or even interest in how they cope with this lingering & painful life.

    Lorikeet,I find it amazing, that after your many accounts of government/s forcing opinion/actions on us you think it’s OK for us to be denied the right to READ A BOOK!Don’t you think you have the ability to read a book and decide on what, if any, actions,thoughts etc you’ll practice or advocate.I’m 63 years of age. I don’t need Tony Abbott or George Pell or ? to tell me what to read.I totally reject your view, that I must be protected from myself,ONLY in this instance.There’s no consistency here.Long ago I decided,that the Catholic church in particular had an unhealthy interest in the sex lives of adult couples-they and other denominations force their beliefs on the rest of us.
    I join with the woman interviewed,who agreed that there should be protections that would prevent vulnerable people from being ‘coerced’ into finishing their lives.I’m horrified that adult children could wish to ‘bump off’ aged parents for money(wouldn’t apply to me-haven’t got any)but that’s murder,and would be treated as such. There’s been well documented cases of this very situation recently resolved by criminal trials by judges/juries.
    But,I maintain, that we should have the right in a so-called democracy to read what we like,& abide by our own set of standards moral & otherwise re voluntary euthanasia. Why are govts too ’scared’ to have a referendum?

    May 7th, 2008

52. Lorikeet

    Naomi:

    If the country was run the way you would like it, there would be NO CONTROLS on any form of literature, including pornography – unless you only want to apply unrestricted access to banned material to yourself. It sounds that way to me.

    You want to read Nitschke’s book, but there are those who have their preferred banned items also. I have no doubt that paedophiles also think they’re “older and wiser” and ought to have access to anything THEY choose.

    I’m sure you’d be the first to object if THEY got their hands on banned material.

    I wouldn’t know what I would think or do after reading a particular book, since I haven’t even read it in order to make a decision! I think the government has acted wisely in this matter.

    People could easily be “bumped off” on the sly, without anybody being charged with murder.

    I think the reason the government doesn’t call a referendum (apart from the cost) is because politicians know that many people don’t have the wherewithal to examine all sides of the debate effectively.

    May 7th, 2008

53. Naomi Cartledge

    Lorikeet-Like the Howard govt champions of the NT intervention,it’s pretty low to infer that I support pedophiles choice of reading because I disagree with reading material on EUTHANASIA being censored.I hasten to add,that the cencors are quick to ban non-violent consensual sex from movies etc,but show hypocrisy by allowing horrific violent DVD’s & Game Boy games from the public,regardless of age.Which has the most impact or influence on impressionable minds-I believe that violence wins that argument!
    The reason you give for govts denying a peoples’ vote on a topic is pretty weak.Democracy to some ends with 3-4yr elections-they don’t want to acknowledge that between 70-80%of the population agree with voluntary euthanasia.They don’t want the fight with the biggest lobby group in the country-the churches!Otherwise,what do they fear?Democracy itself?
    If you don’t think you have the capacity to research euthanasia,don’t pin that label on myself or others.
    The point has recently been made,that apart from the sudden & dramatic deaths(drop dead heart attacks,strokes,car accidents etc)most deaths have had a lot of intervention to retain life-sometimes to ludicrous extent.I don’t want to be dictated to as to how I live my life or when I may choose to end it.I hasten to add,that I hope to be around for a long time yet,but who knows what’s around the corner.I heard this morning,that cancer rates are,1 in 2 males & 1 in 3 females.Chances are,that many of us on this post will be diagnosed in the future-that’s the reality.Some will fight & survive(I hope)others will fight & die-they may like to choose how long they fight.
    The population is ageing,so the decision may be forced on govts by public opinion/actions. People won’t have “the wherewithal to examine all sides of the debate effectively”-how true,if govts allow materials/public debate on ONE side ONLY.

    May 8th, 2008

54. GZG

    Lorikeet #52: Well put! Your extrapolation of Naomi Cartledge’s argument is logical & clear to me (even if it gets Naomi’s gander going yet again). Anarchy rules?

