Assisted Dying Laws

[AM]

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.

Sorry. But you just don't get it.

 

[little graham]

Sorry. But you just don't get it.

I've been to an mp who tried introducing a euthanasia laws and his point F is the sticking point. No one wants to empower greedy family. Every family has a story of members of it only interested in the assetts.

 

[AM]

I've been to an mp who tried introducing a euthanasia laws and his point F is the sticking point. No one wants to empower greedy family. Every family has a story of members of it only interested in the assetts.

Assisted dying laws have been enacted in some 15 jurisdictions around the world for ages without that matter being an issue. Quite apart from the protection built into assisted dying legislation, the Common Law also protects against any form of duress.

It’s just another straw man proposition like that of the slippery slope. It hasn’t been an issue in the many jurisdictions where assisted dying has been practised for ages. The key is the safeguards which are comprehensive.

 

[little graham]

Assisted dying laws have been enacted in some 15 jurisdictions around the world for ages without that matter being an issue. Quite apart from the protection built into assisted dying legislation, the Common Law also protects against any form of duress.

It’s just another straw man proposition like that of the slippery slope. It hasn’t been an issue in the many jurisdictions where assisted dying has been practised for ages. The key is the safeguards which are comprehensive.

I've had personal conversations with a member of parliament who tried introducing euthanasia laws and the sticking point it only takes one murder to * everything up.

The truth is the current laws are adequate. doctors sign patients over to palliative care and they pronounce the death and the body goes straight to the funeral home.

 

[AM]

I've had personal conversations with a member of parliament who tried introducing euthanasia laws and the sticking point it only takes one murder to **** everything up.

The truth is the current laws are adequate. doctors sign patients over to palliative care and they pronounce the death and the body goes straight to the funeral home.

The matter in discussion was duress. I suggested as part of my answer there are already protections in the Common Law on that matter. They would be enhanced in any assisted dying legislation.

I don’t know what State you are in but I know of only one MP who has attempted to introduce assisted dying legislation into the Parliament (Victoria) and the matter you raised was not an issue.

If you don’t think death is being hastened illegally in hospitals at present you aren’t as aware as you should be.

Victoria has just completed a rigorous enquiry into the pros and cons of assisted dying. The cross-party committee report recommended legalising assisted dying for those suffering serious and incurable conditions. With a multitude of checks and balances.

The full report and a summary can be found via the link.

http://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/lsic/article/2611

I reiterate, assisted dying law has been enacted in 15 jurisdictions around the world. In some jurisdictions for decades. It isn’t new.

 

[Sydney Bloods]

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.

no i'm saying that euthanasia should
A: be legal
B: properly regulated.

we allow open heart surgery, we don't allow Gus to do it in his back shed after looking it up on wiki how.

 

[Sydney Bloods]

Sorry. But you just don't get it.

Well by all means explain whats unreasonable about safeguards and oversight?

Why is the only form of euthanasia deemed appropriate a pill you take at home?

 

[AM]

Well by all means explain whats unreasonable about safeguards and oversight?

Why is the only form of euthanasia deemed appropriate a pill you take at home?

The matters with which I take issue in your earlier post ( as set out by you) are:

(B) To force someone to wait 14 days who has intolerable and unrelievable suffering is inhumane.

(C) The whole point of end of life decisions is to allow people in those circumstances to die in the most comfortable circumstances surrounded by their loved ones. A hospital is the last place that would be possible. And you are removing choice.

(D) There again you are removing choice. Forcing the person (and their loved ones) to endure IV is inconsiderate and runs counter to a peaceful comfortable end. You are turning what should be a peaceful comfortable end into a clinical circumstance.

(E) There is sufficient legislative power now available in the case of duress. Mandating a minimum period of a custodial sentence without taking account of the circumstances and evidence runs counter to the manner in which the law should be, and is, administered.

(F) What? If authorities “suspect” the assisted death occurred under some form of duress this should occur. There are laws in place to cover that matter. You appear not to understand the way the Rule of Law works if you think suspicion is all that is required to bring down such a penalty.

