Euthanasia

[husaberg]

Ah but once the rights of the individual become the measuring stick by which all judgments and decisions are made, where does the concept of whanau-comunity-society, the consideration of the needs of others' before our own, and other such characteristics of the human population lie?
Utilitarian is some peoples utopia granted, however it reminds me of this.
Should the prejudices of the many outweigh the needs of the few?

My take is this

The rights of the individual can outweigh the needs of the many.
When it is humane and serves the greater good.
ie When the need of the individual outweighs the lesser needs (or wants) of the many.
When they can be justified by urgency not just by expediency.

This is where the Ethical protocols need to be robustly stated to protect the individuals.

Because power corrupts, society's demands for moral authority and character increase as the importance of the position increases.
John Adams

[Banditbandit]

Well that's another thing we disagree on then.

If the person's family were against the idea of an assisted death then it would be up to the patient to try to make the family understand his/her wishes.

If the family are still adamant that they don't support the idea then the patient can either change their own mind or tell their family "sorry, but my mind is made up".

The rights of the family should not, by default, outweigh the right of the individual.

I agree. What rights has a family to demand that a terminally ill person die in pain, humiliation and suffering ???


Ah but once the rights of the individual become the measuring stick by which all judgments and decisions are made, where does the concept of whanau-comunity-society, the consideration of the needs of others' before our own, and other such characteristics of the human population lie?

No whanau can demand and force a loved one die in pain humiliation and suffering - that's NOT what whanau do.

Who needs a loved one to die that way ???

[Katman]

Here's a question for anyone who is staunchly anti-euthanasia law reform.

(In answering, disregard the current legal standing of euthanasia).

What 'right' do you believe you have to deny a terminally ill person the opportunity to choose the timing of their death?

[TheDemonLord]

Here's a question for anyone who is staunchly anti-euthanasia law reform.

(In answering, disregard the current legal standing of euthanasia).

What 'right' do you believe you have to deny a terminally ill person the opportunity to choose the timing of their death?

not that I am anti-euthanasia - but the arguments that could be made (without any reference to god or religon) would be something along the lines of:

- The Medical professions primary goal is to preserve life at all costs, Euthanasia violates this
- Euthanasia rules out the possibility of trying a potential new cure
- No one who is terminally ill and in pain can be judged to make a rational decision, any decision made would be in effect made under duress.

Thats the best I got, and there are a few holes that I can poke in those arguments.

[bogan]

What 'right' do you believe you have to deny a terminally ill person the opportunity to choose the timing of their death?

None, but who decides they are terminally ill?

[PrincessBandit]

reality check peeps - we are ALL terminally ill. Ya know the ole "death and taxes" thing? Well, short of the rapture a-happenin' while we're alive on this here planet, we're all doomed to die.

Cheery thoughts.

[PrincessBandit]

I'm talking specifically about a terminally ill person choosing to terminate their life.

If I'm ever in that position and I choose that path then it's tough shit if family don't like it.

If it becomes legal then you'd have no objections from me if it's what you choose for yourself.

[Katman]

not that I am anti-euthanasia - but the arguments that could be made (without any reference to god or religon) would be something along the lines of:

- The Medical professions primary goal is to preserve life at all costs, Euthanasia violates this
- Euthanasia rules out the possibility of trying a potential new cure
- No one who is terminally ill and in pain can be judged to make a rational decision, any decision made would be in effect made under duress.

Thats the best I got, and there are a few holes that I can poke in those arguments.

Those are not 'rights'.

[bogan]

If it becomes legal then you'd have no objections from me if it's what you choose for yourself.

... and maha would bring his pom-poms...

[Katman]

If it becomes legal then you'd have no objections from me if it's what you choose for yourself.

You're not getting off that lightly.

I'd hope that you'd be gracious enough to be happy for me.

[Maha]

If it becomes legal then you'd have no objections from me if it's what you choose for yourself.

That flat-line sound is because you tripped on the lead, not that you chose to do that :rolleyes:

[Maha]

... and maha would bring his pom-poms...

I would bring my Lawyer to contest the will.

[TheDemonLord]

Those are not 'rights'.

with a few wording tweaks they could be made rights (afterall, rights are merely things that everyone agrees that we should have)

[Katman]

with a few wording tweaks they could be made rights (afterall, rights are merely things that everyone agrees that we should have)

Read this carefully....

They. Are. Not. 'Rights'.

[bogan]

Read this carefully....

They. Are. Not. 'Rights'.

