link

Well done Victoria.

The form in which it has been passed is nonsense, of course, but at least it's opened the door for future politicians to expand upon it.

Quote:

"They include a range of safeguards. Patients would have to make three requests and see specially trained doctors".

'Specially trained doctors'? What a load of bullshit. 'Specially indoctrinated doctors' is what they mean.

But wait, there's more ...

"If it gets through the Upper House, terminally ill people over the age of 18, in severe pain and with only a year to live will be able to access lethal drugs".

Farcical. Only a committee of politicians could come up with something as idiotic and contrary to commonsense as this.

They are all agreed that it's okay for someone dying of a terminal illness to endure severe pain for an entire year before he or she can then apply three times to be assisted with self-euthanasia.

These are the people running the agenda for this country. They are the clever ones who are all university trained and wise beyond the average bloke in the street.

 

Lord Herbert wrote on Oct 20^th, 2017 at 11:23am:

link Well done Victoria. The form in which it has been passed is nonsense, of course, but at least it's opened the door for future politicians to expand upon it. Quote: "They include a range of safeguards. Patients would have to make three requests and see specially trained doctors". 'Specially trained doctors'? What a load of bullshit. 'Specially indoctrinated doctors' is what they mean. But wait, there's more ... "If it gets through the Upper House, terminally ill people over the age of 18, in severe pain and with only a year to live will be able to access lethal drugs". Farcical. Only a committee of politicians could come up with something as idiotic and contrary to commonsense as this. They are all agreed that it's okay for someone dying of a terminal illness to endure severe pain for an entire year before he or she can then apply three times to be assisted with self-euthanasia. These are the people running the agenda for this country. They are the clever ones who are all university trained and wise beyond the average bloke in the street.

They don't have to suffer for 12 months.

They just need to be told by a doctor they have 12 months to live.

However, this isn't good:

"If passed, the legislation will not come into effect for 18 months to allow for its implementation."

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 20^th, 2017 at 11:31am:

They don't have to suffer for 12 months. They just need to be told by a doctor they have 12 months to live.

One more time for the slow learner at the back of the class :-

Quote: "If it gets through the Upper House, terminally ill people over the age of 18 in severe pain and with only a year to live will be able to access lethal drugs".

The patient may have only days to live in extreme pain, but these pollies are allowing for severe pain to be suffered for a whole year as decided by his doctors.

Only a paltry 150 per annum will benefit from this reluctant kindness, with meanwhile thousands in a similar situation will not be so lucky.

The moral cowardice of these politicians deserves nothing but contempt, and personally, I would have then gassed by the score.

Lord Herbert wrote on Oct 20^th, 2017 at 11:46am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 20th, 2017 at 11:31am: They don't have to suffer for 12 months. They just need to be told by a doctor they have 12 months to live. One more time for the slow learner at the back of the class :- Quote: "If it gets through the Upper House, terminally ill people over the age of 18 in severe pain and with only a year to live will be able to access lethal drugs". The patient may have only days to live in extreme pain, but these pollies are allowing for severe pain to be suffered for a whole year as decided by his doctors.

Incorrect.

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 20^th, 2017 at 11:47am:

Lord Herbert wrote on Oct 20th, 2017 at 11:46am: greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 20th, 2017 at 11:31am: They don't have to suffer for 12 months. They just need to be told by a doctor they have 12 months to live. One more time for the slow learner at the back of the class :- Quote: "If it gets through the Upper House, terminally ill people over the age of 18 in severe pain and with only a year to live will be able to access lethal drugs". The patient may have only days to live in extreme pain, but these pollies are allowing for severe pain to be suffered for a whole year as decided by his doctors. Incorrect.

You want this thread to be about you again, do you?

Lord Herbert wrote on Oct 20^th, 2017 at 11:48am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 20th, 2017 at 11:47am: Lord Herbert wrote on Oct 20th, 2017 at 11:46am: greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 20th, 2017 at 11:31am: They don't have to suffer for 12 months. They just need to be told by a doctor they have 12 months to live. One more time for the slow learner at the back of the class :- Quote: "If it gets through the Upper House, terminally ill people over the age of 18 in severe pain and with only a year to live will be able to access lethal drugs". The patient may have only days to live in extreme pain, but these pollies are allowing for severe pain to be suffered for a whole year as decided by his doctors. Incorrect. You want this thread to be about you again, do you?

I'm just pointing out that you've read it wrong.

There is no requirement to wait a full year.

The requirement is that you've been given a year to live by the doctors.

Accept it, and move on, you grouchy old prick.

I'm glad it passed.

Now we can all die with dignity.

Bobby. wrote on Oct 20^th, 2017 at 11:58am:

I'm glad it passed. Now we can all die with dignity.

Well, in 18 months time.

"If passed, the legislation will not come into effect for 18 months to allow for its implementation."

Slow bastards.

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 20^th, 2017 at 11:51am:

Lord Herbert wrote on Oct 20th, 2017 at 11:48am: greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 20th, 2017 at 11:47am: Lord Herbert wrote on Oct 20th, 2017 at 11:46am: greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 20th, 2017 at 11:31am: They don't have to suffer for 12 months. They just need to be told by a doctor they have 12 months to live. One more time for the slow learner at the back of the class :- Quote: "If it gets through the Upper House, terminally ill people over the age of 18 in severe pain and with only a year to live will be able to access lethal drugs". The patient may have only days to live in extreme pain, but these pollies are allowing for severe pain to be suffered for a whole year as decided by his doctors. Incorrect. You want this thread to be about you again, do you? I'm just pointing out that you've read it wrong. There is no requirement to wait a full year. The requirement is that you've been given a year to live by the doctors. Accept it, and move on, you grouchy old prick.

