Euthanasia legislation passed Holy Moses

General Social Discussion
User avatar
innsaneink
Forum Suppoter
Forum Suppoter
Posts: 25228
Joined: Fri 10 Jul, 2009 9:49 pm
Location: ...ahead of you....
Has liked: 243 times
Been liked: 190 times

Re: Euthanasia legislation passed Holy Moses

Unread post by innsaneink » Sat 21 Oct, 2017 11:00 pm

Have a read of some of these posts Milky... Some real life 'experiences'... Experience you're lucky at your age to yet experience...try to put yourself in others shoes and then ask yourself if you still "strongly oppose" this


Byron Bay Fan
Member
Member
Posts: 3821
Joined: Sat 17 Oct, 2015 2:14 pm
Has liked: 45 times
Been liked: 49 times

Unread post by Byron Bay Fan » Sun 22 Oct, 2017 9:21 am

I believe the Victorian legislation allows only for assisted dying if it is medical opinion that the person will die within 12 months without assistance and must be in great pain. These provisions will prevent some cases of attempted abuse etc.. If the person is "soon" to die than unless the stock market is set to crash in the meantime I can't see any great benefit that can be benefited by an earlier death.
Malcolm Knox: What has happened this week is a pity for the Tigers, a pity for Jason Taylor and a pity for Robbie Farah, who had achieved more than the Big Four put together but was somehow turned into collateral damage. (SMH 25-26 March, 2017)

User avatar
Wagga Tiger
Member
Member
Posts: 701
Joined: Mon 13 Jul, 2009 7:22 pm
Has liked: 2 times
Been liked: 2 times

Unread post by Wagga Tiger » Sun 22 Oct, 2017 9:46 am

Milky wrote:
Sun 22 Oct, 2017 9:10 am

Your emotions are getting in the way of your arguments. I don’t support ‘people suffering before they die’. However, I do support the natural dying process and what comes along with it.

This is suicide. From every single perspective, it remains suicide. What makes it worse, it is assisted by another party in the circumstance where the individual can not inject the drug them self.

Lets neglect the responsibility of the doctor shall we?

Allowing this legislation to pass will cause numerous issues. A key one will be regarding the consent. What if a person isn’t in the correct psychological position to make a decision regarding their death, do we take their word or their families. What if their opinions conflict?

Consent will not always be voluntary.

The fact stands that this will increase suicide rates, there will be a conflict of interests in many scenarios and there will be numerous legal cases arising from this if it is assented to.
If I'm letting my emotions get in the way then you are letting your ignorance of life get in the way of yours. I really hope you never have to watch a loved one suffer through the end stage of cancer because it is a horrible thing to see. We knew they were both terminal and we new and they knew what they would go through while they were lucid and able to make decisions for themselves. I'm not advocating for people to take there lives willy nilly and some times people are not going to be able to make the decision for themselves but for those who can and those who want to avoid what's to come who are we to stop them.

Nelson
Member
Member
Posts: 2493
Joined: Sat 31 Oct, 2015 11:17 am
Has liked: 12 times
Been liked: 67 times

Unread post by Nelson » Sun 22 Oct, 2017 10:03 am

Milky wrote:
Sun 22 Oct, 2017 9:10 am

Your emotions are getting in the way of your arguments. I don’t support ‘people suffering before they die’. However, I do support the natural dying process and what comes along with it.

This is suicide. From every single perspective, it remains suicide. What makes it worse, it is assisted by another party in the circumstance where the individual can not inject the drug them self.

Lets neglect the responsibility of the doctor shall we?

Allowing this legislation to pass will cause numerous issues. A key one will be regarding the consent. What if a person isn’t in the correct psychological position to make a decision regarding their death, do we take their word or their families. What if their opinions conflict?

Consent will not always be voluntary.

The fact stands that this will increase suicide rates, there will be a conflict of interests in many scenarios and there will be numerous legal cases arising from this if it is assented to.
You posted the bill before, read it in its entirety.

Clause 14 provides that the primary medical practitioner must not provide the assistance if he or she knows that any financial or other advantage is likely to be gained by certain persons participating in the provision of assistance, or their associates, as a result of the death of the patient.

Clause 20 requires the patient to be examined and assessed by an independent psychiatrist or psychologist. The psychiatrist or psychologist must provide to the primary and secondary medical practitioners a report of the assessment. The primary medical practitioner must not provide assistance to the patient under the proposed Act unless the qualified psychiatrist or qualified psychologist makes an assessment that the patient has decision-making capacity in relation to the request for assistance and that the patient’s decision to request the assistance has been made freely, voluntarily and after due consideration.