The right to protect one's family and loved ones from harm?

[Katman]

Ok, maybe I should have spelt out I was talking about 'moral' right.

[Katman]

The right to protect one's family and loved ones from harm?

And do you think that over-rides a terminally ill person's 'moral' right to choose the timing of their death?

[bogan]

And do you think that over-rides a terminally ill person's right to choose the timing of their death?

Since you have not elaborated over the deciding factor in terminally ill. I do believe that right over-rides a person's right to choose the timing of their death in some circumstances.

[TheDemonLord]

Read this carefully....

They. Are. Not. 'Rights'.

'Rights' can be anything - the Right to bear arms, The Right to fish, The Right to Free speech, The Right to argue on the internet ad nauseum.

So with a little rephrasing:

It is the Right of a medical professional to preserve a patients life at all cost.
It is the Right of a Patient to expect the utmost standard of care to maximize the chance of being cured
It is the Right of a Patient to not be coerced or forced under duress to make decisions that could result in Harm

Those could be Rights (if enough of us agree that they are Rights)

[Katman]

Since you have not elaborated over the deciding factor in terminally ill. I do believe that right over-rides a person's right to choose the timing of their death in some circumstances.

Not many people would choose to end their life when first diagonised with a terminal illness. (But if they did, that should be their 'right').

But terminally ill people spend considerable time coming to terms with the way their death is going to play out.

If a time is reached when they have no more hope (or energy to fight) and medicine has nothing more to offer, what 'right' do you have to deny them calling "enough's enough"?

[bogan]

Not many people would choose to end their life when first diagonised with a terminal illness. (But if they did, that should be their 'right').

But terminally ill people spend considerable time coming to terms with way their death is going to play out.

If a time is reached when they have no more hope (or energy to fight) and medicine has nothing more to offer, what 'right' do you have to deny them calling "enough's enough"?

Surely you can see the problem there? such logic is predicated on the faith that terminal means just that, so again I'll ask, who decides what is terminal?

[Katman]

......so again I'll ask, who decides what is terminal?

Like I said, this doesn't have to even apply to people who first discover they have a terminal illness.

When someone reaches a point where even the medical fraternity say there is nothing more to hope for they should have the right to say "I'm sane. This is my Will".

[bogan]

Like I said, this doesn't have to even apply to people who first discover they have a terminal illness.

When someone reaches a point where even the medical fraternity say there is nothing more to hope for they should have the right to say "I'm sane. This is my Will".

So, what is the waiting period? and who constitutes the medical fraternity? big pharma?

[Katman]

So, what is the waiting period?

Dude, I'm not the one writing the legislation.

All anyone is asking is that serious consideration be given to how a law change could best be introduced.

[bogan]

Dude, I'm not the one writing the legislation.

All anyone is asking for is that serious consideration is given to how a law change could best be introduced.

And any serious consideration must consider such things. It's a no brainer to say that a person who has 6 months of agony left and no chance of respite or recovery should be able to end it. If all you want is cursory agreement then you've got mine, but if you want some serious consideration, you need to dig deeper.

[Katman]

If all you want is cursory agreement then you've got mine, but if you want some serious consideration, you need to dig deeper.

Hey, if you agree even cursorily you could dig deeper yourself.

[FJRider]

And any serious consideration must consider such things. It's a no brainer to say that a person who has 6 months of agony left and no chance of respite or recovery should be able to end it. If all you want is cursory agreement then you've got mine, but if you want some serious consideration, you need to dig deeper.

Perhaps a poll ... to decide if Katman should be put out of his misery ... :pinch:

[bogan]

Hey, if you agree even cursorily you could dig deeper yourself.

I was under the impression you wanted a seriously considered discussion. If you just want to go away and consider shit by yourself, feel free; if you just want me to do that, I'd suggest you're not after such a discussion.

Perhaps I should phrase it a different way. Euthanasia is a minefeild of grey areas, you have to weigh up how the pain causes decisions under duress, how terminal not necessarily is terminal, how the person with the most right to make such a decision is often incapable of it, spiritual/religious connotations... There just isn't the benchmarks in place to evaluate that criteria. So which way do you go? just say fuck, you're sick, top yourself if you want? or say no, you might get better so hang about?

[Katman]

I was under the impression you wanted a seriously considered discussion. If you just want to go away and consider shit by yourself, feel free; if you just want me to do that, I'd suggest you're not after such a discussion.

