Assisted Dying Laws

Apr 2, 2013
10,969
16,327
AFL Club
Collingwood
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.

Don't like to bring money into it but......................

All Insurance forms, life insurance, super, travel insurance etc etc in the fine print say no payout for suicide. Making this a Legal Process (Euthanaisa) rather than ending life after a long protracted undignified illness (rather than not wanting to go to work Monday as you put it) means Insurance Companies can't simply say suicide no payout for you.
 
Apr 2, 2013
10,969
16,327
AFL Club
Collingwood
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).

It is allowed. As a Senator said it is actually your ultimate civil right. Even if it isn't can't really prosecute a corpse.

The point of the Law is a safeguard to protect the assistees. Would you really be comfortable having a Doctor off someone with Mondayitis.
 
It is allowed. As a Senator said it is actually your ultimate civil right. Even if it isn't can't really prosecute a corpse.

The point of the Law is a safeguard to protect the assistees. Would you really be comfortable having a Doctor off someone with Mondayitis.

yes

obviously I'd prefer they didn't but yes
 
Apr 2, 2013
10,969
16,327
AFL Club
Collingwood
I am all for empowerment and people having the right to choose but this seems needlessly complicated.

A 10 day cooling off period when someone is in terminal pain?
2 doctors?
Dragging in a witness?

Just doesn't seem practical. Also how does it work for people of sound mind who express their wishes yet end up losing their marbles some time later?

Personally even if i was in something like a Car Accident and was destined to be a vegetable or servery paralysed like in Million Dollar baby I would want the plug pulled pronto but the decision would be out of my hands.How does this law change a situation like that?

A better scheme would be to be a lot more flexible when the Grim Reaper is setting up shop and let people make their own minds up.
 
Don't like to bring money into it but......................

All Insurance forms, life insurance, super, travel insurance etc etc in the fine print say no payout for suicide. Making this a Legal Process (Euthanaisa) rather than ending life after a long protracted undignified illness (rather than not wanting to go to work Monday as you put it) means Insurance Companies can't simply say suicide no payout for you.

yep

that's an area that would need to be considered. this may be driven by commercial interest or "assisted" with regulatory involvement.
 

King Brown

Club Legend
Aug 12, 2017
2,582
3,763
AFL Club
Essendon
Keating has come out against them.

An alarming aspect of the debate is the claim that safeguards can be provided at every step to protect the vulnerable. This claim exposes the bald utopianism of the project – the advocates support a bill to authorise termination of life in the name of compassion, while at the same time claiming they can guarantee protection of the vulnerable, the depressed and the poor.

No law and no process can achieve that objective.

http://www.theage.com.au/comment/pa...-one-we-should-not-cross-20171019-gz412h.html

My respect for him has only increased. I am not religious in the slightest, but the idea that the state can permit situations in which you can kill leave them open to abuse, with an act that can never be reversed. If you are opposed to the death penalty, then you should be opposed to euthanasia.
 
Don't like to bring money into it but......................

All Insurance forms, life insurance, super, travel insurance etc etc in the fine print say no payout for suicide. Making this a Legal Process (Euthanaisa) rather than ending life after a long protracted undignified illness (rather than not wanting to go to work Monday as you put it) means Insurance Companies can't simply say suicide no payout for you.
Smoking is legal, but they can adjust your premiums based on that.

No, this is politics of morals all the way.
 
Keating has come out against them.



http://www.theage.com.au/comment/pa...-one-we-should-not-cross-20171019-gz412h.html

My respect for him has only increased. I am not religious in the slightest, but the idea that the state can permit situations in which you can kill leave them open to abuse, with an act that can never be reversed. If you are opposed to the death penalty, then you should be opposed to euthanasia.

Keating is a great leader but he is off the mark on this one. If government can't provide the protections deemed necessary, than get another organisation that can.

Dying with dignity is a human right.
 
What does this even mean? No one can provide the protections necessary - people will game the system.

Since when? Asserting something is a human right doesn't make it so.

it was a human right until, just like animals, until laws were introduced to prevent it.

The protections "necessary" aren't hard. In fact they are pretty simple until one wants to make them difficult.
 
Last edited:
We can euthanise animals and abort babies. Why not then have the ability to put a terminally ill person out of their suffering.

How many armed forces members died during Keating's term due to government policy to send in troops?
 
What?


What?

Killing with dignity has been a part of civil society for as long as one can remember. Publicly we know and accept we do it with animals and we know and accept it happens in a health care today.

What we can't and don't do is talk too much about it.

The control and procedures required are as basic as ABC. Communication, understanding, respecting wishes and professional judgement.

It is no harder than what we do already in health, in fact it will be more transparent. It is no harder than other circumstances where we kill people.

this is not a big issue nor is it complex.
 

AM

The standard you walk past is the one you accept
Aug 18, 2006
24,579
23,475
Here there and everywhere
AFL Club
Geelong
Wonderful win today for the forces of light over the forces of darkness.