(G)There are provisions in all the jurisdictions of which I’m aware that ensure the person must have capacity. Once that has been established the Victorian Parliamentary recommendation that the primary doctor and an independent doctor both suitably qualified and undertaking their assessments independently is sufficient. Further complicating only adds to the distress of all concerned.

(I) If you can vote at 18. Get a drivers licence at 18. If fact, have autonomy over almost every aspect of ones life at that age, why then should an individual not have autonomy in the matter of the ending of life subject to the individual meeting the established criteria.

 

[Sydney Bloods]

The matters with which I take issue in your earlier post ( as set out by you) are:

(B) To force someone to wait 14 days who has intolerable and unrelievable suffering is inhumane.

and it is a necessary safe guard in place to ensure someones not rushing into a decision, you have a cooling off period for major decisions this should be treated no differently.

(C) The whole point of end of life decisions is to allow people in those circumstances to die in the most comfortable circumstances surrounded by their loved ones. A hospital is the last place that would be possible. And you are removing choice.

no the point of having euthanasia is to allow a person to end their lives, it is a medical procedure and should be treated as one.

(D) There again you are removing choice. Forcing the person (and their loved ones) to endure IV is inconsiderate and runs counter to a peaceful comfortable end. You are turning what should be a peaceful comfortable end into a clinical circumstance.

endure an IV? you clearly haven't had one for the purpose of administering anesthesia its nothing, its a bit comfortable but your under in less the a minute absolutely ludicrous to suggest its somehow cruel. clinical certainly Ethuanisa is a medical procedure and must have proper safeguards in place, not only to ensure there's as little risk of something going wrong, but also to ensure those against euthanasia cannot exploit the narrative as a rallying call to overturn it should they regain control over the Parliament after legislation is enacted.

(E) There is sufficient legislative power now available in the case of duress. Mandating a minimum period of a custodial sentence without taking account of the circumstances and evidence runs counter to the manner in which the law should be, and is, administered.

evidence and circumstance is taken into account when deciding guilt, sentencing is based solely upon what a fitting punitive sentence under the circumstance, a minimum sentence plays a part as a deterrent from peices of s**t who would try to manipulate someone into killing themselves.

(F) What? If authorities “suspect” the assisted death occurred under some form of duress this should occur. There are laws in place to cover that matter. You appear not to understand the way the Rule of Law works if you think suspicion is all that is required to bring down such a penalty.

that's how civil forfeiture works, its already legal and in place in every jurisdiction in the country. extending it to cases of euthanasia is a necessary precaution to prevent callous campaigners exploiting people.

(G)There are provisions in all the jurisdictions of which I’m aware that ensure the person must have capacity. Once that has been established the Victorian Parliamentary recommendation that the primary doctor and an independent doctor both suitably qualified and undertaking their assessments independently is sufficient. Further complicating only adds to the distress of all concerned.

the mental health of the patient must play a part in the decision. the best person to properly access that is a mental health professional, who would sign off when the person passes the mental health assessment. are you seriously suggesting a person wanting to kill themselves shouldn't undergo a mental health assessment?

(I) If you can vote at 18. Get a drivers licence at 18. If fact, have autonomy over almost every aspect of ones life at that age, why then should an individual not have autonomy in the matter of the ending of life subject to the individual meeting the established criteria.

18 year old's are overly emotional, have issues accessing risk, which is why the vast majority of States changed licencing schemes which push back the age at which a person obtains a fully unrestricted to around 21 years of age, including Victoria which places the minimum unrestricted licence age as 22.
there should be extra restrictions on euthanasia for those in that age bracket for these reasons.

Your right, it turns out i don't understand the issue I'm talking about legalising euthanasia as a medical procedure, carried out by a doctor at a medical facility, you seem doggedly opposed to such a situation. The simple fact is this country has major issues when it comes to prescription medication and self administration of drugs. A drug designed to terminate someones life must factor in the problems THIS COUNTRY already faces and until now seems to have no answer for, additional safe guards must be in place.