You're right. My apologies. I was temporarily distracted by Mothra posting up inscrutable nonsense in another thread. 

Lord Herbert wrote on Oct 20^th, 2017 at 12:28pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 20th, 2017 at 11:51am: Lord Herbert wrote on Oct 20th, 2017 at 11:48am: greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 20th, 2017 at 11:47am: Lord Herbert wrote on Oct 20th, 2017 at 11:46am: greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 20th, 2017 at 11:31am: They don't have to suffer for 12 months. They just need to be told by a doctor they have 12 months to live. One more time for the slow learner at the back of the class :- Quote: "If it gets through the Upper House, terminally ill people over the age of 18 in severe pain and with only a year to live will be able to access lethal drugs". The patient may have only days to live in extreme pain, but these pollies are allowing for severe pain to be suffered for a whole year as decided by his doctors. Incorrect. You want this thread to be about you again, do you? I'm just pointing out that you've read it wrong. There is no requirement to wait a full year. The requirement is that you've been given a year to live by the doctors. Accept it, and move on, you grouchy old prick. You're right. My apologies.

Thanks.  All good.

Now we can both be angry together, over this:

"If passed, the legislation will not come into effect for 18 months to allow for its implementation."

Why so long?

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 20^th, 2017 at 12:17pm:

Bobby. wrote on Oct 20th, 2017 at 11:58am: I'm glad it passed. Now we can all die with dignity. Well, in 18 months time. "If passed, the legislation will not come into effect for 18 months to allow for its implementation." Slow bastards.

Yes - why not tomorrow - what's the 18 months for?

How many threads are required to bury the dead ?

juliar wrote on Oct 20^th, 2017 at 3:07pm:

How many threads are required to bury the dead ?

How many are required to bury your dignity?

The gecko troll is trolling me now. What a thrill.

While the Lefties are tossing the empty tin can between them how about some REAL DISCUSSION about the Greeny Death Thing.

Gosh you can hear the clashing of the gears as the Lefties try to drop her down a cog to climb this insurmountable obstacle.



Voluntary assisted dying: Solving the impossible trolley problem
Samuel Douglas 30 September 2017, 11:30am  14

http://righttolifeca.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Euthanasia65.jpg

Bills introduced to the New South Wales and Victorian state parliaments argue that voluntary assisted dying should be legal. Beach philosopher Dr Samuel Douglas considers this vexed issue.

WE LIVE in a society where we are told we have the right to make choices about our lives and our bodies. But are there circumstances where we should be allowed to make that most radical of choices about ourselves — when and how our lives should end?

Bills introduced to both New South Wales and Victorian state parliaments argue that, in certain limited circumstances, voluntary assisted dying should be legal. While there are differences between them, both suggestions detail that the patient must be an adult of sound mind (25 in NSW), that at least two medical practitioners must assess them as having a limited time left to live, and that a range of psychological and judicial safeguards be in place to ensure patient competency and freedom from coercion.

Members of the respective lower houses seem to be struggling to decide on how to vote and how to articulate a coherent position on this. It is a complex and emotionally charged issue, but at its core, I think what is going on (and how they should vote) is pretty straightforward.

THE TROLLEY PROBLEM

The classic way (by internet standards) to approach this issue is illustrated using the trolley problem.

For those who haven’t studied ethics or whose news feeds aren’t full of unfeasibly nerdy trolley problem memes, this is through a thought experiment where a runaway "trolley" (such as a streetcar or a tram) is heading down a track towards a junction. One track has five people tied to it, the other only one. If it continues its current course, it will run over and kill the five people. If it’s diverted, the trolley will only kill one person. You are standing next to the lever – what do you do? If you do nothing five people die, but you did not technically act to cause their deaths. If you pull the lever, only one person dies, but you arguably have played a more active role in their death.

It’s typically portrayed thus:

https://i.imgur.com/1FfL1M1.jpg



In the case of voluntary assisted dying, this isn’t at all like what’s going on.

In a single instance, there is only one person on the track: a terminally ill patient who is deemed capable of autonomously making important decisions. In the oversimplified world of rail-based thought-experiments, the trolley is going to run them over sooner or later. The person at the lever (representing at least two medical practitioners), decides nothing more than when the trolley arrives and perhaps how painful the end is when it does. The patient tied to the tracks would pull the lever themselves if they could, but they can’t. Because of this, they are exercising their autonomy and asking the person to pull the lever for them.

So, it’s more like this, where the trolley continuing straight and then around the loop represents 12 months of suffering, and the diversion represents a shorter time-frame of the patient’s choosing:

https://independentaustralia.net/_lib/slir/w700/https://independentaustralia.net/sc/uploaded/untitled%20folder/TrolleyProblemAssistedDying.jpg

This is an extreme simplification of a practice that involves significant moral gravity, and is in no way intended to detract from the seriousness of the issue. Nonetheless, if we respect this patient’s right to autonomy over their body and life and if we accept that they are probably going to die within a year or so anyway, then it seems the right thing to do to pull the lever and divert the trolley to the shorter track.

Importantly, this illustration also shows that objections to voluntary assisted dying all boil down to reasons why it’s never OK to pull the lever, even if the person tied to the track is going to get run over at some stage anyway. I’m not convinced by any of these arguments but some of them do highlight the need for certain safeguards.

