Euthanasia bill

Written By: - Date published: 11:42 am, May 1st, 2012 - 136 comments
Categories: death with dignity, Ethics - Tags: , ,

Voluntary euthanasia is a debate that keeps coming back. Authors here have touched on it several times (e.g. here, here, here). There are strong arguments on either side (for the record I am strongly in favour of legalising euthanasia).

The latest round of debate has been triggered by Maryan Street’s “End of Life Choice Bill”. Interesting news recently, that public support for such a measure seems to be growing:

Strong public support for euthanasia

The MP campaigning for the right to die has been buoyed by a poll that shows more than 85 per cent of respondents to a survey supported voluntary euthanasia.

The Sunday Star-Times reader poll of more than 1000 people also found almost three-quarters of people would help a terminally-ill loved one commit suicide, and that support for a law change is highest among men, and those over 60. Labour MP Maryan Street has been working with the Voluntary Euthanasia Society on her End of Life Choice Bill, which would give people the right to “choose how and when they exit this life”.

Apart from church groups, the only organisation to speak out against the Bill (as far as I know) is the Medical Association:

A fresh attempt to get a form of euthanasia onto the statute books is having no impact on the The Medical Association. It’s firmly against doctors helping patients end their lives. …

Ms Street says no doctor could be compelled to assist someone to end their life. Medical Association Chair Paul Ockelford says even so, euthanasia is unethical and cannot be condoned by the Association as a professional body. At the same time, he says the Association is not in a position to oppose individual doctor’s decisions.

I wonder if the views of the Association adequately reflect the views of its members. Perhaps it is time for the Association to consult them.

136 comments on “Euthanasia bill ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Bill 1
    1 May 2012 at 12:47 pm

    Given the hippocratic oath…or my sketchy familiarity with it… I guess it’s fair enough that the Medical Association can’t condone euthanasia as an institution. I guess there might be any number of tricky repercussions if they did. And seeing as how it isn’t in a position to “oppose individual doctor’s decisions”, their currently stated position is largely irrelevant.

    But on the issue…to force someone to live a life that would see you hauled in front of the courts were you to impose the same living circumstances on an animal, well…it’s a no brainer really.

    • ianmac 1.1
      1 May 2012 at 1:17 pm

      I think that the Medical Association could not condone or support a Bill for euthanasia.
      But if it was legally sanctioned I am sure than many individual doctors could and would act.
      So I agree Bill.
      We would have to be very very brave to act to end a life and even if it is legal, most of us would resile from “pressing the button.” Would you? I think I might but…….
      Hope the Bill goes through but can’t see this Government being that brave.

    • rosy 1.2
      2 May 2012 at 2:41 am

      to force someone to live a life that would see you hauled in front of the courts were you to impose the same living circumstances on an animal, well…it’s a no brainer really

      Agree, Bill. And I agree with this from r0b’s link:

      Otago University law faculty associate professor Colin Gavaghan, a medical law and ethics specialist, said the law was not black and white, and a change could be made to provide guidance, particularly around assisted suicide… He said he had heard of people being given high morphine doses at the end of their lives by doctors who would have known what they were doing.

      “I’d be surprised if that didn’t happen everywhere. It would be good if we could at least get to a situation where we could be honest about it.” He said a new law would need to ask who would take the final step.

      “Assisted suicide can be seen as safer because the patient has to. But some individuals have degenerative conditions and if the law requires them to take the final step, they might do it sooner rather than later while they still can.

      “The thing none of us want, is a nod and a wink culture where we know it goes on behind closed doors. My preference would be an honest culture where you could say, ‘I did this, knowing that would happen, and it was the right thing to do’.”

      I’ve discussed this issue with someone very close to me and have a power of attorney and will written for this person (not my partner) to make decisions on my behalf, in line with my preferences, and if the law allows it. Other people close to me also know what my choices are. I’d love if I had more legal power to detail those choices more accurately but because the law doesn’t allow assisted suicide all that can happen is advising doctors of my wishes if I’m unable to and granting permission for withdrawing treatment, I suppose.

      As a person with a very utilitarian view of my own life and having a chronic illness that could become debilitating I’ve though about what this means for me quite a lot. I don’t think a euthanasia law contradicts, or should detract from, better care of older, terminally ill or disabled people.

      The level I want is that as a fully informed, mentally proficient person, I have the right to decide how and when I want my life to end. No-one else has the right to make that decision for me while I can choose to do so myself. If I can no longer choose, someone/people I trust can choose for me in line with my wishes. And I hate the thought that I might choose to end my life before I’m ready simply because I’m terrified of living past a point when I really don’t want to be here, and that someone dear to me might end up in a legal bind because I’ve left it too late.

    • locus 1.3
      2 May 2012 at 3:13 am

      There’s cause for people to believe in misapplication of law and also in a possible shift in tolerance/control by society once a law permitting euthanasia exists. These fears and beliefs are essential if we are to ensure that these risks are eliminated. I have faith in our medical profession and in our legal system and in society as a whole to ensure that sufficient safeguards and layers of protection are in place. Independent medical and ethical assessments of every application would be an example of what I mean by ‘safeguard’. Maybe an opt-in system could be developed?

      There will always be people who don’t trust that this kind of control of risk is sufficient or those who personally find euthanasia morally unacceptable. And whichever position you take, experience forges stronger opinions.

      Is it okay to let circumstances that occur every day in hospitals and hospices continue while they may be argued by some to be tacit euthanasia? What is tacit euthanasia? Is it when someone’s palliative care reduces their life expectancy? Or when life-extending treatment is withheld?

      My view is that on a case by case basis, and under strictly controlled and independently reviewed circumstances, euthanasia should be approved. Why do I hold this view? Because to object to any kind of circumstances where euthanasia is acceptable shows a fundamental lack of compassion and humanity. Truly the most awful thing I can imagine is to see a loved one dying in a horrible, undignified and utterly miserable way if an earlier, less torturous exit was their wish (or the wish of their parents in the case of a child).

  2. bad12 2
    1 May 2012 at 1:31 pm

    Ah ETHICAL considerations are at the heart of the Medical Associations opposition to giving doctors the right to Kill their patients,

    In Ethics we have portrayed the encapsulation of the difference between the neo-liberal Capitalist and the neo-liberal Socialist,

    The neo-liberal Capitalist is engrossed in the freedom of the individual only as far as making a buck is concerned,

    The neo-liberal Socialist by contrast is engrossed in the freedom of the individual from social moral and ethical constraints,

    How soon after Euthanasia becomes legal will it be seen fit to introduce some form of compulsion into the system for one or other sector of society…

    • Bill 2.1
      1 May 2012 at 2:01 pm

      sheesh, that’s like saying no-one should be allowed to freely swim in ‘that’ river ’cause pretty soon afterwards everyone will be getting thrown in whether they want to or not and regardless of whether they are capable of swimming.

      • bad12 2.1.1
        1 May 2012 at 3:27 pm

        Is it really, I consider that a poor analogy to use in the debate, to me that simply attempts to trivialize the magnitude of such a Law change,

        We have legislation that allows abortion,there are strict guidelines within the Legislation which sets out the conditions under which a Doctor may condone an abortion,

        As late as 18 months ago we have a Judge in the High Court at Wellington saying that Capital Coast Health is providing abortions outside of the requirements of the Law in effect giving ‘abortion on demand’ which is neither the intent or the letter of the current Law,

        Thats the glaring example of a Law that covers life and death that has now been completely corrupted by ‘demand’ and peoples personal Doctors interpreting the Law as being ‘abortion on demand’,

        Should ‘we’ be worried about such laws where life and death are the out-come, in my view yes,as the judgment from the Wellington High Court shows,such Laws are easily misinterpreted,corrupted,and, misapplied…

        • McFlock 2.1.1.1
          1 May 2012 at 3:42 pm

          Did the court say that CapCoast was forcing abortions on women against their will?
             