    Naomi Cartledge #51 #53: With a view to critically reviewing your anti-God bothering position, I’d be interested to hear the nature of the polls/votes/studies/”finger in the wind” sources that drew you to conclude that
    

    70-80% of the population agree with voluntary euthanasia.

    Clearly, as a purportedly statistical but unsourced statement, it’s about as rubbery as a toy chook.

    May 8th, 2008

55. Naomi Cartledge

    I said this in comment #53 70-80% of the population agree with voluntary euthanasia.”

    GLZ#54″Clearly, as a purportedly statistical but unsourced statement, it’s about as rubbery as a toy chook.”

    GLZ,why don’t you PROVE IT then!

    The woman who said it,and I’ve heard these figures before,was a guest on the ABC Conversation Hour.Her interview of last year was played again – go to the website & listen yourself. She died last week from cancer!She was a long time journalist with The Age!(20 yrs from memory).It could be argued that due to her illness plus her professional life,she may have more information/research at her disposal.
    I think a poll taken today would probably back that comment!

    May 9th, 2008

56. ken

    Yes GZG I tend to agree with you on this one, I hadn’t entered the argument as the usual reaction when debate is too hard is playing the paternalism and sexist card.

    I think that the new found Hayekian libertarianism displayed by the poster to whom you refer would be swiftly withdrawn if the issue was one that they didn’t support. This support would be withdrawn even if someone else protested that they were old enough and intelligent enough to do as they wished without any interference – as with other people on other posts we have a selective application of regulation to suit.

    The issue really is that we have a governance process of development and implementation of social regulation, we may not like it or agree with it, but we have it. Thankfully unlike some other countries we also have the right to protest and raise our objections.

    I actually also agree with Naomi on the points raised about euthanasia and the book; however the fact that I might agree or not agree doesn’t alter that fact that the governance process we have has taken another course. To change the situation one needs to engage in the governance process, it’s not a question of rights, rather the alternative to self regulated anarchy.

    May 9th, 2008

57. Naomi Cartledge

    GLZ-I hasten to add, that you only ask me to prove my source.Interesting how Lorikeet can make some pretty outrageous suggestions,implications, and not once did you ask for proof.These included the insinuation, that 5 aged deaths in a facility was at best suspicious- no proof- no medical knowledge – no histories,nothing! Your silence proves, that you don’t challenge views you disagree with, only those who make statements, comments, that you don’t agree with. I think it’s called being inconsistent, showing bias etc! How many of your own comments, assertions do you back up with proven facts?

    May 9th, 2008

58. Lorikeet

    Naomi:

    In regard to your reply to GZG regarding “rubbery figures”, you give an example of an interviewee with a terminal illness quoting the 70-80% statistic which relates to people agreeing with voluntary euthanasia.

    I suggest you think a little more about the biased position this person could be speaking from.

    I will reiterate that the issue expands out to something much more than “voluntary euthanasia”, as it applies to real life and real situations.

    You don’t want paedophiles to have access to banned materials, which is well and good. But my point was that you can’t apply a different set of rules purely to yourself where banned materials are concerned.

    If a referendum were to be held, the general public would need to be very well educated as to the many downsides and skulduggeries attached to legalised suicide/murder.

    May 9th, 2008

59. GZG

    Naomi #55: I did actually read your posts #51 #53 before replying (makes for a more meaningful response I’ve found … try it sometime).

    So your anecdotal source was a journo’ you heard on the radio?

    Game-set-match, with your cunning slam, my now tenuous position dictates no response be given….

    ….oh, OK, just a little one then. I’ve googled this but cannot determine what percentage of statistics are made up on the spot? Please help!

    May 10th, 2008

60. GZG

    Ken #56: [must turn bold off this time] – Notwithstanding some differences of opinion, I did mean to commend you on your insightful and objective comments…. a refreshing contrast to some herein!