Perhaps I should phrase it a different way. Euthanasia is a minefeild of grey areas, you have to weigh up how the pain causes decisions under duress, how terminal not necessarily is terminal, how the person with the most right to make such a decision is often incapable of it, spiritual/religious connotations... There just isn't the benchmarks in place to evaluate that criteria. So which way do you go? just say fuck, you're sick, top yourself if you want? or say no, you might get better so hang about?

Like I said, let's talk about it - not ignore it.

(Is that you in your avatar?)

[oldrider]

Your new avatar is how I have always actually imagined you bogan "lol" - ten out of ten for that one - hilarious death kick! :killingme

[bogan]

Like I said, let's talk about it - not ignore it.

Euthanasia is a minefeild of grey areas, you have to weigh up how the pain causes decisions under duress, how terminal not necessarily is terminal, how the person with the most right to make such a decision is often incapable of it, spiritual/religious connotations... There just isn't the benchmarks in place to evaluate that criteria. So which way do you go? just say fuck, you're sick, top yourself if you want? or say no, you might get better so hang about?

[Katman]

There just isn't the benchmarks in place to evaluate that criteria. So which way do you go?

Here's an idea, we could investigate setting benchmarks.

[bogan]

Here's an idea, we could investigate setting benchmarks.

Any ideas? cos all mine come back to doctors/family judgement in addition to the patient.

[Katman]

Any ideas? cos all mine come back to doctors/family judgement in addition to the patient.

Here's an idea - there's things called Select Committees.

[bogan]

Here's an idea - there's things called Select Committees.

So, your idea is to let someone else decide? I kind of thought your unhappiness with their decision was the reason for this discussion...

[FJRider]

Here's an idea - there's things called Select Committees.

Here's an idea ... a public referendum ... :blank:


What's another 11 milliion ... more or less ... :blank:

[98tls]

Late last year a very good friend of mine left work to go to the doctor with what he thought was a bruised tail bone or similar,Xrays done he was informed he had 3 months to live after some chemo there was a brief glimmer of hope then it was all down hill.Spent some time with Vic in the evenings when he was in the last stop shop and all he wanted to do was check out fuck he had Tumors sticking out overnight and he remarked at one stage he wished he was his dog so it could all end peacefully,was pretty obvious to all he was of sound mind and wanted to go so why not have let him i say.

[Katman]

Here's an idea ... a public referendum ... :blank:


What's another 11 milliion ... more or less ... :blank:

Public submissions towards the decision making is the key.

That's how people currently get to 'speak'.

Decisions as to what qualifies as acceptable grounds for assisted suicide is probably not one they'll be coming to ask of Kiwibiker.

[Katman]

But before public submissions are called for, the proposed legistlation has to be clearly outlined.

[FJRider]

Public submissions towards the decision making is the key.

That's how people currently get to 'speak'.

Decisions as to what qualifies as acceptable grounds for assisted suicide is probably not one they'll be coming to ask of Kiwibiker.

But we ALL know ... The Government knows best .. what is best for us all ... (ask ANY MP)

PUBLIC input is not really needed ... right .. ?? (or did I get it wrong ... again)

[Katman]

PUBLIC input is not really needed ... right .. ?? (or did I get it wrong ... again)

It depends on what you consider 'right'.

[FJRider]

It depends on what you consider 'right'.

If it's good for ME ... it must be right ... even if it's NOT good for you ... :yes:


Right .. ?? :scratch:

[Katman]

75% in favour of reviewing our euthanasia laws.

http://www.colmarbrunton.co.nz/images/150803_ONE_News_Colmar_Brunton_Poll_report_11-15_July_2015.pdf

[Katman]

Well 22,000 public submissions would indicate that it's a subject that New Zealanders want discussed.

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO1606/S00227/cfi-into-assisted-dying-on-track-to-break-records.htm

[TheDemonLord]

Well 22,000 public submissions would indicate that it's a subject that New Zealanders want discussed.

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO1606/S00227/cfi-into-assisted-dying-on-track-to-break-records.htm

And so it should be.

I still hold that we lack the legal language to write adequate legislation to address the myriad of nuances and factors that would need to be addressed for such a law to be implemented.

[Crasherfromwayback]

I still hold that we lack the legal language to write adequate legislation to address the myriad of nuances and factors that would need to be addressed for such a law to be implemented.

Then we need to overhaul that whilst we're at it.

[Katman]

I still hold that we lack the legal language to write adequate legislation to address the myriad of nuances and factors that would need to be addressed for such a law to be implemented.