          No?
             
          Useless comparison then.
                  
          You might as well bring up the people who do 105kph when the speed limit is 100kph.

          • bad12 2.1.1.1.1
            1 May 2012 at 4:10 pm

            Nope,in essence what the Judge in the Wellington High Court was saying but didn’t spell out was that women were in effect forcing the death of their unborn children upon those children where no legal right to do so existed,

            In such a case Capital Coast Health is complicit by not applying the Law as it was written…

            • McFlock 2.1.1.1.1.1
              1 May 2012 at 4:32 pm

              Does abortion in NZ require the informed request of the zygote?
                    
              If not your comparison is still weak.

              • bad12 …
                1 May 2012 at 5:03 pm

                Nope the Law,in this case governing the provision of abortions, requires that the carrier of the unborn child fit within a set of criteria if the carrier of that child wish’s to kill that unborn child,

                So,both the mothers of those children aborted when the mother’s do not fit within the legal criteria and those who help the mother’s kill those unborn children are acting outside of any Law,

                Thus,all those involved are forcing death upon those unborn children and the presumption in New Zealand Law is that of the right to life which is why we have Laws with strict criteria which govern how why and when a unborn child can be killed,

                PS,if my comparison is in any way weak then the question you ask is just plain stupid,my use of what HAS happened within abortion Law is simply to point out how easily it is for the individual,the institution,and society to twist the law to its own wants and in essence have one group ignore the law,

                Remembering that such ignorance of this particular law results in the death of a child…

                • McFlock …
                  1 May 2012 at 5:54 pm

                  Nope.

                  Abortion:
                  primary requester = woman.
                  Decision-makers = 2 doctors who decide whether woman will become insane if she has the kid.
                   
                  Slide: Decision-makers granting woman’s request at her request.

                  Euthanasia:
                  Primary requester = patient. 
                  Decision-makers =  2 doctors who decide whether to grant patient’s request.  
                     
                  Equivalent Slide: Decision-makers granting  patient’s request too easily.

                  Your Slide: Decision-makers killing patients against their will.
                      
                       
                  You abortion analogy is unsound.

                  • NickS …
                    1 May 2012 at 6:08 pm

                    +1

                    Though I foresee a specific ethics board being set up instead of it being two doctors until euthanasia’s been legalised for a decade or more as there will be significant resistance from some doctors over this.

                  • bad12 …
                    1 May 2012 at 6:46 pm

                    The perfect reply of complete ignorance from you,my whole point having brought abortion into the debate was that it is Law where life and death are at issue,

                    My whole point which you completely ignore either because you have no answer or are in fact just being ignorant is based upon a judgement in the High Court at Wellington where the judge found that the Law on the provision of abortion was not being adhered to,

                    Such ignorance of the abortion Law has simply lead to abortion on demand outside of the legal requirements and should Euthanasia be come legal there is no guarantee that such Law will not be corrupted in much the same way that abortion law has,

                    Your slide as you put it is a slide into anarchy where abortions are being granted outside of the provision of the Law….

                    • McFlock …
                      1 May 2012 at 6:58 pm

                      Not arguing that abortions were done outside the law.
                             
                      But arguing that just because one law was broken in one way means that another law will be broken in a completely different way is not a reasonable analogy.
                                    
                               
                      Making it more easier than the legislators intended for someone to have a procedure done on them does not equate, on any level, to enabling other people to force that procedure upon the person.
                           
                      If anything the openness required for such a discussion would make that slide less likely than it is now – Shipman springs to mind.  

                  • Foreign Waka …
                    2 May 2012 at 8:58 pm

                    This theory only stands if all parameters are the same: Sound mind, week body. However, cases are varied as they come. There are two issues that cannot be solved by any law: ethics and the right to live (rather than die) and any misuse i.e when money is involved and/or inconvenience or stress factors hastens the patients demise without consent. By having granted permission beforehand to assist dying it will be almost impossible to prove murder.
                    I also feel that by “getting use” to this as a concept who says that it will not be a request in a couple of decades to have people who financially become a “drain” just being “assisted”. Such a theory was in existence before, some 70 odd years ago…

                • rosy …
                  1 May 2012 at 6:07 pm

                  Carrier of the unborn child!?
                  Fairly reductionist version of a thinking, feeling, communicating woman there bad12.

                  • bad12 …
                    1 May 2012 at 6:34 pm

                    Feel free to insert,thinking feeling etc etc,if i were to be typing such as a descriptive of the carrier of the unborn child in all the comments i make on the subject on the subject it would become a very long day…

                    • rosy …
                      1 May 2012 at 6:37 pm

                      You could use ‘woman’ or ‘pregnant woman’. Just a thought.

                    • bad12 …
                      1 May 2012 at 6:51 pm

                      Do you perhaps find my use of ”carrier of the unborn child offensive”,nit picking is usually the province of the chimps…

                    • NickS …
                      1 May 2012 at 6:56 pm

                      nit picking is usually the province of the chimps…

                      We bow at your utter inability to insult, and general lack of awareness that makes you incapable of recognising the semantic issues with your use of “unborn child”.

                      But I wouldn’t expect anything less given your seeming inability to grasp reality.
                      /smugface

                    • Te Reo Putake …
                      1 May 2012 at 6:57 pm

                      You’re making a bit of a dick of yourself, bad12. There’s a lot you could learn from rosy.

                    • rosy …
                      1 May 2012 at 7:09 pm

                      “Do you perhaps find my use of ”carrier of the unborn child offensive”

                      I find it excludes one of the decision-makers in the debate. I also don’t think it’s nit-picking to point that out. I’m not really interested in an analogy between abortion and euthanasia and have no wish to commented on it.

                      I am interested when, in a debate that centres around the rights, intellectual capacity, emotions and actions of a woman, these are reduced to a level where she is no longer an actor in the play. The words you use carry a lot of weight, as I know you’re aware.

                    • bad12 …
                      1 May 2012 at 7:51 pm

                      Ahhh ”excludes one of the decision makers”,would that be the Doctor by any chance,or,perhaps the male donor of DNA which has resulted in someone(s) wishing to kill the unborn baby…

                    • rosy …
                      1 May 2012 at 8:00 pm

                      “Ahhh ”excludes one of the decision makers”,would that be the Doctor by any chance,or,perhaps the male donor of DNA which has resulted in someone(s) wishing to kill the unborn baby…

                      lolz and you’ve defined them as the carrier of the unborn child?

                      Sorry bad12, but I’m not getting into an abortion debate with you. I stand by my original point about your use of ‘carrier of the unborn child’

                • NickS …
                  1 May 2012 at 6:51 pm

                  What a lulzy post to chew on:

                  Remembering that such ignorance of this particular law results in the death of a child…

                  No, it’s a fucking fetus you idiot, and late term abortions are usually to do with lethal, or soon to be lethal conditions either present in the fetus or mother. Calling it an “unborn child” is merely an bit of disingenuous moral blackmailing that seeks to over-ride the bodily rights of the mother.