Read the rest here  (It will be too hard for the Lefties)

https://independentaustralia.net/life/life-display/assisted-dying-solving-the-trolley-problem,10766

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 20^th, 2017 at 3:10pm:

juliar wrote on Oct 20th, 2017 at 3:07pm: How many threads are required to bury the dead ? How many are required to bury your dignity?

Well, how many?

https://i.ndtvimg.com/mt/2013-12/McDonalds_AP_360x270.jpg

The boring monotonous gecko troll seems to be stuck in the groove.

Now to help the gecko troll even begin to understand euthanasia. (forlorn hope indeed!!)

Note in China organ harvesting from sick people is normal.



Arguments For and Against Euthanasia

Explore our summary of the euthanasia debate

The arguments for euthanasia:

-We need it - 'the compassion argument'.  Supporters of euthanasia believe that allowing people to ‘die with dignity’ is kinder than forcing them to continue their lives with suffering.

-We want it - 'the autonomy argument'.  Some believe that every patient has a right to choose when to die.
We can control it - 'the public policy argument'.  Proponents believe that euthanasia can be safely regulated by government legislation.


The arguments against euthanasia:

-Alternative treatments are available, such as palliative care and hospices. We do not have to kill the patient to kill the symptoms.  Nearly all pain can be relieved.

-There is no ‘right’ to be killed and there are real dangers of ‘slippery slopes’. Opening the doors to voluntary euthanasia could lead to non-voluntary and involuntary euthanasia, by giving doctors the power to decide when a patient’s life is not worth living.  In the Netherlands in 1990 around 1,000 patients were killed without their request.

-We could never truly control it. Reports from the Netherlands, where euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide are legal, reveal that doctors do not always report it.

-The assumption that patients should have a right to die would impose on doctors a duty to kill, thus restricting the autonomy of the doctor.  Also, a ‘right to die’ for some people might well become a ‘duty to die’ by others, particularly those who are vulnerable or dependent upon others.

Why say 'No' to Euthanasia?

What about personal choice?

The pro-euthanasia and assisted suicide lobby emphasise the importance of personal choice and autonomy. Shouldn’t patients have the right to end their lives? Dignity in Dying patron, Sir Patrick Stewart has argued “We have no control over how we arrive in the world but at the end of life we should have control over how we leave it.”[1]

Surely however the debate is not about the right to die; it is about the right to help patients kill themselves. Instead of giving freedom to patients, euthanasia and assisted suicide is about giving other people the legal power to end another person’s life.

Assisted suicide is not a private act. Nobody chooses assisted suicide in isolation. Euthanasia and assisted suicide are matters of public concern because they involve one person facilitating the death of another. Friends, relatives, healthcare staff and society are hugely affected by the wider ramifications of the process.

Journalist and author George Pitcher has said that any change in the law would have “profound adverse affects on the social fabric of our society, on our attitudes towards each other’s deaths and illnesses, on our attitudes towards those who are ill and have disabilities.”[2]

Increased autonomy would apply only if you met all the criteria to be eligible. If you had a disease where the prognosis is not straightforward, dementia or a chronic but not terminal disease, then you would not meet the criteria; attempts to extend the law further would be almost inevitable. Assisted suicide is not a private act and there is a real risk that a ‘right to die’ may soon become a ‘duty to die’.

What about compassion?

The pro-euthanasia and assisted suicide lobby will often present the view that helping someone else to end their life is the most loving and compassionate thing to do. But surely the most compassionate thing to do is to care for a person at the end of their life and to show them that their life has tremendous value regardless of age or abilities.

Palliative care is an area of healthcare that focuses on relieving and preventing the suffering of patients. Britain is the only country in the world where palliative care is a recognised medical specialism.[3] Further, in a recent survey by The Economist Britain was ranked first in the world for quality end-of-life care. The survey took in 40 OECD and non-OECD countries, including the USA, the Netherlands, Germany and France.[4]

What about the most vulnerable?

Changing the law to allow euthanasia or assisted suicide will inevitably put pressure on vulnerable people to end their lives for fear of being a financial, emotional or care burden upon others. This would especially affect people who are disabled, elderly, sick or depressed. Some would face the added risk of coercion by others who might stand to gain from their deaths. Fear and anxiety would be promoted rather than Individual autonomy.

In its 1994 report The House of Lords Select Committee on Medical Ethics concluded:

“It was virtually impossible to ensure that all acts of euthanasia were truly voluntary and that any liberalisation of the law in the United Kingdom could not be abused. We were also concerned that vulnerable people – the elderly, lonely, sick or distressed – would feel pressure, whether real or imagined, to request early death.”[5]

The law must protect the most vulnerable people in society. We must never let the depressed, the confused, those in terrible pain, the aged and the vulnerable feel that they should pursue the path of assisted suicide so as not to be a burden on others.

Dr Andrew Fergusson, of the Care Not Killing Alliance, has said “the simple truth is that the current law exists to protect those without a voice: the disabled, terminally ill and elderly, who might otherwise feel pressured into ending their lives”.[6]

What next?

Recent studies concerning the euthanasia and assisted suicide law in countries that have legalised such measures make for troubling reading.