The fact there may be legal cases is not a reason not to do something and this is not an argument that anyone with a close experience to a lingering, suffering death can or should have without emotion. Emotion is always part of argument, even in law.

User avatar
Masterton
Forum Suppoter
Forum Suppoter
Posts: 2105
Joined: Tue 14 Jul, 2009 6:57 pm
Has liked: 43 times
Been liked: 33 times

Unread post by Masterton » Sun 22 Oct, 2017 11:17 am

Milky wrote:
Sat 21 Oct, 2017 3:56 pm

My argument still stands.

Would a person not rather die fighting?

Have we neglected the duty that rises upon the person committing the act. This will increase suicide. People may make the wrong decisions, what if they would have beaten cancer?
I have the utmost respect for those who wish to fight to the end, but forcing people to live in pain is cruel. It may be suicide, but I will be making my own provisions to kill myself should I never to.
"I was on the bus before you painted it yellow."


User avatar
Geo.
Forum Suppoter
Forum Suppoter
Posts: 24991
Joined: Fri 10 Jul, 2009 10:55 pm
Location: Sandy Point NSW.
Has liked: 225 times
Been liked: 343 times

Unread post by Geo. » Sun 22 Oct, 2017 11:20 am

I vote Yes...
Ivan's Laws

1. You are either on the Bus or you are off..
2. The Star of the Team is the Team
3. Be the player your teammates want to play with..
Tiger Watto wrote:
Fri 03 Nov, 2017 8:07 am
Geo nailed it...

User avatar
Milky
Member
Member
Posts: 5091
Joined: Fri 29 Mar, 2013 7:08 pm
Has liked: 8 times
Been liked: 10 times

Unread post by Milky » Sun 22 Oct, 2017 11:36 am

Nelson wrote:
Sun 22 Oct, 2017 10:03 am
Milky wrote:
Sun 22 Oct, 2017 9:10 am

Your emotions are getting in the way of your arguments. I don’t support ‘people suffering before they die’. However, I do support the natural dying process and what comes along with it.

This is suicide. From every single perspective, it remains suicide. What makes it worse, it is assisted by another party in the circumstance where the individual can not inject the drug them self.

Lets neglect the responsibility of the doctor shall we?

Allowing this legislation to pass will cause numerous issues. A key one will be regarding the consent. What if a person isn’t in the correct psychological position to make a decision regarding their death, do we take their word or their families. What if their opinions conflict?

Consent will not always be voluntary.

The fact stands that this will increase suicide rates, there will be a conflict of interests in many scenarios and there will be numerous legal cases arising from this if it is assented to.
You posted the bill before, read it in its entirety.

Clause 14 provides that the primary medical practitioner must not provide the assistance if he or she knows that any financial or other advantage is likely to be gained by certain persons participating in the provision of assistance, or their associates, as a result of the death of the patient.

Clause 20 requires the patient to be examined and assessed by an independent psychiatrist or psychologist. The psychiatrist or psychologist must provide to the primary and secondary medical practitioners a report of the assessment. The primary medical practitioner must not provide assistance to the patient under the proposed Act unless the qualified psychiatrist or qualified psychologist makes an assessment that the patient has decision-making capacity in relation to the request for assistance and that the patient’s decision to request the assistance has been made freely, voluntarily and after due consideration.

The fact there may be legal cases is not a reason not to do something and this is not an argument that anyone with a close experience to a lingering, suffering death can or should have without emotion. Emotion is always part of argument, even in law.
Exactly, what if there is no mental capacity to make the decision and it comes down to the family? Then a conflict of interest will arise.

User avatar
Masterton
Forum Suppoter
Forum Suppoter
Posts: 2105
Joined: Tue 14 Jul, 2009 6:57 pm
Has liked: 43 times
Been liked: 33 times

Unread post by Masterton » Sun 22 Oct, 2017 12:52 pm

Milky wrote:
Sun 22 Oct, 2017 11:36 am
Nelson wrote:
Sun 22 Oct, 2017 10:03 am
Milky wrote:
Sun 22 Oct, 2017 9:10 am

Your emotions are getting in the way of your arguments. I don’t support ‘people suffering before they die’. However, I do support the natural dying process and what comes along with it.

This is suicide. From every single perspective, it remains suicide. What makes it worse, it is assisted by another party in the circumstance where the individual can not inject the drug them self.

Lets neglect the responsibility of the doctor shall we?

Allowing this legislation to pass will cause numerous issues. A key one will be regarding the consent. What if a person isn’t in the correct psychological position to make a decision regarding their death, do we take their word or their families. What if their opinions conflict?

Consent will not always be voluntary.