    May 10th, 2008

61. GZG (aka GLZ)

    [corrected post]
    Naomi #55: I did actually read your posts #51 #53 before replying (makes for a more meaningful response I’ve found … try it sometime).

    So your anecdotal source was a journo’ you heard on the radio?

    Game-set-match, with your cunning slam, my now tenuous position dictates no response be given….

    ……oh, OK, just a little one then. I’ve googled this, but cannot determine what percentage of statistics are made up on the spot? Please help!

    May 10th, 2008

62. apprentice

    In 1997 70% of people surveyed by the University of Queensland were in favour of euthanasia in some circumstances.

    http://www.uq.edu.au/news/index.html?article=513

    Medical practitioners in favour were 33%
    The survey in 1997 is significant because it was the year when the NT bill was overturned by the COmmonwealth.

    In 2007 Senator Lynn Allison quoted a Newspoll survey (NOT a terribly reliable source in my view) giving the statistic as 80% of the general population in favour.
    That survey is quoted here,

    http://www.saves.asn.au/resources/facts/fs02.php

    but more detail about the results of Morgan Polls in 2002 is alo given. I’m not saying that the only factor in passing laws ought to be their popularity, otherwise we’d have capital punishment again, and I’m not in favour of that, for more reasons than the Chamberlain case, but that ought to weigh heavily with capital punishment advocates.

    For what it is worth, the statistics do seem to bear out what Naomi (?) said about public opinion.

    …………………………

    ……………………………….

    May 11th, 2008

63. Naomi Cartledge

    GZG-”Your silence proves, that you don’t challenge views you disagree with, only those who make statements, comments, that you don’t agree with.”I obviously made a mistake with the first ‘disagree’ it should have been ‘agree’.
    Lorikeet,I hardly think that revolting material depicting criminal images of children can be likened to reading a book about euthanasia!Just having those images is a serious crime,as indeed it should.
    There are laws & ethical standards that I’m sure could be established,but we’re not even allowed to have a public debate or read THAT book on the subject. It’s ridiculous!It treats us all like children! It’s OK to discuss many serious issues in our society, why not this one? There was an Insight program about a well publicized case in New Zealand,where a woman was jailed for assisting her mother to die. Tragic case!I think it was after that when Phillip Nitsche’s book was released and banned, which also included banning public debate I believe!
    I know that in the past,when the question is raised, the majority believe that in certain circumstances, euthanasia should be an option as pointed out by #62 apprentice.
    She wasn’t just a ‘journo’ she was a senior writer for The Age.She gave the same stats as ‘apprentice’ just did.
    There’s an interesting Court case going on in NSW at the moment.A woman has been charged with the murder of her partner,who had Alzeimers Disease and another form of dementia;her trial is taking place now.Her partner died from an overdose of Nembutal, a drug purchased overseas; allegedly, upon his request.We’ll see how it turns out.I learnt from being on jury duty that the media reports of evidence aren’t an adequate guide, as there’s a chance of ’spin’ being put on it.No wonder jurists are advised not to read the papers or discuss the case with others. Sitting in the court room every day is often different to media reports.

    May 12th, 2008

64. Lorikeet

    apprentice:

    Your statistic that only 33% of qualified medicos agreed to voluntary euthanasia IN ONLY SOME CIRCUMSTANCES is quite telling.

    According to your second link, 75% of the people agreed only in circumstances of UNRELIEVABLE SUFFERING.

    May 12th, 2008

65. GZG

    Apprentice: Thank you, your searches were more successful than mine (& evidently than Naomi’s). Unfortunately, I’ve only been able to get to the abstract of the quoted 11 year old study published in the AMJ, but like Lorikeet, I notice the marked contrast between “the community” and doctors in their reported opinions and wonder how one might account for the variation. Greater confidence in medicine (by Dr’s) perhaps?