A study conducted in 2012 shows that 32% of the assisted deaths in Belgium are carried out without request and 47% of assisted deaths go unreported in the Flanders region of Belgium. Another recent study found that nurses are regularly euthanasing their patients in Belgium even though the laws prohibits it. Since euthanasia was legalised in 2002 there has not been one attempt to prosecu8te for abuses of the euthanasia law. In addition to this the study shows there was a 25% increase in the number of assisted deaths in Belgium in 2012.[7]

In March the Belgian Government voted to widen the definition of the law to include children with disabilities. The legislation was supported in Parliament despite more than 160 Belgian paediatric doctors opposing the change.[8]

In Oregon (where assisted suicide was legalised in 1997) the law has led to patients ‘doctor shopping’ for willing practitioners, using doctors who have minimal knowledge of their past. In 2008, 50 per cent of patients requesting suicide were assisted to die by a doctor who had been their physician for eight weeks or less.[9]

Not all people who are terminally ill wish to end their life

Bit more here

https://www.care.org.uk/our-causes/sanctity-life/arguments-against-assisted-suicide

juliar wrote on Oct 20^th, 2017 at 4:00pm:

Not all people who are terminally ill wish to end their life

Not all people will need to.

https://i.ndtvimg.com/mt/2013-12/McDonalds_AP_360x270.jpg

Gosh the boring monotonous gecko troll is still around.

This heavy stuff will knock the old gecko troll off of his perch.


What is Euthanasia?

When attempting to define euthanasia, it is helpful to be aware of a variety of terms and definitions, as listed below:

Euthanasia Definition What is euthanasia?

Euthanasia is where someone intentionally kills a person whose life is felt not to be worth living. Euthanasia does not include stopping or starting a medically useless treatment, relieving pain when the intention is to kill the pain but not the patient, or refusal of medical treatment by a competent patient. Euthanasia is illegal in the UK under the common law offence of murder.

Voluntary euthanasia is when a competent patient consents and Non-voluntary euthanasia is when the patient lacks the competence to make an end-of-life decision.

Assisted Suicide is where someone helps another person to end their own life. It is illegal in the UK under the Suicide Act 1961 section 2, which states that a person: “who aids, abets, counsels or procures the suicide of another, or an attempt by another to commit suicide, shall be liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years.”[1]

The 2010 Guidelines In February 2010 the Director of Public Prosecutions, Keir Starmer, laid down prosecution guidelines on assisted suicide for the UK. The guidance sets out 16 factors to be considered in favour of a prosecution and six factors against. A prosecution is more likely to be required if, amongst other things, the victim was under 18 years of age or the suspect pressured the victim to commit suicide. A prosecution is less likely to be required if, amongst other things, the suspect was wholly motivated by compassion or the victim had reached a voluntary and informed decision to commit suicide

[2] Richard Hawkes, chief executive of UK disability charity Scope, said “Many disabled people are frightened by the consequences of these new guidelines and with good reason. There is a real danger these changes will result in disabled people being pressured to end their lives.”[3] In response Mr Starmer commented: “We’ve ensured that protection of the law applies absolutely to everyone whatever their state of health.” He added “in each of these cases there will always be a very careful investigation and a very careful evaluation of the evidence.”[4] In March 2012 MPs discussed whether to put the guidelines into law. The House disagreed with such a move on the basis that it would create certain legal grounds for assisted suicide. The majority of the House expressed clear opposition to any change in the law regarding assisted suicide. Conservative MP Fiona Bruce concluded: “We are absolutely delighted that the house has sent such a clear message ... that assisted suicide is not the route we wish to take as a society.”[5]

And the simple soll the gecko troll thought it was all so simple.




Personal Stories

If you have been personally affected by this issue and would like to share your story or concerns with us, please contact Supporter Services on: supporter.services@care.org.uk

When Baroness Campbell of Surbiton was born, the doctors told her mother that she was very unlikely to live longer than a year. But, over 50 years later, Lady Campbell is a leading campaigner for the rights of people with disabilities and a member of the British House of Lords.

Lady Campbell has a degenerative condition called Type 1 Spinal Muscular Atrophy. She uses a wheelchair and has serious breathing problems, for which she needs to use a mechanical ventilator, in order to breathe through the night. Yet, she continues to be strongly opposed to euthanasia and assisted suicide. She says: “Legalising premature death as a treatment option plants a seed of doubt about one’s right to demand help to live with dignity and undermines the state’s responsibility to ensure that all citizens can live with dignity.”


Baroness Finlay shares the story of her mother, who wanted to die so she 'wouldn't be a burden'. She says, 'convincing her to live gave us both a gift beyond measure.' Read her story in The Huffington Post here.


Matt Hampson is a former England under 21 rugby player, whose career was brought to the most abrupt end imaginable in a training accident in March 2005. His neck was dislocated and his spinal cord trapped, leaving him unable to feel or move below the level of injury. Matt was just 20 years of age.  Every morning carers have to hoist him up, wash him, help him go to the toilet, drain fluid from his lungs and dress him. He requires permanent use of a ventilator to breathe. Matt says: “In the weeks after I was injured, I said to my dad: “This could make me a better person”, he says. “I didn’t really believe it at the time, but I just wanted to ease his pain. But looking at it now, maybe I am a better person. I think about things a lot more and I think about others more.”

Matt is the patron of a charity for disabled children called Special Effects and coaches school boys rugby. He has helped raise money for UK charity Spinal Research. In his autobiography he talks about his mantra from his favourite film, The Shawshank Redemption: “Get busy living or get busy dying.”He’s made his choice. “You’ve got to have hope, otherwise it would crush you. But you have to be realistic, too, and live life as well as you can without looking too far into the future. It’s about doing things rather than waiting for things to happen.”


