It seems that the Euthanasia debate is rearing up again. Senator Bob Brown of the Greens is proposing a private members Bill on the legalisation of Euthanasia. – source Sydney Morning Herald.
Of course euthanasia was legal in my Territory until Federal Member Kevin Andrews was able to raise his own private members bill and get the federal parliament to overule Northern Territory Law (hereby rendering us effectively second class citizens).
According to Senator Brown 80% of Australian are in favour of Euthanasia, so there may exist somewhat of a mandate. It would would be nice to have a national debate on it and perhaps even a referendum.
A debate where our politicians would show their ethical and or religious colours on this issue.
The topic is not discussed in my household as it results usually in heated argument. I am all for the right to choose. A persons life is their own. Provided we have adeqaute palliative care and stringent guidelines I think it is a good idea to have voluntary euthanasia. Currenty we are all prey to a system where we have no choice but to endure suffering. Its illegal to kill your self, but palliative care in many areas does not meet the needs of citizens.
I would like to see adequate palliative care and euthanaisia as options both suitably funded.
Would I choose to die?
Not currently, but then I am not suffering from terminal cancer, nor in unending pain. But I want the option available to me.
But what about the slippery slope?
Couldn’t we end up shipping off our oldies to the crematorium just so we could get our hands on the family fortune. Or might Gran just feel that she was better off dead sothat she is not so much of a burden any more?
I think that good lawmaking and increased awareness and provision of health care to the elderly brought about by the option of Euthanasia would have a positive effect in both the areas alluded to above.
The fear of relatives shipping the oldies off to die assumes that people don’t actually do that illegally now and could be handled by legislation.
Poor depressed old gran could abviously benefit from counselling which would be part of any well thought out scheme, and may result in better outcomes than she would have access to currently.
In other Euthanasia News Dr Nitschke was arrested after arriving in NZ, for carrying copies of his banned bookThe Peaceful Pill Handbook
Related posts:
- The right to live, the right to die – the right to choose It seems that the Euthanasia debate is rearing up again....
- Happy Territory Day July 1st was Territory day. The day on which the...
- Creationism in Australian Schools It won’t happen here Jack. I often breathe a heavy...
Loading ...
Great post Sean. Personally, I am completely in favour of pro-choice when it comes to decisons we make where our own bodies are concerned. Yes, I suport the legalisation of euthanasia; of course clearly there would need to be adequate and robust processes in place to ensure those who choose this path are not ‘suicidal’ individuals who may benefit from any number of interventions and therapies or those who are not mentally capable of making those choices. However, those people who are terminally ill and in great pain should be able to avail themselves of a dignified death.
A highly emotive issue and one which would no doubt polarise the two ‘camps’ but one whose time is well overdue in terms of the need for national debate.
I have yet to hear an convincing argument to the contrary.
I see that Margaret Tighe of Right to Life Australia has emplored the Prime Minister to stop the Senator Brown’s motion.
Even our own Chief Minister has had as go at Senator Brown for not consulting the Territory or its people. In the first instance it would have been courteous of Brown not to upstage the CM, but for fucks sake it was NT LAW created be NT legislators, elected by the NT people.
So I wish Mr Henderson would kindly SFU.
I have just finished a book about euthanasia. Dr.Jack Kevorkian helped a young man die, he had suffered with ALS and needed intervention.
The mom was willing to put a plastic bag over her son’s head(he asked her to do this) to end his suffering.A very sad story indeed.
I’m all for euthanasia.(“eu” and “thanatos” which combined means “well death” or “dying well”.
Well as emotive as the issue is, I have to agree. With good processes there’s no reason why it shouldn’t be allowed.
It’s definitely time for informed debate.
I just want to throw into the mis the Terri Schiavo case. I don’t know that what happened to this poor woman was necessarily her will. If the patient is able to make the choice to terminate life support/life saving measures then my answer would be yes-I am wholly in favor of the decision. But in the Schiavo case I think there were some terribly bad decisions made on this woman’s behalf.
I’m all for euthanasia, we do it for our pets. I was pretty lucky when my dad died that he went quickly and with no pain thanks to his brain tumor. But if you get a good hospice worker who knows what they are doing it can be a good thing too. When the nurse came to give us the bottle of morphine in the dropper, she just said use it when you think he is in pain.
Pretty sure if we had chosen to give him the whole bottle at once nobody would have said a word.
@WM,
I will admit ignorance in the Terry Schivo case. Was she pronounced to be clinically dead, ie brain dead, prior to them pulling the life support?
http://www.terrisfight.org/pages.php?page_id=32
Check out this link. Most of this info was provided by terri’s family of origin. Her husband was “the other side” in her case with legal power over her medical decisions.
It is a very disturbing case. One that opposition to assisted suicide is bound to cite at some point
Good old Bob, it’s a pity there aren’t as many freethinkers in the government as Bob Brown.