The Voluntary Assisted Dying Bill passed 47 votes to 37, after a conscience vote.

Let's hope the Legislative Council shows the same compassion and wisdom.

http://ab.co/2xSxaqk
 
https://www.eutanasia.ws/documentos/Leyes/Internacional/Holanda Ley 2002.pdf

based of the netherlands but what should be considered here (changes in bold)

Chapter II. Requirements of Due Care

Article 2
1. The requirements of due care, referred to in Article 293 second paragraph Penal Code mean that the physician:
a. holds the conviction that the request by the patient was voluntary and well-considered,
b. holds the conviction, or the patient holds the conviction, that the patient's suffering was lasting and unbearable,
c. has informed the patient about the situation he was in and about his prospects,
d. and the patient hold the conviction that there was no other reasonable solution for the situation he was in,
e. has consulted at least one other, independent physician who has seen the patient and has given his written opinion on the requirements of due care, referred to in parts a - d, and
f. has terminated a life or assisted in a suicide with due care.

2. If the patient aged sixteen years or older is no longer capable of expressing his will, but prior to reaching this condition was deemed to have a reasonable understanding of his interests and has made a written statement containing a request for termination of life, the physician may cant' out this request. The requirements of due care, referred to in the first paragraph, apply mutatis mutandis.

3. If the minor patient has attained an age between four sixteen and eighteen years and may be deemed to have a reasonable understanding of his interests, the physician may cant' out the patient's request for termination of life or assisted suicide, after the parent or the parents exercising parental authority and/or his guardian have been involved in the decision process.

4. If the minor patient is aged between zero and four sixteen years and may be deemed to have a reasonable understanding of his interests, the physician may cant' out the patient's or guardians request, provided always that the parent or the parents exercising parental authority and/or his guardian agree with the termination of life or the assisted suicide.
The second paragraph applies mutatis mutandis.
 
Umm, zero.

it probably wasn't the right question given the law is about killing people not people dying. The question should be, what rules and regulations surround current processes and authority for killing people such as our police and militaries?

If we can do it properly in other scenarios why can't we do it properly in this scenario? Why should killing people in our health system today go unregulated and with so much legal uncertainty?
 

King Brown

Club Legend
Aug 12, 2017
2,582
3,763
AFL Club
Essendon
I look forward to the Four Corners report in 10 years time on how much a disaster this decision is. Expect it to be gamed by unscrupulous people.
Killing with dignity has been a part of civil society for as long as one can remember. Publicly we know and accept we do it with animals and we know and accept it happens in a health care today.

What we can't and don't do is talk too much about it.

The control and procedures required are as basic as ABC. Communication, understanding, respecting wishes and professional judgement.

It is no harder than what we do already in health, in fact it will be more transparent. It is no harder than other circumstances where we kill people.

this is not a big issue nor is it complex.

Waffle words that avoids the question. How is dying with dignity a human right?

Animals by and large don't die with dignity. Most of them across the world die horrifically. Every pure bred dog you see is very slowly dying of agony. Then, when we can't take it anymore, we kill them.

Don't confuse compassion with horror.
 
I look forward to the Four Corners report in 10 years time on how much a disaster this decision is. Expect it to be gamed by unscrupulous people.


Waffle words that avoids the question. How is dying with dignity a human right?

Animals by and large don't die with dignity. Most of them across the world die horrifically. Every pure bred dog you see is very slowly dying of agony. Then, when we can't take it anymore, we kill them.

Don't confuse compassion with horror.

how is it a human right? it's common sense once you consider a timeline. That is, it once was a human right before the law took that right away. Prior to the law, what stopped this from happening?

Even as we speak this human right is carried out every day but in an undisclosed and unregulated environment, to circumvent the law and prosecution.

Your getting yourself confused with the paragraph about animals. Have re-read, take a step back and a moment to consider what you are saying.
 
Oct 23, 2014
38,592
44,471
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Melbourne Hawks, NY Rangers
All this is doing is regulating something that already happens every day.

It's hopefully providing a more comfortable and certain experience which can be shared with family, as opposed to DIY suicides which would be lonely, violent, or are often botched leading to disability, or which involve and traumatise other people such as suicide by cop.
 

AM

The standard you walk past is the one you accept
Aug 18, 2006
24,579
23,475
Here there and everywhere
AFL Club
Geelong
It's probably this sense of absolute certainty that led Jill Hennessy to tell Merlino she would see him next Tuesday.

I'm for Euthanasia, but as usual Andrews is letting his heart rule his head.
Merlino's duplicitous and destructive contribution would test anyone, particularly one who has seen a family member suffer terminal unbearable pain as Jill Hennessy has.

The downright deceit and lies put about by the religious zealots who want to deny folk choice and appear to have made it their life's work to force people to live according to their beliefs is an eye opener. Credit to the majority of members of the LA for sticking to their principles in the face of threats and hostility.
 
Back