At the age of 20, Bram Harrison was involved in a cycling accident. He was not wearing a helmet and fractured his skull, damaging his brain.He was left paralysed and unable to speak. The only parts of his body he can deliberately move are his eyes and his eye-lids. Several years ago a doctor asked him what they should do if, for whatever reason, his heart stopped. His response was that he wanted to live, just as he wants to live now.

There have been many low points over the years but Bram says he has never felt hopeless. He loves seeing his family, especially his three nephews, and enjoys film and sport. Inspired by one of his carers, he is now learning Polish. And he has a radio show on a local station. Mr Harrison also has a website – www.eyelife.org – where he describes his life with locked-in syndrome.


Alison Davis, who passed away in December 2013, shared her story with The Observer in 2002. Alison was born with severe spina bifida, and for her whole life was dependent on a wheelchair. She was often in extreme pain for hours at a time and had breathing difficulties. She said that for many years she wanted to “end it all.” She noted: “Over time, my desire to die became a settled wish and it lasted about ten years. During the first five of those years I attempted suicide several times.When I wanted to die I thought I’d be doing my friends and family a favour. I thought, well they’ll go back to their normal lives and don’t have to be burdened with me. It’s only looking back that I realise what a horrible trick of the mind that is…. What one person does impacts on what everyone else does. And if we say to one eighty year old lady, who thinks her life is not worth having anymore…then we start to say that being tired of living is a good enough reason to have your life ended.”

Alison became a pro-life campaigner after hearing how one doctor wanted to end the life of a little baby girl called Louise, diagnosed with the same conditions as her. She wrote to the doctor about the girl, and “explained that I was disabled to just the extent that Louise had been, and that I felt he had made a horribly wrong decision”. Alison led the No Less Human group, which campaigns to promote a positive view of disability and forms part of the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children. She also founded a charity called Enable, working with disabled children in India.

juliar wrote on Oct 20^th, 2017 at 4:06pm:

Alison became a pro-life campaigner after hearing how one doctor wanted to end the life of a little baby girl called Louise, diagnosed with the same conditions as her.

" ... terminally ill people over the age of 18, in severe pain and with only a year to live will be able to access lethal drugs."

gecko troll you are just too simple minded and boring and monotonous to bother with. bi.

juliar wrote on Oct 20^th, 2017 at 4:14pm:

gecko troll you are just too simple minded and boring and monotonous to bother with. bi.

White flag accepted.

Next time, stick to the facts, and don't change the subject.

Nobody is suggesting that this law will be applied to babies.

Quite the opposite, in fact.

Read it again:

" ... terminally ill people over the age of 18, in severe pain and with only a year to live will be able to access lethal drugs."

Now put on your name badge, and get to work.

https://i.ndtvimg.com/mt/2013-12/McDonalds_AP_360x270.jpg

Now a welcome relief from the scratching on glass screeching of the undead.


Euthanasia debate rages on 21 years after country's first assisted dying case
By Elizabeth Byrne Updated about 5 hours ago

http://www.abc.net.au/news/image/6493344-4x3-340x255.jpg
PHOTO: Former NT chief minister Marshall Perron passed the laws in the 1990s. (ABC News)

It's 21 years since I was woken from a deep sleep by a call from work: "You have to come in … somebody's used it."

That's how history works, it doesn't always unfold in business hours.

I was the Northern Territory political reporter for the ABC and my colleague Lorraine Davies needed me immediately.

Bob Dent, 66, had become the first person to use the Northern Territory's Rights of the Terminally Ill Act.

I've been thinking about that moment while the Victorian Parliament debated into the night on its own bill.

It's a story that consumed my life for years, and to my surprise led almost back to my own front door.

Bob Dent, you see, lived over my back fence.

I didn't know him, but did meet his wife Judy several times later.

So much of that time is etched into my mind, including the run up the back stairs to the Northern Territory Parliament's press gallery to file the story the bill had passed about 3:30 in the morning.

Woman's fight for right to choose

http://www.abc.net.au/cm/lb/8098618/thumbnail/euthanasia-custom-thumbnail.jpg
As the Victorian Government considers recommendations to legalise assisted dying, one woman fights for her right to have a choice.

The law was the idea of then-Northern Territory chief minister Marshall Perron, a deeply conservative man with a radical idea.

He was a consummate politician and I doubt anyone else could have pulled it off.

And he forged an unusual alliance with the decidedly activist Dr Philip Nitschke who continues to pursue the case.

At the time many wondered if anyone would be able to use it because the rules were so strict.

In the end it was a Melbourne paper that broke the story … I think they had a mate in the chief minister's office.

In reality, no-one may ever have found out, but Bob Dent wanted to be cremated and not buried, and there was a problem with the Cemeteries Act.

His wife needed to ask the coroner, and from there, via the Melbourne paper, the news filtered out.

'Ham sandwiches and a death machine'

The law was erased by the Federal Parliament in 1997, after then-backbencher Kevin Andrews' private members bill banning the territories from legislating on euthanasia passed both houses.

But the law was in place long enough for four people to use it.

Not much is known about two of them, but I did meet a woman called Janet Mills who used the law to end her own life in 1997.

She was only 52, but had suffered a rare and debilitating disease for many years.

Despite her frailty, she held a press conference at Judy Dent's house, she was so determined to promote the law.

I've never felt comfortable about that — seeing someone so sick surrounded by a hungry media pack.

But it also brought out the best in us like Gay Alcorn, then from The Age, who was based in Darwin.

I still remember her story about the day Bob Dent died.

The dying man, she reported, shared a ham sandwich and a bottle of stout with his wife and Dr Nitschke, before he pushed the buttons on the so-called death machine.

