Euthanasia

Remove this Banner Ad

This is similar to the gay marriage debate, in that there are no legitimate arguments against it; opponents are only against it because they 'feel uncomfortable' with it. This is an even more egregious stance than with in gay marriage however as its not merely symbolic; as this has real world consequences and people are suffering because of their ignorance.

I will say this in their defense though; The concern that it might be abused is legitimate, but that is an argument for how it is to be implemented, not whether it should be.
 
Kynge of Begrem said:
three letters
S
D
A
Click to expand...
While the Seventh Day Adventists do follow the unenlightened path they are not the activists the extreme right of the RC church are. Not in the same ball park

Power Raid said:
go back and read about the history of labor and the split between the communists and the catholics
Click to expand...
I'm well aware of the history.

What is relevant are the road blocks today. The left, through the Greens, have repeatedly attempted to have voluntary euthanasia legalised - with appropriate checks and balances.

What the Libs have done -through the likes of God bothering extreme right Catholics such as Kevin Andrews and Georgie Pell's mate Tone - is frustrate at every chance. Thanks to Andrews the freely elected NT government's legalisation allowing VE was overturned in the federal parliament. Bernie Finn has followed the same pattern in the Victorian parliament.

There are, of course, many moderate Catholics who are of a different view. It's the activist right that are the road blocks.

A number of small 'L' Liberal politicians have an enlightened view. Marshall Peron being one. Another being a past Premier of Victoria in Ted Baillieu. Much to his cost as it was the ratbag right, the likes of the Right to Life ,that forced him out.

People like that perennial pest Margaret Tighe and her God bothering Catholic friends in the Right to Life who have openly said they have frustrated the moves on VE via the conservative forces who are their friends.

Anyway, as much as I'm sure you'd like to further move us into a right v left discussion, the debate about the broader moral and ethical question is more important, so back to that.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Great Q and A tonight. Only on the ABC will you get this sort of thoughtful discussion. Thought Andrew Denton was clearly the most articulate and persuasive of the panel.

I would support the right of any person who is facing a painful and protracted end to their lives to not pursue voluntary euthanasia. I just wish people opposed to voluntary euthanasia and who are intent on wanting to stop me from legally exercising the option to pursue a different course should I so wish would offer me the same autonomy. My life! My choice!

And as Professor Allan Kellahear, formerly Professor of Palliative Care at La Trobe University and someone who is not for euthanasia as a personal choice said:

"I am for each breath you take but recognise that the breath you take is your own, and yours alone to take in and out, or simply out.

And as terminally ill journalist Pamela Bone wrote:

"We have autonomy over every aspect of our lives. Why then should we not have autonomy in the matter of the ending of our lives?"

I repeat. My life! My choice! Bravo Andrew Denton.
 
AM said:
You would think so. But Lebbo has demonstrated time and again he is prepared to comment on matters where he doesn't "know". Just saying!;)
Click to expand...
It that were the case, I would be posting all over the place. Now, back on topic. If you want to die, why do you need VE laws. No one is stopping anyone from taking their own life!
 
Lebbo73 said:
It that were the case, I would be posting all over the place. Now, back on topic. If you want to die, why do you need VE laws. No one is stopping anyone from taking their own life!
Click to expand...

Not everyone knows their local smack dealer or have access to benzos (a potent combination).

Other means of suicide aren't particularly dignified
 
Lebbo73 said:
It that were the case, I would be posting all over the place. Now, back on topic. If you want to die, why do you need VE laws. No one is stopping anyone from taking their own life!
Click to expand...

You clearly don't have the most fundamental understanding of the difference between the brutality of suicide and end of life decisions involving people who are suffering unremitting pain or facing a life of unremitting pain, for which there is no treatment, but who would otherwise have no desire or need to end their lives. People who would like the ending to be peaceful and surrounded by their loved ones.
 
We have Double jeopardy, presumed innocent before proven guilty and convicted beyond a reasonable doubt to protect people from the state.

I really don't want to give the right for the state to end lives.

Denton will argue that if the safe guards in place then I don't have anything to worry about.

Political climates change, and who knows what people will do in the future with euthanasia laws.

For me, any Euthanasia is for a tiny minority but the risks are too big.
 
Lebbo73 said:
It that were the case, I would be posting all over the place. Now, back on topic. If you want to die, why do you need VE laws. No one is stopping anyone from taking their own life!
Click to expand...


Just like how your blind ideological Catholic indoctrination dictates on abortion, you show the same supreme stupidity with VE.

You're a dopey ideologue with nothing to add but empty, parrot-learned rhetoric, that has been irrelevant for decades.

Go cry to your priest about the unearthly heathens, you dolt.

You don't even understand the issue.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

apparentlydead said:
Just like how your blind ideological Catholic indoctrination dictates on abortion, you show the same supreme stupidity with VE.

