Assisted Dying Laws
- Thread starter AM
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Power Raid
We Exist To Win Premierships
have not read over this thread so this type of story may have already been covered.
my father died 3 years ago from AML and various other cancers. from diagnosis to death was roughly 5 years, most of the time he was in good spirits. he was very open re the death process and we discussed it and his lifes journey extensively during those 5 years he told me that he would not want to go on if it got too bad. too bad to him was incontinence or pain that could not be managed effectively. i went to the majority of his specialist appointments and we did discuss it with him, he said all would be fine.
incontinence and unbearable pain only started a week before his death (he had an extremely high threshold for pain) eventually he was put on a morphine drip with a gradually increasing dosage and he passed away peacefully in his sleep as part of a medically assisted suicide.
all that needs to be done is to bring this process forward if a sound of mind patient wants it. should be a no brainer IMO. but alas it isn't.
my father died 3 years ago from AML and various other cancers. from diagnosis to death was roughly 5 years, most of the time he was in good spirits. he was very open re the death process and we discussed it and his lifes journey extensively during those 5 years he told me that he would not want to go on if it got too bad. too bad to him was incontinence or pain that could not be managed effectively. i went to the majority of his specialist appointments and we did discuss it with him, he said all would be fine.
incontinence and unbearable pain only started a week before his death (he had an extremely high threshold for pain) eventually he was put on a morphine drip with a gradually increasing dosage and he passed away peacefully in his sleep as part of a medically assisted suicide.
all that needs to be done is to bring this process forward if a sound of mind patient wants it. should be a no brainer IMO. but alas it isn't.
- May 5, 2006
- 62,726
- 70,017
- AFL Club
- West Coast
Any alive person?
Might want to check out your nearest palliative care place and reassess your position.
Pie eyed
Premium Platinum
- Jun 26, 2007
- 42,593
- 23,344
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
- Other Teams
- Magpies
Palliative care is a goldmine...........I assume you think it's free, donated by the Church or some similar BS.
Tax payers pay for it.
My very elderly Dad has cancer and I have agreed to help him "out" when he asks.
It's between my Dad and I.
Everyone else can get fuked.
- Thread starter
- #7
Andrew Denton on Lateline exposing the manipulative work of religious zealots in relation to denying those with untreatable painfull terminal illness a peaceful comfortable end. Despite about 80% of the population being in favour of it with appropriate checks and balances.
Bravo Andrew!
http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2016/s4515903.htm
Bravo Andrew!
http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2016/s4515903.htm
telsor
Hall of Famer
Power Raid
We Exist To Win Premierships
There should be no checks and balances if the individual instructs directly or in the case of incapacitation via a legal document such as a will.
People should have the right to chose.
People should have the right to chose.
telsor
Hall of Famer
So basically legalise and assist suicide, for whatever reason?
Not sure the '80% support' would accept that.
Power Raid
We Exist To Win Premierships
I think your right re the 80%
people commit suicide for all sorts of reasons and probably go through needless suffering as a result of not providing a clean way out.
A husband of a friend of my sister hung himself over the weekend. He simply excused himself from the dinner table where he was dinning with his wife and 2 kids under the age of 3. He hadn't returned to the table, so the wife looked for him only to find him with rope around his neck tied to a door handle.
I know people probably aren't thinking straight during such an act but surely committing suicide, with the wife frantically screaming as she attempts to untie the rope with the kids in the house isn't ideal.
clean, simple, in a safe environment, with dignity etc
telsor
Hall of Famer
Yes and no.
Full disclosure, with this, or anything even vaguely close, I'd be dead now.
That said, I think some controls need to be in place.
A 16 year old who wants to kill themselves because their partner left them shouldn't be allowed to for example.
With longer term mental health issues, I think there should be genuine attempts to fix/help them first (therapy and/or medication).
For all cases, I'd include a waiting period. I'd say you need to want to do it for a month, but I'd also agree with altering the period depending on the age of the person, so a 20yo needs to wait longer than an 80yo.
BTW. By definition, ALL cases where a person genuinely wants to end their life counts as a mental health issue, and under the mental health act means you can/should be locked up until you no longer want to.
I'm a yes for this one. When my grandmother died (back when a teen), from passive smoking related cancer the Doctor implied he'd turn everything off and let her go to escape the suffering and it was a Daughter-in-law, very religious, who squashed that (everyone else was ok).
If I was suffering I'd want to go. And suffering would have to be physical suffering, not loneliness, heart break or depression. A vegetative mental state would be grounds for it being done though.
Obviously safe guards need to be in place - you can't agree if not in full control of your faculties (ruling out the mentally ill) OR you've clearly laid out conditions it can be done whilst you still had said mental faculties (a living will). This would need signing off by a psychologist, who is not allowed to be a benefactor of the patients will.
If I was suffering I'd want to go. And suffering would have to be physical suffering, not loneliness, heart break or depression. A vegetative mental state would be grounds for it being done though.
Obviously safe guards need to be in place - you can't agree if not in full control of your faculties (ruling out the mentally ill) OR you've clearly laid out conditions it can be done whilst you still had said mental faculties (a living will). This would need signing off by a psychologist, who is not allowed to be a benefactor of the patients will.
Chief
~ Shmalpha ~
- Admin
- #16
Denton brings up some facts which I will dig out again.