I’m one of those 80% that are in favour of euthanasia. With the right safeguards and humane methods, euthanasia can be a more dignified way to die. Rather than suffering for years or killing yourself in some ‘dodgy’ method.
What some people on the opposing side don’t consider is the significant advances in medicine prolong life well beyond what it should sometimes last.
If it came to it I wouldn’t want to live in some horrible half vegetative state in agony all the time. I’d want to be able, and allowed, to make my own choice to end my life or not.
Of course after reading WM’s link I’d want to make sure that good safeguards were put in place. In particular that no one person had the sole authority to end my life.
You would also need to make sure your wishes in case of serious ill health were known to someone other than just your partner. We’ll be needing not only prenuptials but also in-case-I’m-unwellials.
The Schiavo case was a disgrace. This is why the need for process, strict procedure and above all, some serious safeguards, as Oz says.
But before that, a lot of very well informed debate and then, as Sean said, the dreaded referendum.
To further clarify my position I am for voluntary euthanasia. Where the person is making the decision not some family member on unfounded, unproven wishes.
Yes the Schiavo case was a disgrace. The problem is that the safe guards that should have protected her failed her miserably. If the judge had appointed a guardian ad litum then I think things would have gone in a much different direction. But as it stands now I think she was very cruelly starved to death.
Great post!
I’ve never understood the fact that we have no problem “putting down” animals that are sick, lame or very old. So why is it wrong to apply the same set of morals for humans? Of course it all because of bullshit religion, but still?
As far as the Shiavo case is concerned, what kind of life did she have? My question is what did Michael Shiavo stand to gain by going to the lengths he did?
Sure there was the $800,000 for her rehab, but most of it was used for the legal fees. Did he really get anything out of it? If he really was after this money then it backfired. There is also the matter of Mr. Shiavo being offered $1 mIllion to hand over guardianship to Terri’s parents by tycoon Robert Herring. Again if it was about money, then why did MS refuse to give up guardianship? I suspect he fought hard to carry out his wife’s wishes.
The family members were hanging onto a memory of Terri. In my opinion fighting to keep a shell of that woman alive was understandable, but selfish. Not to mention based upon religious belief. My wife and I made sure that we are both covered legally in a scenario such as this. There is no way neither of us want to be here if we’re in a PVS!
The last time I checked we don’t “put down” animals by denying them the hydration necessary to sustain life. Animals that are weak and suffering are put down in such a way as to minimize suffering.
I don’t believe that Michael Schiavo was necessarily in it for the money. I believe that he found himself in another relationship and wanted to be free and clear of Terri.
I believe that Terri’s family did use religion as a reasoning for keeping her alive I also believe that the loud voices of fundamentalists were the voices that were heard. I believe that they just wanted to give their daughter, sister a chance. There is some substantiated belief among doctors (cited on the previous link) that with the proper rehab Terri could have made more of a recovery.
I applaud those with advanced medical directives. I have one myself. I don’t want my family to suffer along side of me if I find myself in such a situation.
I don’t believe however that an AD would have helped in this situation as terri was not brain dead and it is widely believed that she was not in a PSV.
Sean said…….
“To further clarify my position I am for voluntary euthanasia. Where the person is making the decision not some family member on unfounded, unproven wishes.”
I have a possible solution that would help clarify the above ….
Prepare a “living will” and give a copy to your doctor and even your lawyer and loved ones.
Basically it’s telling them what medical treatment you want should you not be in a position to tell them (eg. after a stroke, heart attack etc etc)
You can get one free online here….
http://www.awillr.com.au/Services/Planning_Ahead_Guide/step4.php
and information here
http://www.health.nsw.gov.au/pubs/2004/adcare_directives.html
It might be a good idea to update it regularly so that everyone knows you haven’t changed your mind!
@iol,
thanks for the links, I will check them out.
After reading something in the paper recently, I downloaded the form to fill out.
Whiney: You are correct, we don’t put down animals in the manner that Schiavo was. Unfortunately the law prohibits humans from being put to sleep. So the removal of a tube was the only recourse left.
As far as Shiavo being PVS or not will remain up for debate. There wasn’t any definitive evidence either way. I personally believe she was. But of course neither you or I can ascertain what her condition was, if the medical community couldn’t agree.
I still ask, why would Michael Shiavo fight so hard to have her tube removed, if he wasn’t conducting Terri’s wishes? Why not just hand her care over to her family, and get a divorce? Something doesn’t add up here.
Missus T, why should one have the right to die if they are in pain, cancer etc, but not if they are suicidal..is that not imposing our values on an individuals decision.
Thats what concerns me when Govts, Dr’s Lawyers, God squad etc get involved that people will be dictated to by others values – which may not necessarily be your own…
I believe the how where when should be down to the individual…and the why is their own as well…if euthenasia is available, you shouldnt have to justify why you want to use it…not an opinion held by many others but it is mine…