The fact stands that this will increase suicide rates, there will be a conflict of interests in many scenarios and there will be numerous legal cases arising from this if it is assented to.
You posted the bill before, read it in its entirety.

Clause 14 provides that the primary medical practitioner must not provide the assistance if he or she knows that any financial or other advantage is likely to be gained by certain persons participating in the provision of assistance, or their associates, as a result of the death of the patient.

Clause 20 requires the patient to be examined and assessed by an independent psychiatrist or psychologist. The psychiatrist or psychologist must provide to the primary and secondary medical practitioners a report of the assessment. The primary medical practitioner must not provide assistance to the patient under the proposed Act unless the qualified psychiatrist or qualified psychologist makes an assessment that the patient has decision-making capacity in relation to the request for assistance and that the patient’s decision to request the assistance has been made freely, voluntarily and after due consideration.

The fact there may be legal cases is not a reason not to do something and this is not an argument that anyone with a close experience to a lingering, suffering death can or should have without emotion. Emotion is always part of argument, even in law.
Exactly, what if there is no mental capacity to make the decision and it comes down to the family? Then a conflict of interest will arise.
I don't think you read that properly.
"I was on the bus before you painted it yellow."

User avatar
Cultured Bogan
Member
Member
Posts: 16100
Joined: Tue 15 Sep, 2009 11:20 pm
Location: Blue Mountains
Has liked: 66 times
Been liked: 137 times

Unread post by Cultured Bogan » Sun 22 Oct, 2017 1:16 pm

Milky, I'll likely one day die of heart related illness I've had since birth. As it is I have issues getting through the day without having episodes or experiencing delusion or pain from arrhythmia and low blood pressure. I'm on medications that currently put strain on my liver and kidneys.

The end stage for me is heart failure. At the moment I'm fit, in good condition fo my impairments but one day I'll start retaining fluid, I won't be able to breathe properly and my organs will start to fail. In addition to reduced quantity of life I'll have a reduced quality.

Who are you to tell me when that time comes I can't go out on my own terms? Luckily for me a simple OD on my heart meds will allow a quick and painless exit and circumvent any resistance to euthanasia laws.

I understand the complications about unscrupulous family members knocking off their relatives for a pay off, my wife has dealt with many probate matters and she said you'd be forgiven for thinking some people gave a stuff about the people and were simply counting down the days till they got their payout. What must be understood is that dignity is a broad defined term. Some would say fighting to the last breath is dignified, some would say leaving before you degenerate into a bed ridden shell and forcing yourself and your loved ones to endure the emotional burden is dignified. That definition should be a personal decision and if it is made of sound mind your wishes should be respected.
John Wayne would never use a surge protector!

Fuerza en la adversidad.

bathursttiger
Member
Member
Posts: 1647
Joined: Thu 02 Dec, 2010 5:21 pm
Has liked: 344 times
Been liked: 79 times

Unread post by bathursttiger » Sun 22 Oct, 2017 9:03 pm

Milky wrote:
Sat 21 Oct, 2017 3:56 pm
Strongly oppose Euthanasia.

Hindering the natural death process. Hope it doesn't pass.

I feel for those who have it tough towards the end of their life. However, every way you look at this, it's suicide.
I have to completely disagree with you Milky.
I watch my older brother (who I was extremely close to) lay brain dead in a hospital for 2 weeks.
It was only his ultra fitness that would not let his heart stop working.
The nurses pumped as much Morphine into his as legally allowed to speed up his death.
I suspect that someone very close to him put a pillow over his mouth that ended his and the whole families suffering.
No one should be put through that suffering when there is a solution.
No death is ever easy, especially someone that you really love.
We don't let our pets suffer when they are at the end of there life, but we let our loved ones suffer.
Maybe sometime in the future it will hit home to you when someone close to you is in the same situation.
It's been 27 year and it still hurts.

tig_prmz
Member
Member
Posts: 7901
Joined: Sat 03 Oct, 2009 10:32 pm
Has liked: 4 times
Been liked: 18 times

Unread post by tig_prmz » Sun 22 Oct, 2017 9:43 pm

something of a different type, but if you had conceived a child and before 3 months you had 100% confirmation that the child will be severely disabled but "healthy", would you abort?
My Round 1 Team 2018

1. lolo 2. noffa 3. suli 4. milne 5. fonua
6. reynolds 7. brooks
8. packer 9. ET 10. Twal
11. McQuen 12. Lawrence 13. Eiso
14. Matulino 15. McIllwrick 16. Sue 17. Aloiai
18. Marsters 19. Benji 20. Grant 21. K Naiqama
Next: Liddle, MCK, Felise, MWZ, Thompson, Rochow, Gamble

