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


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."

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


Incorrect.

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


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.

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


Well, in 18 months time.

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

Slow bastards.

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


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?

How many threads are required to bury the dead ?

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



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:





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:



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-tr...