Assisted Dying Laws

Remove this Banner Ad

King Brown said:
This goes against @AM’s fraudulent argument that there is no slippery slope.
Click to expand...

death comes to us all and I'll choose my personal freedom over some bureaucrat any day. If it requires a slippery slope to get there, because our politicians are gutless, then so be it.

In the mean time just like we once had backyard abortions, we will just have DIY suicides, backyard euthanasia and people dying of starvation or thirst in our hospitals.
 
ep2006 said:
Now a dodgy doctor can turn off your life support and harvest your organs and no one will bat an eyelid.

Scary stuff...
Click to expand...

only if he forged your signature on your instructions (most likely in your will) in the case of mental or physical incapacitation.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Power Raid said:
death comes to us all and I'll choose my personal freedom over some bureaucrat any day. If it requires a slippery slope to get there, because our politicians are gutless, then so be it.

In the mean time just like we once had backyard abortions, we will just have DIY suicides, backyard euthanasia and people dying of starvation or thirst in our hospitals.
Click to expand...
Yeah, nah. Backyard abortions are about the well-being of the mother, not euthanising the foetus.
 
King Brown said:
This goes against AM's fraudulent argument that there is no slippery slope.
Click to expand...
The old ‘slippery slope’ deceit. Assisted dying has been in place in many, many locations around the world for ages without evidence of the slippery slope fallacy yet it still gets put out there by those with not much more than extreme religious motivations wishing to force their zealotry on the overwhelming majority (80%) who don’t see it their way. How dare they!

A couple of quotes form Go Gently and Dying with Dignity.

Opponents argue that once voluntary assisted dying legislation is introduced, it will inevitably be broadened to apply to those for whom it was never intended. They call this the ‘slippery slope’.

Over the last decade, numerous, wide-ranging, official inquiries into these laws have rejected allegations of the ‘slippery slope’ - most recently, a cross-party Victorian parliamentary inquiry. In its June 2016 report, handed down after 10 months of investigation, they found “rigorous safeguards, monitoring procedures and high levels of compliance” and “no evidence of institutional corrosion or the often cited ‘slippery slope’”.

Often opponents refer to the European laws, especially in Belgium and The Netherlands, to suggest that laws written to apply only to the terminally ill have since been broadened to provide access to those without terminal illness. This is incorrect – the laws in Europe were never written purely for the terminally ill, but for those with a ‘medically futile condition that causes unbearable suffering’. The overwhelming majority of people who use these laws have cancer, but they also allow people with degenerative and chronic illnesses, such as Motor Neurone Disease, Multiple Sclerosis, and Chronic Rheumatoid Arthritis, to ask for help to die.
Click to expand...

Despite these few changes, legal experts contacted by Fact Check agreed there was no evidence of restrictions being increasingly loosened.

Cameron Stewart, a Professor of Health, Law and Ethics with the Sydney Law School, said: "There's no evidence at all of a slippery slope in any of the American jurisdictions."

He acknowledged the changes to age restrictions in Europe but also said that "in terms of it being a slippery slope, I think the evidence there is really questionable"

Professor Downie said, "I can't think of a jurisdiction that expanded who can administer the drug and when".

"The bottom line is that we have not seen evidence of the slippery slope and there is no good reason to believe that the experience on that front would be any different in Australia."
Click to expand...

Just why people with fanatical religious views seek to force the remainder to live according to their dictates is annoying in the extreme. Or to be more direct - it gives me the shits. How dare they tell they me how to complete the journey. How dare they. My life. My choice.

The changes won't make a jot of difference to religious fanatics lives. Not a jot.

If they were to unfortunately find themselves in circumstances where they have a terminal illness which is incurable with unrelenting suffering for which there is no relief and choose to suffer until the journey ends, they can do it. And I and everyone I know who would take a different path would support them in that choice. Give the 80% who disagree our choice too.

An illustration of the depths to which they will go to force their views down the overwhelming majorities throats can be seen in the following article.

http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/assisted-dying-antieuthanasia-forces-launch-gloves-off-campaign-in-key-seats-20170610-gwonuc.
 
Lebbo73 said:
You put down animals, not human beings! Do you lack the decency to differentiate between the two?
Click to expand...
It's not a matter of decency, it's about empathy, which is trying to imagine what it is like to be in the shoes of others.

Obviously you have never even considered what it is like to be suffering from MND for example. And you quite likely don't care.

It's all well and good for someone like you to moralize about a subject like this while you are still relatively fit and well.
 
How soon would the pill need to be taken? I suffer from anxiety about my health to the point that it has disrupted my life, and when I have faced concern over my health I wanted to have a pill that I could take at any time. I felt that having this option within my grasp would lead to me, and others presumably, delaying the decision a fair bit. However it seems to me that this victorian model would require the pill to be taken right away.
 