    Naomi Cartlidge #57 etc: Your 3 day silence was also noted.

    “we’re not even allowed to have a public debate …. sure about this???????

    It seems that you’re still carrying that chip on your shoulder. Nobody is really attacking you personally (I’m sure you mean well albeit as a radical feminist non-God botherer). Rather, some challenge your sweeping generalizations and the unreliable sources to which you sometimes attempt to tether an argument.

    You rebuke my challenge to your cherished sanctioned suicide statistic by claiming that “Not once did I ask for proof” (on an unrelated matter)! Read my posts (“you should try it sometimes”). You could start with #21 above. Having said that, I have let more than a couple of your own outrageous posts alone (eg. re: abortion rates, this being aptly addressed by Lorikeet #44).

    Regarding nursing home deaths, Lorikeet testified to what she personally saw, drew some (I think) questionable possible conclusions, but then clearly stopped short of declaring these as facts. The pros & cons of those conclusions have been discussed by other posters eg. #30 & yourself @ #39/41. You really wouldn’t want all posters to comment on your dubious assertions would you?

    Feel ever free to challenge my own comments or assertions.

    And don’t believe everything you see on TV or read in the papers. There’s many a hidden agenda to be found.

    May 12th, 2008

66. ken

    Just to add to the confusiion GZG

    “I learnt from being on jury duty that the media reports of evidence aren’t an adequate guide, as there’s a chance of ’spin’ being put on” – (excpet where it conicides with my argumennt)

    May 13th, 2008

67. Lorikeet

    GZG:

    I think doctors are more conservative about such matters for a number of reasons. Firstly, it’s their job to save lives and relieve suffering – not kill people.

    They would also have a broader understanding of the subject material than most people, and they probably aren’t in any rush to be pressured into murdering people – especially not by greedy or ill-informed relatives.

    They are also more likely to have the perspicacity to understand that conservative laws can soon be amended in a less conservative direction.

    I spoke to an IVF specialist last week. He said abortion clinics kill more babies than his clinic creates, and that abortion is now used by many people as a form of contraception.

    Although the doctor is a Christian, he is forced by legislation to treat lesbians or be sued for discrimination.

    Now let’s apply the same concepts to doctors being asked to terminate people, and I think we will have our answer.

    They will be left without a choice, despite having sworn an Hippocratic Oath.

    May 13th, 2008

68. muzzmonster

    What’s unChristian about helping lesbians have babies?

    May 14th, 2008

69. GZG

    Muzz: Provocateur! At the risk of being recognised as just a tad fundamental, I can’t quite see the hands of God being behind your endorsed crop.

    Please, enlighten us the theological basis of your position.

    May 14th, 2008

70. Lorikeet

    Muzz:

    According to the Old Testament, God created Adam and Eve – not Adam and Steve – and not Anna and Eve.

    May 14th, 2008

71. muzzmonster

    I don’t have long as I’m about to go away for the weekend, but I’d say two things:
    1. The Bible contains a hell of a lot of references about helping those in need and very few about sexuality – which seems to have an awful lot of attention paid to it.
    2. Is it a Christian doctor’s role to judge others and provide (or not provide) medical services based on his or her morality?

    May 15th, 2008

72. GZG

    muzzmonster: “I’m a mass murderer and in need of some more gas shells … would you help me please, I am truly in need?”

    1. The Bible has plenty to say about mothers, fathers, children, family life, and too reuse the hackneyed line, nothing about Adam & Steve bringing up children.

    2. I see not the slightest problem with a doctor working within their own moral framework, or do you seek to vilify them for religious reasons?

    Enjoy your weekend but reserve some time for mindfulness.

    May 15th, 2008

73. apprentice

    I am not in favour of IVF at all, I consider it a waste of medical resources that could be used to better ends, like treating the easly remedied illnesses poor people and in particular aboriginal people suffer from. (And yes I do know they are different specialisations, to which I would point out that you and I paid for the training of those doctors, and the community ought to have some say in what they do with that training.)