                  So,both the mothers of those children aborted when the mother’s do not fit within the legal criteria and those who help the mother’s kill those unborn children are acting outside of any Law,

                  Except they’re not, as the recent <a href="http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10729547"Appeal Court case last year established. And this part of your post is rather bullshit too under the 2008 High Court ruling as well. But hey, why bother with teh legal realities, when delusions are soo much more comforting?

                  PS,if my comparison is in any way weak then the question you ask is just plain stupid,my use of what HAS happened within abortion Law is simply to point out how easily it is for the individual,the institution,and society to twist the law to its own wants and in essence have one group ignore the law,

                  lolwut?

                  Oh, yeah, I forgot you seem to have no understanding about how common law works do you, nor the political bullshit that went on with the legalisation of abortion in NZ that lead to a half-arsed compromise that wasn’t workable?

                  • bad12 …
                    1 May 2012 at 7:23 pm

                    Which bit of it don’t you understand???the individual?the carrier of the unborn child that wants to kill it,

                    The institution???,medical professionals and medical institutions who allow the carriers of unborn children to kill them outside of the provisions of the law,

                    The society???which ignores the fact that so many carriers of unborn children are allowed to kill them outside of the provisions of the law,

                    C’mon then,its been a slow day and i need a real gut busting laugh explain all this common law vis a vis abortion law to me…

                    • NickS …
                      1 May 2012 at 9:01 pm

                      Trololololol.

                      Which bit of it don’t you understand???the individual?the carrier of the unborn child that wants to kill it,

                      lolwut? gb2highschool and retake english please, because you’ve failed reading comprehension 101 completely, and haven’t picked up the rather obvious fact that I’m pro-choice…

                      Anyhow, you’ve really made a mess in the above post, so maybe you should try reading my post above with your neo-cortex fully engaged?

                  • bad12 …
                    1 May 2012 at 7:47 pm

                    PS,the only place your link gets me is todays granny Herald and I can’t find anything that carries a remote reference to anything we are discussing here,

                    Perhaps i need better glasses???…

                  • muzza …
                    1 May 2012 at 10:10 pm

                    “Calling it an “unborn child” is merely an bit of disingenuous moral blackmailing that seeks to over-ride the bodily rights of the mother”

                    — And yet the article you linked to used exactly the same wording!

                    “lolwut? gb2highschool ”

                    — WTF is that!

                    @Rosy – It was never an abortion debate, you were not asked to join one!

                    • NickS …
                      1 May 2012 at 10:39 pm

                      /facepalm
                      Linking to an article that uses it (via quoting the right to colonise the uteri of every women brigade) does not mean that I approve of it you twit. I’m just linking to provide information.

                      As for the bit you don’t understand, try contextualising it and google always helps when it comes to net slang…

                    • rosy …
                      1 May 2012 at 11:42 pm

                      @Rosy – It was never an abortion debate, you were not asked to join one!

                      Ahhh ”excludes one of the decision makers”,would that be the Doctor by any chance,or,perhaps the male donor of DNA which has resulted in someone(s) wishing to kill the unborn baby…

                      Nah – nothing to do with abortion. And not directed at me.

                    • muzza …
                      2 May 2012 at 7:20 am

                      “/facepalm
                      Linking to an article that uses it (via quoting the right to colonise the uteri of every women brigade) does not mean that I approve of it you twit. I’m just linking to provide information. ”

                      —-No Nick thats right it doesn’t, but you bothered to make a specific example of the use of the terminology as some lame attack on another poster. I was pointing out the fact that it is used in the link you posted, and you had not seemed to feel it was worth balancing your attack, or perhaps you could not understand the article you linked to…comprehending yet!

                      “As for the bit you don’t understand, try contextualising it and google always helps when it comes to net slang”…

                      —Thats ironic you should use such slang in the same sentence as questioning another posters english abilities, and something about going back to high school…Is that what they teach at school these days, or is that the new tertiary google/slang level you were recently rinsed through Nick?

                      B12’s point raised are valid, as is the critique of the linked article in the below posts. We don;t always have to agree, but all cards in such discussion should be on the table. The abortion law comparision is 100% appropriate to use!

                    • NickS …
                      2 May 2012 at 7:28 pm

                      Cthulhu fhtagn!

                      —-No Nick thats right it doesn’t, but you bothered to make a specific example of the use of the terminology as some lame attack on another poster. I was pointing out the fact that it is used in the link you posted, and you had not seemed to feel it was worth balancing your attack, or perhaps you could not understand the article you linked to…comprehending yet!

                      Oh the burning stupid…

                      Lolwut? is the best answer here sadly, as you’re assuming things on the basis of jack all information. Namely that there was some sort of intention and obligation in my linking to a news article beyond mere sourcing of information about a point of law.

                      But hey, why think critically when it’s soo much more fun to build a house of bullshit on thin data?

                      —Thats ironic you should use such slang in the same sentence as questioning another posters english abilities, and something about going back to high school…Is that what they teach at school these days, or is that the new tertiary google/slang level you were recently rinsed through Nick?

                      /chuckle

                      Meme’s infect, meme’s based on slang even more so, especially when they provide novel, succinct means of communicating frustration at human stupidity thus encountered on teh net in all it’s various blind to critical thinking forms.

                      As for teh english dig, I can only sadface at such a sad attempted attack which acts as though the reading comprehension issue bad12 shows is somehow of equivalent nature to net slag /smugface

                      B12′s point raised are valid, as is the critique of the linked article in the below posts. We don;t always have to agree, but all cards in such discussion should be on the table. The abortion law comparision is 100% appropriate to use!
                      No they’re not, because as has already been bashed out here, the analogy is somewhat wanting due to the Appeal Court decision. There’s also a further issue in terms of abortion and euthanasia being rather different legal and ethical beasties if you aren’t a rabid pro-lifer who thinks a fetus is a person, but hey, some people are just stupid about somethings.

                      Like you when in comes to vaccines.

                    • muzza …
                      3 May 2012 at 8:32 am

                      @ NickS in case you missed this succinct post below!

                      Galeandra 12
                      2 May 2012 at 12:54 am
                      @ NickS & McFlock
                      Supercilious smart-arsery seems to be a common failing of those lucky enough, ie young enough, to have recent academic experience and accessed just the book, lecturer or wiki definitions for the debate at hand. What is wrong with respectful dignified discussion? Your tone smacks of false authority where grandstanding is more important to you than the ethical debate.

                      Not everyone is malicious or moronic because their beliefs are grounded on different experiences or learning.

                      Lighten up.