Some huge percentage of people who are given the needle to take their life at their own pace don't do it. But having it there, being trusted with it, having control, is enough to keep them going. You take out the feeling of being in limbo, the stress of not knowing when or if it will end.
- Thread starter
- #17
Andrew Denton at the National Press Club launching The Damage Done.
http://iview.abc.net.au/programs/national-press-club-address/NC1606C029S00
For those interested the electronic version of the book it can be found here.
http://iview.abc.net.au/programs/national-press-club-address/NC1606C029S00
For those interested the electronic version of the book it can be found here.
telsor
Hall of Famer
Thank you.
As I thought, the question is based on what is the clearest possible case..
"Thinking now about voluntary euthanasia, if a hopelessly ill patient, experiencing
unrelievable suffering, with absolutely no chance of recovering asks for
a lethal dose, should a doctor be allowed to provide a lethal dose?"
I would be curious how quickly that number would drop off in less absolute examples though, because I imagine quite few would so clearly fit these criteria, and there is very much a slippery slope concern that would need to be addressed.
The other thing I'd want to make sure of is that there is absolutely no obligation on the medical staff to provide such a dose themselves if they have ethical issues with doing so...it's also debatable if they should be required to refer such a request (and thus, in effect, become accomplices). As much as I respect the patients right to choose, nobody should be required to kill other people.
Im in favour of assisted suicide, however i object to some of the forms its presented in.
My conditions would be that:
A) mental health assessment be conducted
B) a 14 day cooling off period
C) Procedure must be carried out in a hospital, by qualified staff.
D) the Drug can only be administered by IV and is not available in pill form.
E) Mandatory 8 year minimum sentence for anyone found to have induced or coerced a person to euthanise.
F) Civil Forfeiture laws are extended to the cover deceased estate if authorities suspect the deceased decision was induced or coerced.
G) a minimum of one mental health professional and two physicians must sign off on patient having given informed consent, where it can be obtained.
H) in cases where informed consent cannot be given Eg: comatose or lacking mental capacity, euthanasia can only be obtained by the next of kin via a court order relating to the patient's known position regarding quality of life. At least 2 physicians must testify before the court the injuries or mental impairment are either permeant or extremely unlikely to be recovered from.
I) persons under the age of 21 are ineligible for Euthanasia except in extreme circumstances relating to severe, permanent debilitating injury.
All this stuff about pills available via prescription or it being done at home simply don't have enough safeguards for my liking.
My conditions would be that:
A) mental health assessment be conducted
B) a 14 day cooling off period
C) Procedure must be carried out in a hospital, by qualified staff.
D) the Drug can only be administered by IV and is not available in pill form.
E) Mandatory 8 year minimum sentence for anyone found to have induced or coerced a person to euthanise.
F) Civil Forfeiture laws are extended to the cover deceased estate if authorities suspect the deceased decision was induced or coerced.
G) a minimum of one mental health professional and two physicians must sign off on patient having given informed consent, where it can be obtained.
H) in cases where informed consent cannot be given Eg: comatose or lacking mental capacity, euthanasia can only be obtained by the next of kin via a court order relating to the patient's known position regarding quality of life. At least 2 physicians must testify before the court the injuries or mental impairment are either permeant or extremely unlikely to be recovered from.
I) persons under the age of 21 are ineligible for Euthanasia except in extreme circumstances relating to severe, permanent debilitating injury.
All this stuff about pills available via prescription or it being done at home simply don't have enough safeguards for my liking.
- Oct 20, 2014
- 18,407
- 19,541
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
- Other Teams
- Liverpool
So what you are saying is lets open up a can of worms.
When you watch sport, if a proposed rule change complicates things and opens are more grey areas, leave it alone.
- Sep 21, 2009
- 16,750
- 14,966
- AFL Club
- St Kilda
I think he is saying that it is important that we implement it.
But it's even more important that we get it right the first time.
Lakeside Swan
Premiership Player
- Banned
- #23
I don't understand why this is even being debated. Provided the relevant checks and balances are in place then it should be given the stamp of approval. I doubt that any of our politicians would have the guts to do it though. They don't like the tough decisions.
- Thread starter
- #24
Agree on both counts. Essentially it’s a matter of choice subject to there being adequate checks and balances. I don’t wish to deprive others of the choice to endure suffering if that’s there choice. So how dare they deprive me of the right to choose otherwise. My life. My choice.
Prof Allan Kelleher, a palliative care specialist who is not an assisted dying advocate, put it this way:
“I am for each breath you take but recognise that the breath you take is your own, and yours alone, to take in or out, or simply out.”
Chief was quite correct when he suggested earlier people cherish life and don’t wish to go a moment earlier than the given time. But how re-assuring it must be for those who have an untreatable condition that is likely to end painfully and distressingly to know they don’t have to endure that dreadful end. It would make that distressful time of their lives so much more peaceful and stress free.
However, as you say, politicians are weak beings who most often take the line of least resistance. The wheel is turning though.
- Sep 27, 2014
- 34,227
- 28,859
- AFL Club
- Essendon
It's got nothing to do with "guts". Public opinion has consistently supported this. It's the disproportionately high number of Catholics in Liberal and Labor parliamentary ranks who, for want of a better term, kill it off every time it comes up.