    However, I see no reason why two women or two men can’t be perfectly good parents and sicne we seem to have moved away from the thread again, I agree with the person who said something along the lines of wondering why some people put so much emphasis on other people’s sexuality when the main theme of the New Testament (and that or other widely followed religious books) seeems more to be about how we can look after each other, not judge each other.

    Nobody is advocating wholesale murder being legalised, but we kid ourselves if we think that there are no shades of grey in many medical decisions, and that forms of words are not used every day to e.g. terminate life support for someone whose ‘life’ is declared pointless despite some beeping still coming from machines. There will be mistakes made, yes. There are now, and will be under any future euthanasia law. Someone has to decide the balance of harm to the individual, versus potential harm to society in general. We can’t entirely prevent greed and hatred getting past the law in other ways … but why prevent _discussion_? Why prevent information being disseminated? People know many ways to commit suicide now – many that harm those who are not able to do it competently. How many doctors, nurses, scientists or pharmacists, who must now what we are not allowed to know, commit suicide with the knowledge we are not allowed to have? I wonder if anyone has ever looked into that? Or is it hushed up?

    May 15th, 2008

74. Lorikeet

    apprentice:

    I don’t think most people need a higher education on how to kill themselves.

    The government should stick with positive, uplifting education about how to establish a sense of community and mutual support – instead of the current dogma of greed and selfishness.

    I’m in favour of all heterosexual couples who can’t have children any other way having access to IVF.

    Most of the opponents of IVF have their own children already. I think that’s selfish. There are no children to adopt due to the legalisation of abortion on demand.

    Now the government is conducting a television campaign to attract more foster parents. I think some of those kids (in specific circumstances) should be put up for adoption so they can have stable homes.

    May 17th, 2008

75. apprentice

    Lorikeet: there are children all over the world who need more support. In China and Myanmar/Burma today there are children with an urgent need. What would-be-IVF parents want is a child to ‘own’, one to have at home. Throughout history there have been people like that, some of whom found other ways to contribute to children’s lives, by fostering, for which the need is immense, by adoption of kids from places like Myanmar, or other ways to support kids, either live-in ones or otherwise.

    There is no right to have a child, in my view. But there are many kids who need and deserve more support, to give them a chance at a fulfilled life.

    May 17th, 2008

76. GZG

    Lorikeet #74: Great opening line and I agree wholeheartedly! This may be a little passé, but (at odds with your later statement), I’m in favour of married couples who can’t have children any other way having self funded access to IVF. Commitment is a great starting point for bringing children into the world!

    Most of the opponents of IVF have their own children already

    You’re generalising again Lorikeet, though it was an easy shot.

    apprentice #73 & 75: Valid points in the first paragraph of #75 noted. But you’re position seems to be that we have a “right to die” yet bizarrely, no “right to have a child”??? Tell me I’ve got this wrong! I acknowledge (but don’t support) your pro-homosexual parenting stance, but I’m hoping you simply object to government funded IVF rather than to the right to have children naturally.

    You see “no reason why two women or two men can’t be perfectly good parents” Your idea of perfection is at odds with me personally, society in general, and dare I suggest, more than a few reports of the import of maternal & paternal role models. Want some citations?

    May 17th, 2008

77. apprentice

    GZG – if it worries you, leave out the word “perfectly”, all I meant was that a mixed couple, 2 gay folk or other combinations, such as grandparents, older siblings, etc can be competent parents.

    I come from a nuclear family, quite conventional, parented by a man and a women, married to each other, and comprising an alcoholic and a drug abuser, one of whom psychologically, sexually and physically abused me and my 2 siblings, while enabling their parent to sexually abuse one of us. I don’t therefore believe that the apparently conventional make-up of a family says anything about the type of environment it creates for child-rearing.