                  • bad12 …
                    2 May 2012 at 1:41 am

                    Ah the Auckland Court of Appeal decision,in effect,if the body overseeing the doctors who are certifying the abortions believe any of these abortions to be certified outside of the laws provision such a body can not bother the High Court trying to stop what it sees as unlawful activity, it should instead bring the matter up with the Parliament,

                    And,if the ”right to lifers” have the same problem of seeing abortions being granted and performed outside of the laws provisions they too should not molest the High Court seeking declarity orders but instead take their concerns to the Police,

                    A neat way for the Court of Appeal to rubber-stamp ‘abortion on demand’ dont you think,

                    The grand piece tho would have to be their Honor’s definition of the ‘right to life of an unborn child’, which appears from that read of what their honor’s have to say is zilch,

                    Nada,zip,none in law and none implied,but,but,but,I beg the question your Honor”s,and the question would have to go something like this,

                    Why the fuck would the Parliament spend its fucking time Legislating a complex piece of Law granting provision of the right to terminate the life of an unborn child if the poor fucking kid what wasn’t yet born didn’t have a right to be born in law or implied in the first place???,

                    One for the next Court up i presume…

                    • McFlock …
                      3 May 2012 at 12:28 pm

                      Ah the Auckland Court of Appeal decision,in effect,if the body overseeing the doctors who are certifying the abortions believe any of these abortions to be certified outside of the laws provision such a body can not bother the High Court trying to stop what it sees as unlawful activity, it should instead bring the matter up with the Parliament, 

                      Wrong again. “The decisions of certifying consultants involved medical judgment alone. Any complaints about certifying consultants could be made to and investigated by, with all the required safeguards, the Health and Disability Commissioner or police.” In other words, if you have an issue with a particular case, take it through the standard case review processes. Claiming it “should instead bring the matter up with the Parliament” is just being a drama queen.
                       
                       But thanks for being a useful idiot – I had not real cause to look for judgements online specifically, but it might have an incidental use at work.

            • QoT 2.1.1.1.1.2
              1 May 2012 at 9:40 pm

              Or, you know, people with basic empathy might consider that actually, being forced to carry a pregnancy to term against one’s will entirely fulfils the criteria of risk to the mental health of the pregnant person.

              But for that you have to give a crap about actual living people, instead of using emotively-labelled zygotes to control women’s lives.

              • bad12 …
                2 May 2012 at 7:13 pm

                Do ya catch these zygotes by accident, well nah to be afflicted with one of these zygotes you either have to deliberately take actions to get one or be forced,

                Of course in a case where having one of these zygotes were to be forced then the law is there specificly to remove such a zygote put there by force,

                Using the law in question tho as the default contraceptive device is in fact the ultimate in taking no responsibility for ones actions,

                Its an interesting accusation that, I, because i chose to call them for what they are,unborn babies, am accused of playing upon emotion in a debate,

                Yeah i do,bring emotion into the debate, simply because I am not some dead in the head fish,and, its what they are, unborn babies…

                • NickS …
                  2 May 2012 at 7:32 pm

                  Wow, it’s almost like we’ve got someone straight from the places FSTDT harvests quotes from…

                  Meh, need to eat, not enough time to /cluebat such delicious stupidity and misogynistic bullshit.

                  • rosy …
                    2 May 2012 at 8:06 pm

                    What a great link NickS. I particularly like this:

                    “ Reason is the greatest enemy that faith has. ”
                    —Beryl Baptist Church, Pharyngula (quoting Martin Luther)

                    So short and to the point. I suspect many, many reasoning people have found can now say they have a statement in common with fundamentalists. And, I think, valid on a post such as this.

                    (nb – specifically fundamentalists, not the vast majority of thoughtful and reasonable religious people out there).

                    It’s not only about religion though – it’s also about faith in the health system, society and government to do the right thing, faith that people will act in the ‘right’ way. (That’s why I have legal documents outlining my wishes – with the hope that the legal environment for end of life decisions will become more flexible).

                    Faith really needs to be kicked out of the debate so specific points can be thrashed out. Like:

                    – is there a link between legal euthanasia and poor aged/palliative care?
                    – are there enough safeguards that an end of life choice is that of the person at end of life?
                    – at what stage is euthanasia ‘safe’ – a patient requested withdrawal of treatment? a family request? additional painkillers that will end life? or suicide at an earlier stage?
                    – does lack of end of life options increase suicide rates, especially among the elderly?
                    – how does an living will work?
                    – for people absolutely opposed to withdrawal of treatment will there be safeguards to cover their wish to have all available medical means to live until ‘god’ decides? (I suspect there is an issue about that right now).

                    There are of course many more questions.

                    • NickS …
                      2 May 2012 at 8:42 pm

                      The problem is there’s still too many religious people who can’t grasp the idea that secularism is good, in that it prevents them being stood over by other religious groups and invariably doesn’t force them to do anything they don’t want to. Except of course, it prevents them forcing their particular set of religious morals upon others via the law, which they seem to think everyone should share and generally violating the human rights of others (including children, who are human as well :P). Although they lack the base here in NZ to retard the progress of human rights as much as they do in USA.

                      (That’s why I have legal documents outlining my wishes – with the hope that the legal environment for end of life decisions will become more flexible).

                      It probably will be, the current rate of decline in religious belief in the developed world, combined with the replacement of the old guard in parliament will likely lead to euthanasia becoming legal in NZ. Hell last time it was before parliament in 03 it only failed by four votes, so I’d expect that within a decade, at the earliest, it’ll probably pass into law.

                    • rosy …
                      2 May 2012 at 8:57 pm

                      ” Hell last time it was before parliament in 03 it only failed by four votes, so I’d expect that within a decade, at the earliest, it’ll probably pass into law.”

                      I hope so, but maybe not this time. There are a few more social conservatives in parliament right now, and despite it not opposing individual doctor’s decisions, the bill doesn’t have the support of the Medical Association, so I’m a little pessimistic. If the MA maintained a neutral stance I’d be more optimistic.

                • QoT …
                  2 May 2012 at 10:45 pm

                  Do ya catch these zygotes by accident, well nah to be afflicted with one of these zygotes you either have to deliberately take actions to get one or be forced,

                  BOOM! Pretending to care about the Sanctity of Life to “but you’re a slut!!!!” in one comment. I love how predictable you control-freak pseudomoralists are.

                  • NickS …
                    2 May 2012 at 11:13 pm

                    QoT = Awesomeness

                  • bad12 …
                    2 May 2012 at 11:17 pm

                    This has to be one of the more bizaare posts from the freedom to Kill lot, Do I mention the word slut anywhere???

                    Well no,its the old trick of when they have no lucid debate to offer,they make allegations about what I have said in a comment with no basis in fact nor reality,

                    Its supposed to turn readers against me so as they don’t read what the message is,its supposed to hi-jack a post changing the debate into one of did i or did I not say words to the effect,

                    The fact is it is only QoT who has ‘thought’ up the word slut to drag into the debate twisting an earlier comment of mine as if it is meant to convey that word in some way shape or form,

                    My earlier comment in no way portrays any such thing, Zygotes being babies in the womb would by definition have to have actions of some deliberation to get such a baby into said womb,

                    After all its only in books like the Bible where zygotes appear within the womb of a woman without some form of specific action being taken to have such a zygote appear,

                    what a pathetic low browed means of debate QoT has brought into the euthanasia debate by dragging such insinuations as made above into it,

                    I have a far more refreshing discourse with the rhesus monkeys up at the zoo whenever I have the time to get up there…

                    • QoT …
                      3 May 2012 at 8:46 pm

                      You’re completely correct, bad12, I’m just trying to discredit you by making the good folks of The Standard think you said the word “slut”, which would obviously be a hanging offence.

                      Or, alternatively, I was paraphrasing your fairly surreal statement “Do ya catch these zygotes by accident, well nah to be afflicted with one of these zygotes you either have to deliberately take actions to get one or be forced,”

                      … which basically boils down to “it’s your fault for spreading your legs / being a slut / having Teh Sex so pregnancy is your punishment!”

                      This was hilarious to me, as it’s so rare for a controlling-women-focused trololol like yourself to go so quickly from pretending to give a shit about The Sacwed Pwecious Unborn to admitting it’s all really about hating women who have sex.