When the law was scuttled by the Kevin Andrews' bill I came to believe there would never be legal voluntary euthanasia in Australia unless one of the states took it on.

There have been many attempts, and it remains to be seen whether the Victorian result will be any different.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-10-20/euthanasia-decision-victoria-nt-debate/9069106

Anybody who has seen a close relative in immense pain from cancer, with tears running down their face, will welcome this ability to die with dignity.

As I see it, most people with a terminal illness just want to settle things with close relatives, before they actually die.

Once that is achieved, they do take an extra dose of morphine or whatever and go to sleep, quietly, while all the favourite relatives are there!

I haven't been there to see this but have been told, several times, that this happens.

Yes, but

You cant trust the grubberment

First its only those dying and about to die

Then its thise who are old and no longer have quality of life (and costing the grubberment money)

Then its those who are too old to contribute

Then its those who dont contribute

Then its anybody business thinks is of no use to them

No, its a bad idea, with few if any safety clauses.

Too fast, too soon, not enough rules

Neferti wrote on Oct 20^th, 2017 at 4:47pm:

Anybody who has seen a close relative in immense pain from cancer, with tears running down their face, will welcome this ability to die with dignity. As I see it, most people with a terminal illness just want to settle things with close relatives, before they actually die. Once that is achieved, they do take an extra dose of morphine or whatever and go to sleep, quietly, while all the favourite relatives are there! I haven't been there to see this but have been told, several times, that this happens.

Correct.

It comes to a point of commonsense to help the patient 'on his way' with a few extra mg of morphine.

Of more interest to me is the science of Palliative Care which is mostly bullshit for its lack of effectiveness in reducing pain.

I was in hospital for 3 days recently after a tooth extraction that became very painful due to 'Dry Socket'. They pumped me with morphine and other 'pain-killers' to no effect whatsoever. 

Valkie wrote on Oct 20^th, 2017 at 6:37pm:

Yes, but You cant trust the grubberment First its only those dying and about to die Then its thise who are old and no longer have quality of life (and costing the grubberment money) Then its those who are too old to contribute Then its those who dont contribute Then its anybody business thinks is of no use to them No, its a bad idea, with few if any safety clauses. Too fast, too soon, not enough rules

Too slow, way overdue.  Too many rules

But ... it's a start
In an ideal world, as I've said often in the past, there would be Death Slots in every main street, whereby the recipient of a death-shot would merely slip a signed statement through a grill before sticking in their arm to receive a dose of Escape-Juice.  Then they'd slide down a chute, similar to mail-sorting belts: one side for burial, the other for cremation.  Done.  Out of here.  Yahoo and hello to what comes next

In tandem with the above should come Death Dates, to be printed on all birth certificates.  ' Jan Jones. DOB xyz.  Date of Death ... 75 years hence if not gone beforehand

Death Dates would set it there in stone. Every time someone has to furnish their DOB, they'd see the date of their demise creeping closer and closer.  A reminder to get the finger out

Death Dates would allow people to organize their lives and would give their offspring a fixed date for when the windfall (if one exists) will arrive.  Death Dates would allow governments, all levels, to organize also

As to the whingers about the Assisted Dying Bill, do I see them protesting against sending people's kids to kill and die overseas in Phony Wars for Profit for the Few?  Nope.  Not a peep out of either Abbott or Keating or their lower ranked co-whingers, either

Anyone, at any time, regardless of health or anything else, should be provided the means via which they may depart this world/dimension/shithole

PZ547 wrote on Oct 21^st, 2017 at 8:52am:

Valkie wrote on Oct 20th, 2017 at 6:37pm: Yes, but You cant trust the grubberment First its only those dying and about to die Then its thise who are old and no longer have quality of life (and costing the grubberment money) Then its those who are too old to contribute Then its those who dont contribute Then its anybody business thinks is of no use to them No, its a bad idea, with few if any safety clauses. Too fast, too soon, not enough rules Too slow, way overdue.  Too many rules But ... it's a start In an ideal world, as I've said often in the past, there would be Death Slots in every main street, whereby the recipient of a death-shot would merely slip a signed statement through a grill before sticking in their arm to receive a dose of Escape-Juice.  Then they'd slide down a chute, similar to mail-sorting belts: one side for burial, the other for cremation.  Done.  Out of here.  Yahoo and hello to what comes next In tandem with the above should come Death Dates, to be printed on all birth certificates.  ' Jan Jones. DOB xyz.  Date of Death ... 75 years hence if not gone beforehand Death Dates would set it there in stone. Every time someone has to furnish their DOB, they'd see the date of their demise creeping closer and closer.  A reminder to get the finger out Death Dates would allow people to organize their lives and would give their offspring a fixed date for when the windfall (if one exists) will arrive.  Death Dates would allow governments, all levels, to organize also As to the whingers about the Assisted Dying Bill, do I see them protesting against sending people's kids to kill and die overseas in Phony Wars for Profit for the Few?  Nope.  Not a peep out of either Abbott or Keating or their lower ranked co-whingers, either Anyone, at any time, regardless of health or anything else, should be provided the means via which they may depart this world/dimension/shithole

hear hear sir PZ547.

hu hummmm not everyone agrees its a good thing.. :)



Former prime minister Paul Keating has weighed into the debate, saying allowing patients to kill themselves is unacceptable.

While Victoria’s parliament wades through hundreds of disputed amendments amid a looming government deadline for a vote, Mr Keating is urging against crossing what he calls an “ethical threshold”.