    I’m not sure why you are confused by my not seeing that two people have a ‘right’ to have children. Perhaps you’d like to say why you think they do?

    May 17th, 2008

78. GZG

    Apprentice: I assume you meant superficially conventional family.

    You’re right, anything’s possible, including good things coming out of bad situations – hopefully you are a one of those good things (given the bad situation you recount).

    The fact that depravity can lurk beneath the surface of a seemingly conventional family does not negate my point that in an ideal (perfect if you like) family, there will be positive role models by way of a father and a mother providing an environment conducive to raising children to be normal healthy functional adults. Colloquially, it’s called “starting on a good footing”.

    Given your painful and tragic background, I can see why you would reject the notion of this “good footing”, as the male & female role models of your youth trashed your perspective (no disrespect to you intended).

    If a man and his wife wish to have children (& I’m not referring to IVF here), I believe they have a right to do so. An oppressive government may attempt to deny that right, or family members may attempt to influence them, but the choice is theirs (and surely not yours nor a nanny states).

    Of course, like many rights, they come with conditions & responsibilities …. need I go on?

    May 18th, 2008

79. muzzmonster

    It’s getting off topic, but the Bible says all sorts of things we now consider bizarre and old fashioned.

    And I think doctors need to provide services and be judged to a standard separate from their own framework. Otherwise we would have doctors denying services to black people, gay people, or women even. And maybe not finding it offensive to have sex with patients.

    Society defines rules so we can rely on more than any given individual’s morality.

    May 18th, 2008

80. apprentice

    GZG: I expressed myself badly again – I meant there is no right, in my opinion, to have a child such that people have the ability to demand taxpayers’ dollars to fund it if they have medical problems to difficult to fix in any other way.

    And getting back to the point of the thread, I didn’t say I was for euthanasia. I said I am aware that many people try to suicide and are unable to do so successfully due to lack of information about methods that are unlikely to give them more problems, or at least to fail. I’d prefer for that information to be available for discussion and evaluation by the rest of us, and possibly for use by those who are in unbearable pain or otherwise not able to live in dignity and peace. My grandmother died aged 95, tormented by dementia, and if I could have spared her the last 4 momths of her ‘life’ I would have. That was her wish. Similar story with my grandfather.

    May 18th, 2008

81. Lorikeet

    apprentice:

    If you’re going to apply your set of rules to IVF treatment i.e. if you are infertile you may not benefit from available treatment because you are too poor, do you expect that only rich people should have that opportunity? Seems fairly disgusting to me.

    I have 2 naturally conceived children, one IVF (GIFT) child, and for 18 years, I sponsored 2 “foster” children from Central America.

    My sister has 2 adopted Korean children, after experiencing a lack of success with infertility treatment. There were no Australian children available for adoption because these days people terminate children they don’t want.

    Muzz:

    I think the society has little morality left, which is the biggest part of the problem.

    “…. the bible says all sorts of things WE now consider bizarre and old fashioned.”

    Please speak for yourself, because a large number of “WE” may not agree with your statement.

    May 18th, 2008

82. apprentice

    Lorikeet – there are many things in this world that rich people can buy that I can’t. I’d like a house in Queensland, for example, where the climate would suit the arthritis of a family member better than where we are.

    I’m glad to hear you are happy with your IVF child, but I feel it is not right for the rest of us to pay large sums for someone who cannot have a child to get one to take home, when it is not a life-threatening condition to be childless. There are scarce medical resources and many people who need care. That may mean that some people who would make excellent parents end up with no children at home when there are kids who need support are denied that. That’s a bigger social problem than IVF treatment, and not one that IVF research can cure. Look after the living first would be my philosophy.

    May 19th, 2008

83. Lorikeet

    Do you have any children, apprentice? If so, I don’t think you have a right to dictate childlessness for others.

    The foster system is atrocious, partly because there are not enough social workers to service either it or the needs of struggling families. Kids get shunted around all over the place, sometimes suffering sexual abuse in the process.