        • Bill 2.1.1.2
          1 May 2012 at 3:48 pm

          Why is it a poor analogy? At what point does it fall over?

    • Olwyn 2.2
      1 May 2012 at 3:19 pm

      I feel as if I have blathered on this subject for days. While I do not think that direct compulsion would arise under the present circumstances, I do think that an extension of already existing conditions would drive people in that direction whether it was what they wanted or not; palliative care following a user-pays model for instance, and further reductions in aged care. And should a decent number succumb under these conditions, the status quo will change and the burden of proof with it. Hence I am opposed to the introduction of euthanasia.

      • seeker 2.2.1
        2 May 2012 at 1:02 am

        Very well said Olwyn. I too am opposed to the introduction of euthanasia.

      • NickS 2.2.2
        2 May 2012 at 9:10 pm

        Have a look at the situation in the Netherlands, aged care quality hasn’t slipped at since the introduction and euthanasia only accounts for about 3% of deaths at most there. There’s also plain old human stubbornness and the fact that the person requesting euthanasia is the one that makes the request, either in person or via a living will and has to go through approval before it can happen.

        The main issue with preventing human rights abuses is to insure that the human rights of the elderly are looked after and defended, albeit NZ still needs to do some serious work on that with the government underfunding aged care far too much. Along with general price of care issues, and quality of care for dementia patients.

        As to your objection, while I do see how it could work, the laws that have been put forward all follow the Netherlands model, so the scope for abuse requires significant fraud and fuckwittery to pull off. And the central thrust of it, that it could be abused, is frankly problematic on the basis of interfering with others rights, namely that euthanasia can be viewed as a a bodily autonomy issue. Then there’s the basic fact that every law is open to abuse, particularly social ones to do with health care, and other human rights issues, so without exploring the potential scale of abuse critically, stating abuse is possible is insufficient grounds to oppose it.

      • Foreign Waka 2.2.3
        2 May 2012 at 9:10 pm

        Absolutely. And it has nothing to do with religion.

  3. Pete George 3
    1 May 2012 at 2:05 pm

    A very good paper by Tom Noakes-Duncan:

    Voluntary Euthanasia in New Zealand:
    An Analysis of Compassion, Autonomy, and Secularism in the Public Sphere

    By: Thomas M. I. Noakes-Duncan
    University of Otago
    March 2012

  4. js 4
    1 May 2012 at 4:20 pm

    As a commentator said the other day: when does the right to die transform into a duty to die?

    • Bill 4.1
      1 May 2012 at 4:24 pm

      When there’s a war to be fought.

      • Olwyn 4.1.1
        1 May 2012 at 4:36 pm

        That involves a duty to risk death, not necessarily to die.

        • Pete George 4.1.1.1
          1 May 2012 at 7:57 pm

          Many lives have been lost in wars where death was very likely, in some cases a virtual certainty. But that’s just young men in the prime of their life.

    • NickS 4.2
      1 May 2012 at 6:21 pm

      When the law is ignored via teh imaginary usual paranoid bullshit?

      What it comes down to is an individual making the choice themselves, either via a living will, “do not resuscitate” tattoos, or being mentally competent enough to make the decision themselves. And with all the angst and body-colonisation going on it’s a no-brainer that acquiring a decision granted you the right to die will not be straight forward.

      And slippery slope arguments get boring quickly, especially for those of us who have already thought out thoroughly our positions on euthanasia as a means of cluebatting serious episodes of suicidal ideation.

  5. Grumpy 5
    1 May 2012 at 6:58 pm

    The slippery slope is alive and well in the Netherlands now……….

  6. Reagan Cline 6
    1 May 2012 at 7:36 pm

    Voluntary euthanasia is fine as far as it goes but it could end up someone with power of attorney pulls the trigger.
    You and/or the attorney can be powerfully influenced by people around you eg “hurry up and die mum – put yourself and us out of this bloody misery !!”
    I am totally opposed to the active taking of another person’s life. Let us die naturally while we and others do all we can to ease the suffering.
    Withold cares that could prolong life when life is obviously ending, but don’t actively kill someone ! “though shalt not kill” – as true as ever in my view.
    If it goes ahead, the National Socialist regime in Germany will potentially provide a useful model.
    Lack of money should not prevent good, compassionate care before and after birth and in terminal illness, old age and dying.
    The next Labour Governemnt must fight the tide and insist on applying the power of the state to the care and nurturing of our most vulnerable – yes AI

    • Pete George 6.1
      1 May 2012 at 7:54 pm

      but it could end up someone with power of attorney

      Not if the lesgislation doesn’t allow it, and it is unlikely to allow it.

      Let us die naturally

      How naturally? With no medicine or healthcare?

      There is an anomaly now, where a person can choose to die sooner by asking for any treatment or medical equipment to not be used, but they can’t ask for the treatment of their choice to end their life sooner.

      • NickS 6.1.1
        1 May 2012 at 9:09 pm

        Huh? Pete thinking? lolwut?

        There is an anomaly now, where a person can choose to die sooner by asking for any treatment or medical equipment to not be used, but they can’t ask for the treatment of their choice to end their life sooner.

        This. Not that the anti-euthanasia crowd will touch it though, despite the fact that it’s a glaring issue that causes issues with the somewhat contradictory approach to suicide (either assisted or not) in the NZ legal system. And I would argue that agreeing to an individual’s choice to refuse treatment is a form of assisted suicide on the basis that the individual has made a life-ending choice, which is then allowed via non-intervention to go forward. However, it’s obviously not quite the same as directly assisted suicide where the individual can’t administer or hit a button themselves and requires help.

      • NickS 6.1.2
        1 May 2012 at 9:18 pm

        How naturally? With no medicine or healthcare?

        Now this is whole another barrel of worms that raises a nested set of twisty epistemological questions about “what is natural?” that invariably undermines the common concept of “natural” and leads unto madness 😛

        Along with having loads of fun driving the whole “nature = best” alt.med crowd nuts as you take their poorly thought out definitions to teh logical conclusions.

        Anyhow, it’s possible to spin an argument that human society and all it’s tools and works are part of nature via the concepts of “external phenotypes” and “emergent phenomena” and that “artificial” merely constitutes a subset of natural phenomena, rather than something non-natural. But Nick too tired to explain fully and the usual faith-heads will probably whine at it leading unto tangential trolling.

      • Reagan Cline 6.1.3
        1 May 2012 at 9:45 pm

        “die naturally” means to die of natural causes ie vital functions cease because of intrinsic factors.

        For example, the heart stops because the arteries supplying the heart muscle with blood are too blocked, as opposed to stopping because someone has injected a bolus of potassium chloride into the persons blood either directly into the heart or through a vein.

        Some ethical statements to think about:

        “Primum non nocere”

        “Comfort always”

        “Thou shalt not kill, but needst not strive officiously to keep alive”

        • McFlock 6.1.3.1
          1 May 2012 at 10:10 pm

          The first is falsely attributed to the Hippocratic Oath.
             
          The second is not incompatible with euthanasia.
           
          The third is from  satirical Victorian poems about the ten commandments and suchlike.
              
          But thanks for assuming that people discussing the euthanasia debate haven’t looked at the issue in such a categorical and shallow way.
             
           

        • NickS 6.1.3.2
          1 May 2012 at 10:28 pm

          Ah yes, because one should die in pain from the terminal disease which leads to their respiratory system collapsing (and so heart failure), instead of being allowed to choose a far less painful means via chemical agents.