“What matters is that under Victorian law there will be people whose lives we honour and those we believe are better off dead,” he wrote in Fairfax’s papers on Thursday.

“No matter what justifications are offered for the bill, it constitutes an unacceptable departure in our approach to human existence and the irrevocable sanctity that should govern our understanding of what it means to be human.”

cods wrote on Oct 21^st, 2017 at 10:11am:

hu hummmm not everyone agrees its a good thing.. :) Former prime minister Paul Keating has weighed into the debate, saying allowing patients to kill themselves is unacceptable. While Victoria’s parliament wades through hundreds of disputed amendments amid a looming government deadline for a vote, Mr Keating is urging against crossing what he calls an “ethical threshold”. “What matters is that under Victorian law there will be people whose lives we honour and those we believe are better off dead,” he wrote in Fairfax’s papers on Thursday. “No matter what justifications are offered for the bill, it constitutes an unacceptable departure in our approach to human existence and the irrevocable sanctity that should govern our understanding of what it means to be human.”

Cods,
Who invented the sanctity of human life?

We did.

Why should our lives be any more valuable than the 1000s of ants you walk on and kill every day?

Bobby. wrote on Oct 21^st, 2017 at 10:19am:

cods wrote on Oct 21st, 2017 at 10:11am: hu hummmm not everyone agrees its a good thing.. :) Former prime minister Paul Keating has weighed into the debate, saying allowing patients to kill themselves is unacceptable. While Victoria’s parliament wades through hundreds of disputed amendments amid a looming government deadline for a vote, Mr Keating is urging against crossing what he calls an “ethical threshold”. “What matters is that under Victorian law there will be people whose lives we honour and those we believe are better off dead,” he wrote in Fairfax’s papers on Thursday. “No matter what justifications are offered for the bill, it constitutes an unacceptable departure in our approach to human existence and the irrevocable sanctity that should govern our understanding of what it means to be human.” Cods, Who invented the sanctity of human life? We did. Why should our lives be any more valuable than the 1000s of ants you walk on and kill every day?

bobs I am just passing on the message to our lefty mates...thats all.... :( :(..

I dont know whats right and what isnt....have you seen the legislation???..

cods wrote on Oct 21^st, 2017 at 10:26am:

Bobby. wrote on Oct 21st, 2017 at 10:19am: cods wrote on Oct 21st, 2017 at 10:11am: hu hummmm not everyone agrees its a good thing.. :) Former prime minister Paul Keating has weighed into the debate, saying allowing patients to kill themselves is unacceptable. While Victoria’s parliament wades through hundreds of disputed amendments amid a looming government deadline for a vote, Mr Keating is urging against crossing what he calls an “ethical threshold”. “What matters is that under Victorian law there will be people whose lives we honour and those we believe are better off dead,” he wrote in Fairfax’s papers on Thursday. “No matter what justifications are offered for the bill, it constitutes an unacceptable departure in our approach to human existence and the irrevocable sanctity that should govern our understanding of what it means to be human.” Cods, Who invented the sanctity of human life? We did. Why should our lives be any more valuable than the 1000s of ants you walk on and kill every day? bobs I am just passing on the message to our lefty mates...thats all.... :( :(.. I dont know whats right and what isnt....have you seen the legislation???..

No - but some sort of legislation is well overdue -
I wouldn't let a pet such as a cat or dog suffer the
way we let humans suffer.
We take them to the vet - crying all the way and we get our pets put down even
though they are a part of our family.

cods wrote on Oct 21^st, 2017 at 10:11am:

hu hummmm not everyone agrees its a good thing.. :) Former prime minister Paul Keating has weighed into the debate, saying allowing patients to kill themselves is unacceptable. While Victoria’s parliament wades through hundreds of disputed amendments amid a looming government deadline for a vote, Mr Keating is urging against crossing what he calls an “ethical threshold”. “What matters is that under Victorian law there will be people whose lives we honour and those we believe are better off dead,” he wrote in Fairfax’s papers on Thursday. “No matter what justifications are offered for the bill, it constitutes an unacceptable departure in our approach to human existence and the irrevocable sanctity that should govern our understanding of what it means to be human.”

What a pompous ass. When his time comes his sanctimonious Virtue Signalling will melt away as his pain increases in intensity. I hope the bastard suffers.

Less than 6 weeks ago I was talking to a young mum dying of lung cancer.

cods wrote on Oct 21^st, 2017 at 10:26am:

bobs I am just passing on the message to our lefty mates...thats all.... :( :(.. I dont know whats right and what isnt....have you seen the legislation???..

The Lefties are good on this, it's them Rightwing Catholic types who want us all to suffer.

If there's a Catholic church near you, then walk your dog past it every day to piss on it and take a dump too, and if the 'Father' comes to the church door ~ give him the finger.

If Palliative Care actually worked as its promoters claim it does, then it doesn't really matter when you 'go' so long as you're comfortable right to the end.

As a matter of fact I'm off tomorrow to visit a hospice care unit to check it out.

For a window into what Mr and Ms Australia think about it, why not pop over to the Guardian Aussie version Comments section.  It's easily 85-90% in favour of VE.  The other 10-15% -- those who think nothing but pearls drip from either Abbott or Keating -- sound retarded.  All they have to offer in support of their opposition to VE can be reduced to: 'It's wrong. I like to oppose. I can't think for myself so rely on has-beens like Abbott and Keating to do my reasoning for me. Doctors will start killing people left and right.'. 