Byron Bay Fan
Member
Member
Posts: 3821
Joined: Sat 17 Oct, 2015 2:14 pm
Has liked: 45 times
Been liked: 49 times

Unread post by Byron Bay Fan » Sun 22 Oct, 2017 11:06 pm

tig_prmz wrote:
Sun 22 Oct, 2017 9:43 pm
something of a different type, but if you had conceived a child and before 3 months you had 100% confirmation that the child will be severely disabled but "healthy", would you abort?
should almost be compulsory. I have a friend who had a son not disabled at all but the brain of a six month old for all his about 70 years if he is still alive now I don't know. Looking after him for about 50 years sent his mother around the bend, having put him in a special home and taking him out again. They could only ever go on holidays in their caravan due to him pooping everywhere etc.and his constant screaming. Well when the mother died the father immediately put him in a special home (where I believe they dosed him all time to sedate him). The father found another wife in the Philippines and lived happily until he died, he told me his second life was his first happiness in about 50 years. His son (my age) told me that the retarded brother ruined their family's life all that time.

I have another friend who has a son with spina bifida - so sad. I think parents should be able to decide if extremely ill children be allowed to continue to survive. It is ultimately their child. If the child gets dumped onto the state it costs a fortune for only a very poor quality of life. Other children suffer many operations before they can even talk or walk and then still have a very limited life and life span - completely unfair to the children as well.
Malcolm Knox: What has happened this week is a pity for the Tigers, a pity for Jason Taylor and a pity for Robbie Farah, who had achieved more than the Big Four put together but was somehow turned into collateral damage. (SMH 25-26 March, 2017)

formerguest
Forum Suppoter
Forum Suppoter
Posts: 3167
Joined: Fri 07 Jun, 2013 7:33 pm
Has liked: 211 times
Been liked: 66 times

Unread post by formerguest » Sun 22 Oct, 2017 11:15 pm

tig_prmz wrote:
Sun 22 Oct, 2017 9:43 pm
something of a different type, but if you had conceived a child and before 3 months you had 100% confirmation that the child will be severely disabled but "healthy", would you abort?
Severely being the key word, then yes.

Nature often does the job prior to the second trimester itself, but not always.

bathursttiger
Member
Member
Posts: 1647
Joined: Thu 02 Dec, 2010 5:21 pm
Has liked: 344 times
Been liked: 79 times

Unread post by bathursttiger » Sun 22 Oct, 2017 11:57 pm

Cultured Bogan wrote:
Sun 22 Oct, 2017 1:16 pm
Milky, I'll likely one day die of heart related illness I've had since birth. As it is I have issues getting through the day without having episodes or experiencing delusion or pain from arrhythmia and low blood pressure. I'm on medications that currently put strain on my liver and kidneys.

The end stage for me is heart failure. At the moment I'm fit, in good condition fo my impairments but one day I'll start retaining fluid, I won't be able to breathe properly and my organs will start to fail. In addition to reduced quantity of life I'll have a reduced quality.

Who are you to tell me when that time comes I can't go out on my own terms? Luckily for me a simple OD on my heart meds will allow a quick and painless exit and circumvent any resistance to euthanasia laws.

I understand the complications about unscrupulous family members knocking off their relatives for a pay off, my wife has dealt with many probate matters and she said you'd be forgiven for thinking some people gave a stuff about the people and were simply counting down the days till they got their payout. What must be understood is that dignity is a broad defined term. Some would say fighting to the last breath is dignified, some would say leaving before you degenerate into a bed ridden shell and forcing yourself and your loved ones to endure the emotional burden is dignified. That definition should be a personal decision and if it is made of sound mind your wishes should be respected.
It shouldn't have to be up to you OD yourself we should have the choice to be helped end the pain and suffering.

formerguest
Forum Suppoter
Forum Suppoter
Posts: 3167
Joined: Fri 07 Jun, 2013 7:33 pm
Has liked: 211 times
Been liked: 66 times

Unread post by formerguest » Mon 23 Oct, 2017 12:05 am

[quote=bathursttiger post_id=875507 time=1508666629 user_id=1588]
[quote=Milky post_id=875369 time=1508561775 user_id=6197]
Strongly oppose Euthanasia.

Hindering the natural death process. Hope it doesn't pass.