          Because it’s far more natural to be forced to suffer than not.

          • QoT 6.1.3.2.1
            1 May 2012 at 11:23 pm

            Hey Nick, stop making sense. And let’s promise not to bring up the whole fact that Western medicine basically exists to stand between us and “nature”.

            • NickS 6.1.3.2.1.1
              1 May 2012 at 11:26 pm

              Awwww, but I can’t help it, doing History and Philosophy of Science made me make serious sense about these things :/

  7. bad12 7
    1 May 2012 at 8:29 pm

    Yes i know it all sounds so prettily effete, you know going through a strictly defined process where ONLY those who ask for it will be KILLED by the good Doktor,

    But is it,here’s the reality,

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/…now-Dutch-turn-legalised-mercy-killing/ht...

    This ones ‘opinion’ but chilling non the less,

    http://www.nationalreview.com/…/euthanasia-spreads-europe-wesly-j-smit...

    That one got me to thinking, gosh that almost sounds like fun,(possibly this evenings insanity is fueled by the scratching I received above),wonder if I can perhaps become a Doctor,

    I detect self preservation at work here in a if you can’t beat em join em sort of fashion…

    • bad12 7.1
      1 May 2012 at 8:42 pm

      Well that worked well not, just tried the link I put up and it goes nowhere where i can see the story in the daily mail i just read,

      Will have to try and dig it out again…

      • NickS 7.1.1
        1 May 2012 at 10:20 pm

        1) http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1234295/Now-Dutch-turn-legalised-mercy-killing.html
        Ah, the DailyFail.

        Seriously though, a tabloid newspaper? Have ye no shame? How about BBC, or even Reuters? Because the DailyFail is oft known to make shit up and distorting stuff in order to turn a buck via sensationalism. Not to forget either that they’re not good a ye olde fact checking on the bullshit some of their sources say.

        Now the reality is actually far more interesting, as the legal situation in the Netherlands allows for legal post-birth euthanasia of infants under certain conditions (i.e. birth reveals untreatable, low life expectancy conditions and the parents both give their consent).

        As for hospices disappearing, lolwut? Because it seems to me that’s a giant load of bullshit given the strong anti-euthanasia, pro-palliative care stuff coming from religious groups in the Netherlands and some quick rummaging in teh literature doesn’t reveal any declines in quality of care and it seems that in 04 care levels were high for those dying.

        2) http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/281303/euthanasia-spreads-europe-wesley-j-smith
        First thoughts on glancing on it – pseudo intellectual wanking.

        And judging by teh authors wikibio I think my initial reaction is on the money, as he swings with a known group of colossal faith-blinded intellectual midgets known as the “Discovery Institute” and seems to think that Peter Singer is “mainstream” in bioethics. Which is rather amusing to me for myriad reasons.

        As for the article itself, I’ll cut straight to the point, as someone with a mental illness I see no reason why those like we shouldn’t be allowed to end their lives if they feel their quality of life is completely shit and isn’t going to improve. Heck, it’s this idea which I’ve used as part of my toolkit for dealing with suicidal ideation, and thanks to better living through chemistry and teh welfare state I do have a good enough quality of life that I’m unlikely to euthanise myself unless I end up in the last stages of a painful terminal disease/condition. But some don’t, and making them live with it is frankly disgustingly selfish.

        And Wesley seems to have serious issues with understanding that people’s views on moral issues can change. Which makes me wonder whether or not he was ever pro-homosexual law reform.

        What I find interesting is how he twists The Groningen Protocol into something monstrous, when the first two protocols deal with lethal conditions in newborns that will kill them soon after birth or carry poor longterm prognoses, while the third one deals with the very severely disabled. In all cases though, choice is not taken away from the parents. And as to moral obligations, well, there are significant ethical issues with guilt tripping someone into a decision, but given the groups Wesley associates with use this to try and stop women having abortions (r.e. pregnancy “crisis” centres) I’m somewhat amused he even bothers using this line of argument. Not that it makes it any less of an issue, But Wesley fails to bring up any evidence of the law being abused, and seems to do the same with his other examples. Which are basically all scaremongering via implication rather than hard evidence.

        • bad12 7.1.1.1
          1 May 2012 at 10:32 pm

          Ahhh making stuff up and distorting it just like you do,have a read you will be in good company…

          • NickS 7.1.1.1.1
            1 May 2012 at 10:35 pm

            Except you show no evidence proving I do that /smugface

            • bad12 7.1.1.1.1.1
              1 May 2012 at 10:50 pm

              I have no need to,your whole rant of a post above shows that you do,basically what you say is the DailyMail has never printed an article of fact,and,the author of the other provided link is according to you a wanker and is associated with people that you dont like therefor he is to be totally disbelieved because,as you provide little facts to back up your assertions,you say so,

              So, I for one am left with the incredibly enlightening,(not),argument by you that euthanasia is good coz you say so,(gosh we all bow to such wisdom)…

          • NickS 7.1.1.1.2
            1 May 2012 at 10:44 pm

            Also, when someone goes through and fact-check the claims in the stuff you link to that undermines your arguments, generally you’re meant to try and provide a counter with some meat to it. Instead of accusing them of lying without any backing evidence.

            • bad12 7.1.1.1.2.1
              1 May 2012 at 10:59 pm

              Oh I get it, as you said about the link I gave,adding that it was opinion,Pseudo intellectual wanking I believe was your fact checking of that particular piece,

              So when you come back at me telling me that I am meant to justify such an answer by finding another webpage that you can pretend to debunk by such the means above do you really think I am going to bother,

              Seems to me that would be just providing you with the opportunity to indulge in a whole pile of that pseudo intellectual wanking yourself…

              • NickS …
                1 May 2012 at 11:07 pm

                lolwut?

                Sense not being made above, could be an attempt at trolling though.

    • bad12 7.2
      1 May 2012 at 10:30 pm

      Neither of those links seem to work on this web-site,sooo,if your interested in reading why the Dutch politician who steered the legalization of euthanasia through their Parliament now believes She made a mistake,

      Google=euthanasia goes wrong in the Netherlands, its about half way down page 1,and the other link is on page 2…

      • McFlock 7.2.1
        1 May 2012 at 10:34 pm

        I see you put as much thought into your linking as you did your argument.

  8. Hilary 8
    1 May 2012 at 10:03 pm

    If euthanasia becomes the norm one consequence could be that there will be less pressure on the government to provide good aged care or good palliative care. It is important to clearly separate the issues so that demands continue for continual improvements in palliative and aged care.

    • Reagan Cline 8.1
      1 May 2012 at 10:07 pm

      +1

    • NickS 8.2
      1 May 2012 at 10:54 pm

      Well, looking at the Netherlands example that outcome hasn’t occurred. And given that most aged care centres and hospices are run by religious organisations or for profit in the case of retirement village I don’t see a huge issue emerging. Main issue would if the govt. cuts back on funding, but I’m assuming that the various lobby groups will make that a very difficult thing to even think about.

      • Slap shot 8.2.1
        2 May 2012 at 6:58 pm

        The Netherlands is not an Anglo country, and does not suffer from the Anglo disease. I would support it there and in countries like Sweden, but I am uneasy about it here. The Rau Williams case put me off it.

    • Pete George 8.3
      2 May 2012 at 7:51 am

      If euthanasia becomes the norm one consequence could be that there will be less pressure on the government to provide good aged care or good palliative care.