 

[AM]

and it is a necessary safe guard in place to ensure someones not rushing into a decision, you have a cooling off period for major decisions this should be treated no differently.

no the point of having euthanasia is to allow a person to end their lives, it is a medical procedure and should be treated as one.

People don't "rush" these matters. If you'd bother to read-up on these things let alone have lived through them you'd know that people cherish life and only arrive at these decisions when they are suffering intolerable and unrelievable pain and distress. To force them to have to suffer further and their loved ones the anguish is callous and heartless and illustrates a complete lack of empathy or understanding.

The point of assisted dying (your use of the term euthanasia is a giveaway as to your real motivation) is a to bring an end to untreatable and intolerable suffering in the most humane way and that should be in circumstances determined by the sufferer once all the conditions have been met.

How dare you or anyone determine that should be in a hospital with machines going ping when most if not all would prefer it to be in surroundings that bring the end peacefully and comfortably with their loved ones around them. Their life! Their choice!

endure an IV? you clearly haven't had one for the purpose of administering anesthesia its nothing, its a bit comfortable but your under in less the a minute absolutely ludicrous to suggest its somehow cruel. clinical certainly Ethuanisa is a medical procedure and must have proper safeguards in place, not only to ensure there's as little risk of something going wrong, but also to ensure those against euthanasia cannot exploit the narrative as a rallying call to overturn it should they regain control over the Parliament after legislation is enacted.

An IV drip is invasive and there are risks. That's not the point. By forcing that on a terminally sick patient in surroundings not of his or her choosing is once again heartless and shows no empathy for the person or their loved ones.

In circumstances of assisted dying a qualified medical practitioner can be present or after the patient becomes fully conversant with the simple process the sufferer can administer it themselves. It's no more than taking a pre-prepared drink. In any event, while it's in your interests to make a mountain out of a molehill, assisted dying has been practiced in 15 jurisdictions around the world, in many for decades, without any of your exaggerations.

evidence and circumstance is taken into account when deciding guilt, sentencing is based solely upon what a fitting punitive sentence under the circumstance, a minimum sentence plays a part as a deterrent from peices of s**t who would try to manipulate someone into killing themselves.

I don't know how often I need to say it but there is provision under Common Law to deal with such matters. There is no need to add to what is available to the law now. In any event the safeguards suggested in Victoria and in place in the 15 jurisdictions render it almost impossible for that to occur. But in the extremely unlikely event there is a view it might have occurred , the law is already there to deal with it.

that's how civil forfeiture works, its already legal and in place in every jurisdiction in the country. extending it to cases of euthanasia is a necessary precaution to prevent callous campaigners exploiting people.

Arrant nonsence. No Court makes rulings merely on suspicion which was your initial proposition.

the mental health of the patient must play a part in the decision. the best person to properly access that is a mental health professional, who would sign off when the person passes the mental health assessment. are you seriously suggesting a person wanting to kill themselves shouldn't undergo a mental health assessment?

See there you go again with the emotive terminology of a "person wanting to kill themselves". We are talking about a person wanting relief from intolerable untreatable pain and doing so in the most comfortable, humane, peaceful manner.

There are provisions to test a persons capacity. It's just you don't wish to recognise them.

My impression is you are a religious zealot because it is religious zealots who wish to inflict their views of the world on others. You end your life in the manner you wish. Get out of the way so others can do it their way subject to the safeguards recommended in Victoria and employed in the 15 jurisdictions who already have assisted dying laws which operate well.

18 year old's are overly emotional, have issues accessing risk, which is why the vast majority of States changed licencing schemes which push back the age at which a person obtains a fully unrestricted to around 21 years of age, including Victoria which places the minimum unrestricted licence age as 22.
there should be extra restrictions on euthanasia for those in that age bracket for these reasons.

What a gross generalisation in relation to the maturity of 18 year olds.

You can get a 'P' plate in Victoria at 18. You can vote at 18. The cross-party Victorian Parliamentary Party found after a rigorous review 18 is fine. But you just want to place another impediment in the way of this much needed advance.