You're a dopey ideologue with nothing to add but empty, parrot-learned rhetoric, that has been irrelevant for decades.

Go cry to your priest about the unearthly heathens, you dolt.

You don't even understand the issue.
Click to expand...
There was a case approximately 20yrs ago in Brisbane with VE. The lady supposedly had cancer and the Doc assisted her death. Did she have cancer? No, she just wanted to die. I am happy with the laws as they are. If you are dying, the doctors will give you a pain free end to your life and it they will also hasten your death. There is no controversy or chance of state sanctioned killings!
 
eastfreo75 said:
I really don't want to give the right for the state to end lives.

Political climates change, and who knows what people will do in the future with euthanasia laws.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry but you clearley don't understand the issue at all.

Euthanasia is not giving the state the right to end lives. It's preventing the state from enforcing it against peoples will.

There is no slippery slope here; if in the future we fall under some despotic regieme that wants to re-instate capital punishment, the continuing criminalisation of euthenasia will have no impact in preventing it. And its baffeling that you think it would.
 
eastfreo75 said:
We have Double jeopardy, presumed innocent before proven guilty and convicted beyond a reasonable doubt to protect people from the state.

I really don't want to give the right for the state to end lives.

Denton will argue that if the safe guards in place then I don't have anything to worry about.

Political climates change, and who knows what people will do in the future with euthanasia laws.

For me, any Euthanasia is for a tiny minority but the risks are too big.
Click to expand...

You aren't giving it to the State. You are giving it to people like you and me with the support and help of compassionate medicos and our loved ones.

The old slippery slope position has been discredited for ages yet keeps popping-up because there is so little left for the extreme right of the Roman Catholic Church to hang their hats on. I'm not suggesting you are one btw as you appear quite reasonable.

Andrew Denton last night effectively dispatched the character with the beard who quoted bogus figures apparently derived from the internet on the slippery slope matter. Denton suggested in his comprehensive response that the bloke actually make the effort to go to the many countries who have had regulated voluntary euthanasia for ages as he did finding no major issues, rather than deliberately attempting to muddy the water with bogus figures. That includes two States in the US, a country with a significant proportion of extremists who insist we live by their philosophies.

Having seen two family members suffer unnecessarily - one with a degenerative condition and the other with cancer -due to them being unable to access a drug that would have ended the suffering in peaceful surroundings I find it hard to understand why anyone would not want compassion in those circumstances. You wouldn't put an animal through such suffering. I guess those thoroughly indoctrinated by religious dogma just entirely miss the humanity.

You have every right to choose your path should you unfortunately end-up up with a painful condition which robs you of any quality of life. I would support you in that choice. What you don't have is the right to do is deny me the path I would choose should I unfortunately end-up in those circumstances.

Surveys in Australia have consistently shown between 75% and 80% of those surveyed support regulated voluntary euthanasia. It's time the politicians had the cojones to take action and not be intimidated by the well organised and vocal minority, largely from the Roman Catholic Church and their noisy 'we know what's best for you' Right to Life busybodies.
 
No one is stopping VE. It is not legal because the boundaries become blurred because people are involved. Ask any nurse who works with the terminally ill what happens. It is very rare that someone is left to suffer in the last painful throes of life
 
Lebbo73 said:
No one is stopping VE. It is not legal because the boundaries become blurred because people are involved. Ask any nurse who works with the terminally ill what happens. It is very rare that someone is left to suffer in the last painful throes of life
Click to expand...

How does it feel to be on the wrong side of history again and again?

Eventually, logic, reason, and progress will prevail.
 
Lebbo73 said:
No one is stopping VE. It is not legal because the boundaries become blurred because people are involved. Ask any nurse who works with the terminally ill what happens. It is very rare that someone is left to suffer in the last painful throes of life
Click to expand...
So why do they have to run 40km of the marathon of suffering before a doctor can give enough morphine to "ease the pain" and in reality suppress the breathing enough to allow the person to pass away anyway?

Why can't people have a clean choice at ending their suffering if medical professionals agree the person is on a path they can't deviate from?

They don't even need to use their clean ticket out, but knowing it is there is a relief because there is a light at the end of the tunnel.
 
Lebbo73 said:
There was a case approximately 20yrs ago in Brisbane with VE. The lady supposedly had cancer and the Doc assisted her death. Did she have cancer? No, she just wanted to die. I am happy with the laws as they are. If you are dying, the doctors will give you a pain free end to your life and it they will also hasten your death. There is no controversy or chance of state sanctioned killings!
Click to expand...
Lebbo73 said:
No one is stopping VE. It is not legal because the boundaries become blurred because people are involved. Ask any nurse who works with the terminally ill what happens. It is very rare that someone is left to suffer in the last painful throes of life
Click to expand...


Are you trying to be this ignorant?

Go talk your s**t at Mass.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top