    With nearly all of the adults working, there is no one to look after them anyway – hence the current prime time media campaign for foster parents.

    Putting certain children up for adoption would make a great deal of sense.

    There are plenty of poor people living in houses in Queensland. I think housing is still cheaper here than it is interstate, so a move might not be out of the question for those who might benefit.

    Returning from the nursing home again today, I think I would rather be dead than live in those negligent conditions, made worse by dreadful wages and a decrease in visitors – also the result of Howard trying to send EVERY adult out to work.

    The spotcheckers have been back … might as well whistle as expect changes to occur.

    May 19th, 2008

84. muzzmonster

    Lorikeet, do you think you should be able to own slaves? Should poeple be put to death for practicing homosexual sex? Should women have to cover their heads in church? Should it be wrong to sow two different grains in a field? Should it be wrong to wear cloth with difference weaves? Should we consider menstruating women as unclean?

    All these things are from Leviticus and I (and a large proportion of society) would consider all of those as bizarre and old fashioned.

    May 19th, 2008

85. Lorikeet

    Muzz:

    Out of the things you mentioned, I think there could be a good reason for the comment on menstruating women (transmission of STDs, or causing them to haemorrhage), which is certainly relevant to homosexuality as well.

    Sowing 2 different grains in a field could inhibit production, or cause transmission of pestilence or disease.

    Since we didn’t live in biblical times and we don’t know the context or reasoning behind your excerpts, I cannot comment further. The weave of the cloth is an interesting one.

    To my knowledge, the bible doesn’t tell us to kill our unborn children or terminate the elderly and the weak.

    May 20th, 2008

86. muzzmonster

    You’re right Lorikeet. We don’t live in Biblical times and the Bible is not always a fool proof guide to decisions in our modern society.

    I’m not suggesting that it doesn’t provide good general advice for how to live a good life with all of our neighbours, but that it isn’t a rule book. In facte I consider much of my morality is based on the tenets of helping the poor, voiceless and downtrodden.

    May 20th, 2008

87. apprentice

    Lorikeet: I do have a child, whose birth cost the taxpayer nothing, since in those days we had to pay for our stay in hospital. Yes, I’m lucky in that respect since we were farm workers then, and living well below the poverty line, with husband and wife milking cows and feeding calves to get a house to live in and a bare minumum wage. Since then I have managed to gain a white collar job after childminding 4 kids under the age of 5 during the day and studying at night. I’m not sure why you think my having a child renders me ineligible to have an opinion on whether scarce health resources should be devoted to giving childless people the chance to have a child when other people have debilitating or life threatening conditions that are not being addressed. There are kids in the NT whose health problems were identified by ‘the intervention’ almost a year ago who have had no treatment yet, let alone the problems suffered by the rest of the population there. They would be my first priority, along with the nursing homes you speak of, and the many parents who have kids with disabilities who are struggling along at home with hardly any community help at all. If these priorities seem skewed to you, I’m sorry.

    May 21st, 2008

88. Lorikeet

    apprentice:

    I agree with a good deal of what you’re saying. I just think couples have a right to access fertility clinics if they cannot have children any other way, and to be helped financially if they are poor.

    Muzz:

    I nearly had an argument with one of my social worker friends last night. She is fanatically anti-smacking, but doesn’t care if people abort unborn children on a whim.

    Regardless of whether or not people are Christians (and I don’t claim to be one), there are things that are good for a society and things that are bad … or could become bad if misused.

    That’s why I oppose both abortion and euthanasia. I think the smack should stay, or get a new lease on life, but a bashing should go.

    May 21st, 2008

89. Andrew Bartlett

    I think this thread has been well off-topic for quite a while now and is at a stage where everyone in the conversation has had their say, so I will close off comments on it now.

    May 21st, 2008

1. Intercepting communications - now and then » The Bartlett Diaries - Apr 17th, 2008