Frankly I can't be bothered responding further to your drivel. I don't believe for a minute you are for assisted dying subject to all the checks and balance. Your reference to killing is straight out of the extreme right of the Catholic playbook on this matter.

 

[Sydney Bloods]

People don't "rush" these matters. If you'd bother to read-up on these things let alone have lived through them you'd know that people cherish life and only arrive at these decisions when they are suffering intolerable and unrelievable pain and distress. To force them to have to suffer further and their loved ones the anguish is callous and heartless and illustrates a complete lack of empathy or understanding.

The point of assisted dying (your use of the term euthanasia is a giveaway as to your real motivation) is a to bring an end to untreatable and intolerable suffering in the most humane way and that should be in circumstances determined by the sufferer once all the conditions have been met.

How dare you or anyone determine that should be in a hospital with machines going ping when most if not all would prefer it to be in surroundings that bring the end peacefully and comfortably with their loved ones around them. Their life! Their choice!




An IV drip is invasive and there are risks. That's not the point. By forcing that on a terminally sick patient in surroundings not of his or her choosing is once again heartless and shows no empathy for the person or their loved ones.

In circumstances of assisted dying a qualified medical practitioner can be present or after the patient becomes fully conversant with the simple process the sufferer can administer it themselves. It's no more than taking a pre-prepared drink. In any event, while it's in your interests to make a mountain out of a molehill, assisted dying has been practiced in 15 jurisdictions around the world, in many for decades, without any of your exaggerations.



I don't know how often I need to say it but there is provision under Common Law to deal with such matters. There is no need to add to what is available to the law now. In any event the safeguards suggested in Victoria and in place in the 15 jurisdictions render it almost impossible for that to occur. But in the extremely unlikely event there is a view it might have occurred , the law is already there to deal with it.




Arrant nonsence. No Court makes rulings merely on suspicion which was your initial proposition.



See there you go again with the emotive terminology of a "person wanting to kill themselves". We are talking about a person wanting relief from intolerable untreatable pain and doing so in the most comfortable, humane, peaceful manner.

There are provisions to test a persons capacity. It's just you don't wish to recognise them.

My impression is you are a religious zealot because it is religious zealots who wish to inflict their views of the world on others. You end your life in the manner you wish. Get out of the way so others can do it their way subject to the safeguards recommended in Victoria and employed in the 15 jurisdictions who already have assisted dying laws which operate well.



What a gross generalisation in relation to the maturity of 18 year olds.

You can get a 'P' plate in Victoria at 18. You can vote at 18. The cross-party Victorian Parliamentary Party found after a rigorous review 18 is fine. But you just want to place another impediment in the way of this much needed advance.

Frankly I can't be bothered responding further to your drivel. I don't believe for a minute you are for assisted dying subject to all the checks and balance. Your reference to killing is straight out of the extreme right of the Catholic playbook on this matter.

and this ladies and gentleman is why Euthanasia laws have such a hard time getting through, because on one hand people like AM reject common sense safeguards in place which treat Euthanasia as the serious medical procedure it is and on the other hand people like lebbo73 believe euthanasia can never be implemented with proper safeguards.

Also good job racking up the bonus points, continuing to incorrectly understand how civil forfeiture works in this country and yet arguing otherwise, You don't want mental health assessments, you don't want rigours safeguards in place, rejecting tougher sentencing despite it going along way alleviate fears in the community and ******* lol at being accused of being a fundamentalist christian. You even managed to get triggered by the words i used and claimed i had some secret catholic agenda, 10/10 would tumblr again.

 

[Procrastinator35]

An alive person makes more money for business's than a dead person.

Fact.

Unless you're an: Undertaker, Coffin-maker, Grave-digger, Florist, Coroner, Morgue technician, Stone-cutter/engraver, Crematorium operator etc, etc.

 

[mehow2g]

Unless you're an: Undertaker, Coffin-maker, Grave-digger, Florist, Coroner, Morgue technician, Stone-cutter/engraver, Crematorium operator etc, etc.

Health department.

