Byron_Bay_Fan
New member
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1spuGm3J5Hg
Broken by Ray Davies of Kinks fame
Broken by Ray Davies of Kinks fame
Politics Super Thread - keep it all in here
- Thread starter Kul
- Start date
- Status
diedpretty
Well-known member
@ said:
you are kidding aren't you - i think BBF was having a go at the Catholic Church who have made a buck out of everything that exists. I saw no malice towards respectable organisations.
innsaneink
Well-known member
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
@ said:
And one has to consider the physiological effect of pain. Even the most determined and energetic person on Earth will be ground down by pain to the point all they want is for it to stop.
It is probably easy for us to be heroically determined to fight to the end….......till the pain kicks in.
@ said:
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.
Byron_Bay_Fan
New member
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.
Wagga_Tiger
Well-known member
@ said:
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.
@ said:
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.
Masterton
Well-known member
@ said:
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 vote Yes…
Masterton
Well-known member
@ said:
I don't think you read that properly.
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.
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.
N
newtiger
Guest
@ said:
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
Well-known member
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?
Byron_Bay_Fan
New member
@ said:
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.
Tim Sheens
Well-known member
@ said:
Severely being the key word, then yes.
Nature often does the job prior to the second trimester itself, but not always.
N
newtiger
Guest
@ said:
It shouldn't have to be up to you OD yourself we should have the choice to be helped end the pain and suffering.
Tim Sheens
Well-known member
@bathursttiger said:
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.
Tiger_Watto
New member
In relation to the Pay Grab scenario, surely life insurance is null & void if the death is constructed?
- Status