Lethality said:
How soon would the pill need to be taken? I suffer from anxiety about my health to the point that it has disrupted my life, and when I have faced concern over my health I wanted to have a pill that I could take at any time. I felt that having this option within my grasp would lead to me, and others presumably, delaying the decision a fair bit. However it seems to me that this victorian model would require the pill to be taken right away.
Click to expand...

That's an interesting point.

So by having choice, you feel you don't need to exercise that choice immediately. but if you have a process (rather than choice), you may have to enter the process and exercise that choice even if you aren't really ready?
 
Power Raid said:
That's an interesting point.

So by having choice, you feel you don't need to exercise that choice immediately.
Click to expand...

Yes

but if you have a process (rather than choice), you may have to enter the process and exercise that choice even if you aren't really ready?
Click to expand...

Sort of, I will probably feel that I am ready when I enter the process, however it is a 10 day process, whereas I might want to take the pill right away. If I can wait 10 days, then I can probably delay taking the pill even further. It would be good if that option existed. Not sure it does.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Lethality said:
Yes



Sort of, I will probably feel that I am ready when I enter the process, however it is a 10 day process, whereas I might want to take the pill right away. If I can wait 10 days, then I can probably delay taking the pill even further. It would be good if that option existed. Not sure it does.
Click to expand...

I think most of us as we get older aren't frightened of death. What many of us are frightened of is a slow debilitating death, suffering, humiliation (who wants to lay in piss ridden nappies) or death boredom. At the same time I don't want a long process driven by some bureaucrat who thinks he knows more about me, claims he has a greater vested interest in my life than me and dictates when and if I can check out. A drawn out process is mental torture and adds needless suffering to someone already down on their luck.
 
pazza said:
Take it from me.

The children would be fine with it. It is they who are there watching their loved ones (often grandparents) die in pain and not understanding why.
Click to expand...
For the most part this is true, but I would imagine in large families there would always be disagreements about taking this kind of action. Four children might be all for it to ease the pain but one might be against it, and seeing it happen could have significant impacts on them into the future.

That being said, as the legislation makes clear it is all about the person suffering and their wishes while they are in a fit mental state.
 
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...73bac2-9988-11e8-b60b-1c897f17e185_story.html

We do know the 11-year-old euthanized last year had cystic fibrosis. This congenital respiratory disease is incurable and fatal, but modern treatments enable many patients to enjoy high quality of life well into their 30s or even beyond. Median life expectancy for new CF cases in the United States is now 43 years, according to the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation.
Click to expand...

CF is a fatal genetic disease, but not a debilitating one. Many people with CF can have meaningful lives, with some even having children of their own. Modern treatment like Kalydeco effectively work as a 'cure'. What separates this from eugenics?

And why kill kids?
 
its free real estate said:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...73bac2-9988-11e8-b60b-1c897f17e185_story.html



CF is a fatal genetic disease, but not a debilitating one. Many people with CF can have meaningful lives, with some even having children of their own. Modern treatment like Kalydeco effectively work as a 'cure'. What separates this from eugenics?

And why kill kids?
Click to expand...
I believe that Belgium's laws around euthanasia are too lax, they've already had problems and I hope we don't follow the same path in Australia.

It is interesting though as the 11 year old has a death sentence currently. If they live to 40 and have kids of their own what happens if they have CF, would they be able to live knowing they put the same death sentence on their own children? Now the pass away at 40ish and leave behind a family? Then what if they didn't want to live with the chronic health problems that come through having CF?

Also Kalydeco is incredibly expensive and only useful in certain types of CF.

I wouldn't classify this as eugenics, that would be screening everyone for CF and then not allowing carries to conceive with each other.
 
its free real estate said:
The 11 year old is dead.

It is on the PBS in Australia. And there are new treatments all the time.
Click to expand...
Sorry. Had a death sentence.

Yes new treatments are being created all the time but they also take time and have to go through trial periods. Eventually we'll find a cure for CF and this discussion will be moot, but currently there are no cures.
 
GreyWind said:
Sorry. Had a death sentence.

Yes new treatments are being created all the time but they also take time and have to go through trial periods. Eventually we'll find a cure for CF and this discussion will be moot, but currently there are no cures.
Click to expand...
There won't be any cures if you euthanise the market.

HIV was once a death sentence, now it isn't. Had euthanasia been an option when it first took hold, would we have the suite of anti retrovirals now?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

K
The rule of law & the ACT Government
Replies
0
Views
518
Kwality
K
Cap
New disinformation laws
2
Replies
25
Views
1K
Northalives
Northalives

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top