I feel for those who have it tough towards the end of their life. However, every way you look at this, it's suicide.
[/quote]

I have to completely disagree with you Milky.
I watch my older brother (who I was extremely close to) lay brain dead in a hospital for 2 weeks.
It was only his ultra fitness that would not let his heart stop working.
The nurses pumped as much Morphine into his as legally allowed to speed up his death.
I suspect that someone very close to him put a pillow over his mouth that ended his and the whole families suffering.
No one should be put through that suffering when there is a solution.
No death is ever easy, especially someone that you really love.
We don't let our pets suffer when they are at the end of there life, but we let our loved ones suffer.
Maybe sometime in the future it will hit home to you when someone close to you is in the same situation.
It's been 27 year and it still hurts.
[/quote]

The pet and human analogy is understanding that we are in control of the suffering of our pets. Unconditionally loyal friends in the case of some species.

We often know that they are gravely ill or in much pain when we take them to see medical professionals whom we rely on to diagnose and recommend treatment. Sadly sometimes the prognosis is devastating and we are told death is unavoidable in a certain timeline, but may also be informed of great physical pain.

At that point, if able, we look into the eyes of our beloved pets and make a decision for them, as gut wrenching as it may be and often cry many tears (as I am now remembering past goodbyes) as we watch them pass or leave the room because not being able to stay.

We make those decisions based on expert advice because our much loved pets are unable to, just as some make decisions to turn off life support devices for relatives because they are allowed.

To not be able to legally make those same decisions for our terminal loved ones in similar regulated circumstances is ridiculous in a modern society. To not be able to make that same educated decision for yourself is just plain wrong.

User avatar
Tiger Watto
Member
Member
Posts: 10445
Joined: Mon 08 Mar, 2010 7:12 pm
Location: Maroochydore Qld
Has liked: 98 times
Been liked: 75 times

Unread post by Tiger Watto » Mon 23 Oct, 2017 8:07 am

In relation to the Pay Grab scenario, surely life insurance is null & void if the death is constructed?
"Did someone buy you the internet hero play book for Christmas and you've only just started reading it?" - Nelson 21/04/2017

User avatar
Cultured Bogan
Member
Member
Posts: 16100
Joined: Tue 15 Sep, 2009 11:20 pm
Location: Blue Mountains
Has liked: 66 times
Been liked: 137 times

Unread post by Cultured Bogan » Mon 23 Oct, 2017 9:09 am

bathursttiger wrote:
Sun 22 Oct, 2017 11:57 pm
Cultured Bogan wrote:
Sun 22 Oct, 2017 1:16 pm
Milky, I'll likely one day die of heart related illness I've had since birth. As it is I have issues getting through the day without having episodes or experiencing delusion or pain from arrhythmia and low blood pressure. I'm on medications that currently put strain on my liver and kidneys.

The end stage for me is heart failure. At the moment I'm fit, in good condition fo my impairments but one day I'll start retaining fluid, I won't be able to breathe properly and my organs will start to fail. In addition to reduced quantity of life I'll have a reduced quality.

Who are you to tell me when that time comes I can't go out on my own terms? Luckily for me a simple OD on my heart meds will allow a quick and painless exit and circumvent any resistance to euthanasia laws.

I understand the complications about unscrupulous family members knocking off their relatives for a pay off, my wife has dealt with many probate matters and she said you'd be forgiven for thinking some people gave a stuff about the people and were simply counting down the days till they got their payout. What must be understood is that dignity is a broad defined term. Some would say fighting to the last breath is dignified, some would say leaving before you degenerate into a bed ridden shell and forcing yourself and your loved ones to endure the emotional burden is dignified. That definition should be a personal decision and if it is made of sound mind your wishes should be respected.
It shouldn't have to be up to you OD yourself we should have the choice to be helped end the pain and suffering.
That's true and I agree, but it is an option I have available should I not be "legally" allowed to. Others don't have that open to them and are forced to choose between more violent and painful means versus suffering.
John Wayne would never use a surge protector!

Fuerza en la adversidad.

User avatar
Cultured Bogan
Member
Member
Posts: 16100
Joined: Tue 15 Sep, 2009 11:20 pm
Location: Blue Mountains
Has liked: 66 times
Been liked: 137 times

Unread post by Cultured Bogan » Mon 23 Oct, 2017 9:10 am

Tiger Watto wrote:
Mon 23 Oct, 2017 8:07 am
In relation to the Pay Grab scenario, surely life insurance is null & void if the death is constructed?
Suicide is generally ruled out isn't it? Not sure whether euthanasia would circumvent that as it would technically be carried out by others? As macabre as it sounds it is an interesting scenario. Will the terminally ill be granted an "early pay out" by means of euthanasia or will they be forced to "work" for the money and see it out to the end to make sure their families are financially taken care of?
John Wayne would never use a surge protector!

Fuerza en la adversidad.

Post Reply

Return to “General Discussion”