 

[M Malice]

Just after dad received his diagnoses I told him to repeat a phrase we both agreed on when he was in rational mind. I told him to tell me that when he had enough of the pain. This was so he wouldn't ask me in frustration.

I wish you the best. The pigs never caught up with me but they have with others and get pretty nasty.

i know this is a serious subject LG and i have been through it relatively recently but it is sooooo like you to talk in a cryptic manner.

also the problem is there can be a rather large grey area re the interpretation of who and when someone is of rational mind, i think a team of 2-3 medical professionals needs to be involved in the decision in conjunction with a very concise and unambiguous updated version of a living will/advance health care directive etc.

 

[skilts]

People should be made to stay here, whether they want to or not.

 

[AM]

i know this is a serious subject LG and i have been through it relatively recently but it is sooooo like you to talk in a cryptic manner.

also the problem is there can be a rather large grey area re the interpretation of who and when someone is of rational mind, i think a team of 2-3 medical professionals needs to be involved in the decision in conjunction with a very concise and unambiguous updated version of a living will/advance health care directive etc.

I'm with a former specialist whose view is the essential features of assisted dying are:

It is an act taken by an individual, or requested by that individual.
It is taken or requested by a rational, fully informed individual.
It is that individual's intention to be relieved of intolerable and otherwise unrelievable suffering.
It is an action that hastens death.
It is, for that individual, a dignified death.

 

[GreyCrow]

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

I don't agree that in this situation AS is a solution. For me AS ( Assisted Suicide-Euthanasia) is for extremely ill people where the quality of life is less than a standard. Depression should not be used as a reason.

 

[skilts]

I don't agree that in this situation AS is a solution. For me AS ( Assisted Suicide-Euthanasia) is for extremely ill people where the quality of life is less than a standard. Depression should not be used as a reason.

And what makes you an expert on the validity or otherwise of somebody else's determination to no longer be here?

 

[GreyCrow]

And what makes you an expert on the validity or otherwise of somebody else's determination to no longer be here?

Never said I was. Never offered an opinion that said I was. This is a discussion board.

 

[skilts]

Never said I was. Never offered an opinion that said I was. This is a discussion board.

Depression should not be used as a reason.

This sentence would indicate otherwise.

 

[GreyCrow]

This sentence would indicate otherwise.

Then that is on you. You attached the label of expert. That is your shortcoming.

 

[Power Raid]

I don't agree that in this situation AS is a solution. For me AS ( Assisted Suicide-Euthanasia) is for extremely ill people where the quality of life is less than a standard. Depression should not be used as a reason.

I'd even allow it, for the reason of "I don't have anything better on this Sunday" or "the census is too hard". but I can certainly understand why others would disagree (except Richmond supporters).

 

[PP34]

Only for certain situations, like terminal cancer, being severely crippled and unable to sustain any kind of quality life. That sort of thing.

Couldn't bear the thought of lying in a bed dying and having some religious campaigner I know want to prevent me from leaving a life of pain.

 

[little graham]

On another tangent, one few will be able to compute.

Western medicine controls most peoples health, rather than offers cure/recovery. There's more and more science showing better treatments for many terminal illnesses exist, have been denied from us. There's more and more data that shows chemotherapy kills many alot earlier than had they not received treatment.

Before we go down the euthanasia road, we need to change that bullshit.

 

[AM]

David Penberthy in today's HeraldSun reviewing "The Damage Done"

Good books are described as unputdownable. The Damage Done borders on being unpickupable.

It is a very important book, though, an enormously powerful book, in that it gives voice to people who are now voiceless, compiling the harrowing final testimony of people who are now gone, killed by incurable diseases and plagued by unmanageable pain. People such as Elisabeth Inglis, one of the almost 800 Aussies who die each year from motor neurone disease, a hideous, incurable condition which sufferer and AFL great Neale Daniher has labelled “The Beast”. MND methodically strips its victims of all their faculties. The ultimate cause of death is asphyxiation. Literally choking to death.

Elisabeth, who had lost the capacity for speech, scribbled a note from her hospital bed, a photograph of which appears in the book. It reads: “It’s so much worse than I had imagined.”