      There are many possible consequences, and like thisn one most are very unlikely. As are possible terrible consequences under the current laws.

      Why would there be less pressure? There should be more pressure – if that’s what people want.

  9. bad12 9
    1 May 2012 at 11:09 pm

    Ah how easily the debate slips from ITS ONLY FOR THOSE WITH TERMINAL ILLNESSES,and then inserted quietly into the debate is the ”oh and whats wrong with knocking off the babies that have a poor outlook for life”

    Gosh it all sounds soooo pretty and touchy feely,just like no-ones going to get Killed or anything that i might be swayed into agreeing,as long as all the hard core proponents of such offer to go first that is…

    • NickS 9.1
      1 May 2012 at 11:12 pm

      Hi, I’m bad12 and I like bring up shit via linking to it and then accusing others of doing so whilst throwing a temper-tantrum /smugface

      • bad12 9.1.1
        1 May 2012 at 11:22 pm

        Aw there there lets not toss the toys,you said of the particular link that it was intellectual wanking,

        You then tell me that as you had ”fact checked” the link and answered it I was supposed to wander off through the web to find you another link to ”fact check” by calling it intallectual wanking,

        That would don’t you think be futile,because if that is ”fact checking” then if the link I provided to you as ‘opinion’ is intellctual wanking so is what you commented about it…

        • NickS 9.1.1.1
          1 May 2012 at 11:29 pm

          lolwut?

          It’s the only option.

          Next to goatse-ing you for the lulz.

        • McFlock 9.1.1.2
          1 May 2012 at 11:31 pm
           
           

          That would don’t you think be futile,because if that is ”fact checking” then if the link I provided to you as ‘opinion’ is intellctual wanking so is what you commented about it…

          Lolwut again?
            
          Did you just say that if you see someone wanking and say “that person’s wanking”, you’ve started wanking?
            
          Dude, that only happens in niche-market porn movies. In most real life situations, the onanist ceases self-love. Heck, even in most porn movies the discovery of someone wanking simply results in a fucking. I’ve not even heard of “accidental discovery circle-jerk porn”, and I’ve got an internet connection…
              
           

          • bad12 9.1.1.2.1
            2 May 2012 at 12:03 am

            A grand thesis,did you perhaps do a paper on the subject at degree level, i salute you and truly believe that your a master at it…

            • McFlock 9.1.1.2.1.1
              2 May 2012 at 12:12 am

              It’s your thesis, you do the degree.
              Maybe gender studies?
              Or sociology.
              Maybe psychology or porn?

    • McFlock 9.2
      1 May 2012 at 11:14 pm

      lolwut?

  10. bad12 10
    2 May 2012 at 12:01 am

    Don’t ya just love the sheer honesty of the debate where over and over the proponents of euthanasia say that such a law would only ever be used to kill off the terminally ill,those in so much pain that modern medicine hasn’t got a pain relief strong enough to relieve their suffering,

    There’s a world of BS just within the terminally ill and in so much pain bit,but right now i am more interested in something that nicks commented on at 10.20,

    ”What I find interesting is how he twists the Groninge protocol into something monstrous, when the first two protocols deal with lethal conditions in newborn babies that will kill them soon after birth or carry poor long-term prognoses” unquote,

    Mmmm that sure as hell shows that the proponents of euthanasia only see it as the final solution for those at lifes end and in great pain,(not),

    Gosh,lets also bump off the babies that are going to die soon after birth, what a grand play God idea, no point of just letting them die soon after birth is there when we can get them first,

    And hell we can all see the beauty in killing some baby befor its born because say it looks like it might be deformed right,

    Hell I forget the pertinent quote,first they came for the cripples,and I said nothing,next they came for the mentally handicapped and i remained silent and on it goes…

    • McFlock 10.1
      2 May 2012 at 12:11 am

      That’s not a “quote”. That was some plagiarism that someone did because they weren’t smart enough to write something original.

      • bad12 10.1.1
        2 May 2012 at 12:26 am

        whats not a quote???…

      • bad12 10.1.2
        2 May 2012 at 12:49 am

        Ah well that’s nothing to bother with then,readers all mostly know what those lines are from,amazing tho just how unintellectual all you intellectuals get at times,

        I call it nit-picking,you know what the chimps get up to for dinner,at times,not on this web-site as yet,but on others,my comments have been intellectualized by the single word,

        Funnier than your ‘thesis’ at 11.31,nah not even close,for me to give you a brief and honest review of that would be to risking banning…

        • McFlock 10.1.2.1
          2 May 2012 at 12:54 am

          Really, almost everyone knows where those lines are from? Which pastor wrote them?
          But you can’t link to it?   
              
           

    • McFlock 10.2
      2 May 2012 at 12:20 am

      Oh, and it’s not “coming for” them if they’re the ones making an informed request for it.
       
      Comparing the Dutch and swiss models of euthanasia to the Gestapo shipping peope to concentration camps is just stupid.

      • bad12 10.2.1
        2 May 2012 at 12:28 am

        Why…

        • McFlock 10.2.1.1
          2 May 2012 at 12:33 am

          Let’s see: scale, the objective of eradication of entire peoples, and MOST IMPORTANTLY the fact that the people taking the happy-hitler package holidays didn’t want to go.
              
          I mean, really dude – that’s just dumb.

          • bad12 10.2.1.1.1
            2 May 2012 at 12:43 am

            what, dumber than your post at 11.31, nah nothing will top that…

            • McFlock 10.2.1.1.1.1
              2 May 2012 at 12:50 am

              I was taking the piss.
              You’re trying to be serious.
                  
              Nice deflection, though. “oh noes, he pointed out three fundamental difference between the proposed legislation and Nazi Germany, so I will point out he has a potty mouth”.
              Yep, really subtle. /sarc

  11. bad12 11
    2 May 2012 at 12:24 am

    Heres another grand nicks quote from His comment at 10.20,

    ”And wesley seems to have serious issues with understanding that peoples views on moral issues can change”

    That of course is what nicks calls ”fact checking” what has been said in the links i put up back up the comments page a bit,

    Its called the pot calling the kettle black right,when i also posted a link to the fact that Dr Els Borst the former Dutch Minister of Health and deputy Prime Minister who steered the Dutch euthanasia law through their Parliament now thought the law was wrong the ”fact checking” was confined to derision of the newspaper which quoted Her as saying such,

    Having said it Himself,nicks also seems to have trouble understanding that peoples views on moral issues can change,specially those of a person who has pushed a euthanasia law through a Parliament, seen its effects on society in Her own country and now obviously wishes she had not promoted such a law….

    • seeker 11.1
      2 May 2012 at 1:29 am

      bad 12 have noticed that you have battled for nearly 12 hours on this thread (McFlock behind you by one and half hours). However I agree with your point of view and thank you for your valiant battle against arguments for the introduction of euthanasia.You have done well in my opinion, especially with your point “seen its effects on society in Her own country and now obviously wishes she had not promoted such a law….” in your the last paragraph of your 12.24am comment. Thanks.

      • bad12 11.1.1
        2 May 2012 at 2:00 am

        Hell have I been on here for that long, I better get outta here befor I start putting up stuff like mac’s at 11.31,

        Tah much for the ups,and i bid you good night…

  12. Galeandra 12
    2 May 2012 at 12:54 am

    @ NickS & McFlock
    Supercilious smart-arsery seems to be a common failing of those lucky enough, ie young enough, to have recent academic experience and accessed just the book, lecturer or wiki definitions for the debate at hand. What is wrong with respectful dignified discussion? Your tone smacks of false authority where grandstanding is more important to you than the ethical debate.