In the above Comments section, commenters frequently remind us that politicians are elected to uphold the wishes of the majority, rather than subject us to their personal opinions.  Once again --- 85-90% of all voters have been demanding VE for decades, with at least 55% of doctors being of the same beliefs

One commenter said that as an ex-nurse, she can't wait for Abbott and Keating to be on the receiving-end of a drip. That woman said her feelings in the event of same will be 'sheer glee'.  In fact, before has-beens Abbott and Keating dare utter a word in opposition to VE, both should have first-hand experience excruciating pain on prolonged basis

People are wondering why (has beens) Abbott and Keating are so brazen as to oppose VE.  Is it their legendary bloody-mindedness?  Is it a deep visceral pain and panic at the thought of losing a smidgin of the control both feed on? 

Me --- I suspect it has a lot to do with money.  So -- do those temporary lumps known as politicians have MONEY in care-homes of various descriptions, in the same way they're reported to have, on average, 30 investment properties apiece? 

Whatever the case, the overwhelming majority of Australians, including doctors and nurses, want voluntary euthanasia.  And they want it to be in effect ASAP

The minority and their loved-ones are free to linger in pain for as long as they like.  Be our guests.  (bet they don't, though. Bet they beg for release. In which case, maybe every single document which pertains to them should be stamped, ' Opposes/opposed Voluntary Euthanasia ' --- to make sure they don't change their minds when it's their turn.  And that goes double for Abbott and Keating and their loved-ones --- no mercy. No pain relief. They demand to suffer to improve their core-self.  Lock them in padded-rooms with water and ignore their screams

Keating's Irish Catholic heritage is what's speaking for him, and then we have Abbott's Catholic loyalties coming to the fore on the question of Voluntary Euthanasia.

We also have Andrew Bolt's Dutch Catholicism blinding him to the humane decency that has ordinary people wanting the terminally ill to suffer for the least time possible ~ and then there's conservative columnist Miranda Devine - also a very committed Catholic - counselling against a humane end for the terminally ill.

There's a common thread here.

On this question these otherwise intelligent people are rendered imbeciles in the name of The Father, The Son, and The Holy Ghost.

Religious belief trumps their intelligence, their intellect, their commonsense, and even their moral decency.


 

The criteria should not just be the terminally ill, when you can no longer wipe your own arse, you have a right to pass away with some dignity.

Lord Herbert wrote on Oct 20^th, 2017 at 7:05pm:

Neferti wrote on Oct 20th, 2017 at 4:47pm: Anybody who has seen a close relative in immense pain from cancer, with tears running down their face, will welcome this ability to die with dignity. As I see it, most people with a terminal illness just want to settle things with close relatives, before they actually die. Once that is achieved, they do take an extra dose of morphine or whatever and go to sleep, quietly, while all the favourite relatives are there! I haven't been there to see this but have been told, several times, that this happens. Correct. It comes to a point of commonsense to help the patient 'on his way' with a few extra mg of morphine. Of more interest to me is the science of Palliative Care which is mostly bullshit for its lack of effectiveness in reducing pain. I was in hospital for 3 days recently after a tooth extraction that became very painful due to 'Dry Socket'. They pumped me with morphine and other 'pain-killers' to no effect whatsoever.

You should have asked for the Nembutal, Herbie. You'd be dead by now.

Better luck next time.

issuevoter wrote on Oct 21^st, 2017 at 9:10pm:

The criteria should not just be the terminally ill, when you can no longer wipe your own arse, you have a right to pass away with some dignity.

Exactly. They need to put the disabled and mentally handicapped on the list too.

Enquiring mind wrote on Oct 21^st, 2017 at 11:52pm:

You should have asked for the Nembutal, Herbie. You'd be dead by now. Better luck next time.

That's very kind of you to say so.

I've asked my God-Niece Marla to send me Nembutal which is freely available in the US, but no response from her as yet. Or a zip-gun made of plastic that can't be detected in the post.

There are over 3000 suicides in Australia each year, and one wonders how many of these are for reasons of self-euthanasia due to facing terminal illness.

link

Enquiring mind wrote on Oct 21^st, 2017 at 11:54pm:

Exactly. They need to put the disabled and mentally handicapped on the list too.

How about deviants too?

So when will this thread be moved to Victoria? 

I dont know, I am not sure about this Euthanasia law.  Its all well and good on paper, but this opens up potential abuse of law, and people can die.    I can see alot of situation where, a lone elderly got diagnosed with a terminal illness, would agree to it with pressure if they just 'do not' want to be a burden on their kids or carer.

And how can you define in the eyes of law, how long some one can live?  I know, because doctors are notorious on predicting this.  The best they can do is to give a percentage.  But we all heard stories that despite the odds, people went on surviving for longer.   And what if a doctor predicts wrongly, and the patients decided to go through the approval process, but ended up not committing suicide, and then find themselves living longer than predicted.  Will then the doctor be liable for emotional suffering. 

In this case, I am with the conservatives.  I do not believe in assisted suicide.  We now have good palliative treatment available, I think we ought to address the issues of delivering that to those who needed in a timely matter first, and then we talk about Euthanasia.

tickleandrose wrote on Oct 23^rd, 2017 at 10:41am:

In this case, I am with the conservatives.  I do not believe in assisted suicide.  We now have good palliative treatment available, I think we ought to address the issues of delivering that to those who needed in a timely matter first, and then we talk about Euthanasia.

We can always cherry-pick worst case scenarios.

If the suffering of the vast majority is alleviated by voluntary euthanasia - then so be it. They should not be denied this humane consideration because a tiny minority will be pressured by relatives or because they feel they are an unacceptable burden upon society.