    Not everyone is malicious or moronic because their beliefs are grounded on different experiences or learning.

    Lighten up.

    • McFlock 12.1
      2 May 2012 at 12:59 am

      Not everyone is malicious or moronic because their beliefs are grounded on different experiences or learning.

         
      Agreed. But imo B12 was given a fair chance, and frankly yeah on this topic I think they’re being an idiot. They don’t check their sources, barely provide them in fact, and fail to recognise the difference between “request” and “have forced on”.
         
      But point taken – I’ll go to bed.
         
       
       

  13. Pete George 13
    2 May 2012 at 7:56 am

    Sean Davison claimed that in places where assisted death was allowed the suicide rate amongst the elderly dropped significantly.

    If true it is likely to be because it’s common (normal) for people with terminal illnesses to fear having a long drawn out, uncomfortable, painful undignified death. Some avoid this by committing suicide while they are still capable of doing it themselves.

    If assisted suicide is legal there is no need to jump the gun.

    And many of those who seriously considered suicide will end up dying without needing to resort to ending their own lives prematurely.

  14. Pete George 14
    2 May 2012 at 8:03 am

    I’ve been posting on euthanasia and and am collating information and keeping track of discussions.

    I’m going to keep a running summary on the menu here: http://yournz.org/euthanasia/

    If anyone has anything to suggest to be added please let me know. I’m doing this to help promote discussion on euthanaisa, it’s important that we have a thorough and well informed debate on it. I’m learning and modifying my views as discussion progresses. I’ll included reasonable sources from any side of the argument.

  15. bad12 15
    2 May 2012 at 10:47 am

    I have said this befor about Euthanasia,i think in ‘Open Mike’ but seeing as there’s not lots going on in this post by way of comments this morning I will repeat it for the record so to speak,

    My view of Euthanasia is that it is simply ‘the logical conclusion’ of Neo-Capitalism where those who work are not considered as People,but instead as mere red or black ink, as a cost/profit item within the book-keeping of the Neo-Capitalist Ism,

    Our Slippery Prime Minister is in favor of Euthanasia and I can bet he couches such support in favor in terms carefully constructed so as not to offend,

    Here tho is the then Australian Governor-General, Bill Hayden, obviously a fellow traveler with Slippery speaking in 1995 to the College of Physicians during the debate over the Northern Territory’s then proposed euthanasia law,

    I took the quote off of the NZ-anti euthanasia site prolife.org.nz/tag/euthanasia

    ”There is a point when the succeeding generations deserve to be disencumbered of some unproductive burdens” unquote Bill Hayden 1995,

    Nice one Bill, thats saying it how you see it while stripping away all of the pretty codified language that a lot of the pro-euthanasia lobby use to promote killing off the elderly…

    • McFlock 15.1
      2 May 2012 at 12:36 pm

      Is that the NZ proposal? No.
             
      Basically, you can’t distinguish between an act performed at someone’s request and with their informed consent, and an act forced on someone against their will.
           
      You position is that voluntary euthanasia should be illegal because it might cause some people to be murdered? By that logic, you’d also think that sex should be illegal because some people are raped.
            
      After all the crap over the last couple of days, I am more sure in my belief that your arguments against voluntary euthanasia are shite.
       
      But I’m still not sure if I support it. Mostly because of depression/other mental health-related suicides. At what point does one distinguish between a genuine and reasonable desire to avoid the torture of a malady, and a transient desire resulting from a depressive episode that will pass? That’s the thorny point for me, not some omg they’re murdering babies bullshit.

      • bad12 15.1.1
        2 May 2012 at 6:48 pm

        Yes please strop showing us the true nature of your blinkered thinking and blind faith in ‘legislation once its passed and governments once they are installed,

        The fact that you claim that such a law change to allow euthanasia will only allow those with a terminal disease who are in absolute pain is meaningless,

        Your claims are meaningless simply because you now admit that those with mental illness are likely to be able to commit suicide by euthanasia,

        it’s my belief that you have no particular belief one way or the other about euthanasia and have simply used the question to mount a petty pathetic attack on me as a commenter,

        It is obvious that there is a level of disquiet about the misuse of the current abortion laws which has resulted in cases in the High Court and Court of Appeal, I have simply highlighted this as a warning of how I see a euthanasia law could and would be twisted by sector interests to suit their own agenda’s,

        The Auckland Court of Appeal decision highlights for me one thing,and that is that once the misuse of any law becomes entrenched in the way that the current abortion law has then it is way to late,

        The Dutch architect of that country’s euthanasia law has publicly said the same thing, that the former Dutch Health Minister and Deputy Prime Minister who pushed the euthanasia law through the Dutch Parliament now says that She opposes what has transpired as the reality of euthanasia should be warning enough for anyone about supporting any form of legislation in this country that allows euthanasia…

        • McFlock 15.1.1.1
          2 May 2012 at 10:09 pm
           
           

          Your claims are meaningless simply because you now admit that those with mental illness are likely to be able to commit suicide by euthanasia,
           
          You idiot. Show me where you raised that issue. Show me where I denied it. Show me where I said I’m pro-euthanasia.
                
          My entire argument has been that I’m not entirely sure about euthanasia, but that your arguments against it are complete bunk.
               
          As for the mental health thing, yes I am not sure it is preventable. But then nor am I sure it is not able to be overcome – the bluntest way beng to restrict euthanasia to physical and terminal ailments, and make “unsound mind” (to use the old will & testament phrasing) a criteria for invalidation by overseeing doctors.  
                 
          Shoot – an “abortion kills babies” zealot accusing me of “blinkered thinking”. No hypocrisy there at all.

           
          • bad12 15.1.1.1.1
            2 May 2012 at 11:26 pm

            Snigger,do you mean to tell me that abortion does not kill the baby in the womb???if you and your mate paid for the ‘higher'(snigger)education you have received i suggest you go get your money back…

            • McFlock 15.1.1.1.1.1
              2 May 2012 at 11:32 pm

               
              “Higher education”? Your inability to stay on topic makes me doubt you graduated primary school.
                
              Oh that’s right, the post is titled “abortion bill”. It’s not? Oh well, once again:

              You idiot. Show me where you raised that issue. Show me where I denied it. Show me where I said I’m pro-euthanasia.
              Focus, b12, focus.

  16. NickS 16
    2 May 2012 at 11:14 pm

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthanasia_and_the_slippery_slope

    Blessed is wikipedia sometimes 😛

    And ask me nicely enough and I can upload the papers cited if they’re behind a paywall.

  17. telson 17
    14 May 2012 at 10:15 pm

    This article shows that the euthanasia is morally and ethically wrong; http://koti.phnet.fi/petripaavola/euthanasia.html

    • NickS 17.1
      14 May 2012 at 10:44 pm

      …And that’s only if you accept the sites particularly theological assumptions, and also that it should apply to those who don’t accept it. Which given it’s a fundamentalist, KJV only, site, that’s a lot of people who wont accept it. And due to theology being theology (i.e. pure fluff) it wouldn’t take long to find a more lucid (for theology) counter argument from a theologist.

      Also lulz at it’s evolutionary biology page, it’s even more half-baked than Kent Hovind’s stuff. Especially teh whole letters thing trying to give theological significance to the choice of DNA via using the Hebrew letters instead. /smugface

      Try again cupcake.