Maybe that's why you're in IT and not the legal profession.

[TheDemonLord]

Maybe that's why you're in IT and not the legal profession.

When a Law is written, it has to be written in such a way to cover off all the relevant scenarios, to clearly define what is and isn't legal. In many ways there are similarities between that and Scripting - where I have to cover off all the relevant variables so that the script executes the function as required, if I don't the Script will either fail to execute completely or worse, execute with unintended side effects.

If a law is poorly written (as in is Vague, overly broad or subject to interpretation) then they tend to be ineffective (except for the Lawyers who get to spend hours arguing over these bad laws to a tidy hourly rate).

As stated prior, I support the concept and I welcome discussion, I'm just not sure that we can write legislation to cover off every relevant scenario. The closest I can think of would be where someone who wanted to die would have a hearing in front of a judge, but even that has some issues that I myself wouldn't be keen on.

[Katman]

If a law is poorly written (as in is Vague, overly broad or subject to interpretation) then they tend to be ineffective (except for the Lawyers who get to spend hours arguing over these bad laws to a tidy hourly rate).

I'm confident that if a change to the law was implemented they would employ very clever minds to adequately word the legislation.

I think your doubts are unfounded.

[Grumph]

I'm confident that if a change to the law was implemented they would employ very clever minds to adequately word the legislation.

I think your doubts are unfounded.

You haven't met enough MP's.....

[Katman]

You haven't met enough MP's.....

MPs don't get to draft new legislation.

That's the job of the Parliamentary Counsel Office.

[jasonu]

I'm confident that if a change to the law was implemented they would employ very clever minds to adequately word the legislation.

.

Do you think they will ask some Australians to write it?.....

[TheDemonLord]

I'm confident that if a change to the law was implemented they would employ very clever minds to adequately word the legislation.

I think your doubts are unfounded.

The US Obscenity Laws, in particular the 'I'll know it when I see it' threshold
The 1994 Assault Weapons Ban, in particular what constitutes a 'sporting purpose'
Fair Use Policy in regards to Copyrighted Material, in particular Youtube videos and what is and isn't Fair Use
Numerous Rape/Sexual assault laws globally, in particular laws that define rape as a Penis entering the Vagina Only (so it's legal if you stick it up her Arse, and it's impossible to be raped by a woman)

That's off the top of my head.

Now, although I don't have a high opinion of Government Depts, even if it was written by Very Clever People, I'm not sure that every facet in such a process could be adequately described - hence why I said ultimately it would likely have to be heard by a Judge (very much akin to the 'I'll know it when I see it' test for Obscenity).

[bogan]

When a Law is written, it has to be written in such a way to cover off all the relevant scenarios, to clearly define what is and isn't legal. In many ways there are similarities between that and Scripting - where I have to cover off all the relevant variables so that the script executes the function as required, if I don't the Script will either fail to execute completely or worse, execute with unintended side effects.

If a law is poorly written (as in is Vague, overly broad or subject to interpretation) then they tend to be ineffective (except for the Lawyers who get to spend hours arguing over these bad laws to a tidy hourly rate).

As stated prior, I support the concept and I welcome discussion, I'm just not sure that we can write legislation to cover off every relevant scenario. The closest I can think of would be where someone who wanted to die would have a hearing in front of a judge, but even that has some issues that I myself wouldn't be keen on.

Fucking script-kiddies...

Cpp master race already has it sussed.

if (self.utility < 0 & self.will_to_live < 0)
delete self;

[Woodman]

What about people with depression or other mental illnesses? They won't be allowed to euthanase because they are deemed to be not of sound mind although their whole existence can be a living hell. Is that discrimination?

[Katman]

Well it looks like the discussion will finally be had.

http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/political/332544/euthanasia-bill-to-go-before-parliament

[Swoop]

It would be nice to think that sense will prevail, a good debate and the bill passing into law so that people can chose to die with dignity and less suffering.
Sadly I suspect that too many religious weirdos will block this from happening.

[Scubbo]

http://s2.quickmeme.com/img/b1/b1807ca37e4ef86d666d2c5e7a92743e258b5d3b328cb8c8a4 b745b7c1f7f22f.jpg

[Oakie]

Well it looks like the discussion will finally be had.

Looks like we're on the same side in this discussion. Had to happen sooner or later I guess.

[Katman]

It's probably time to resurrect this thread.

[Kickaha]

My father has been unwell for sometime although he has improved a little, but at one stage he said if that was an option he would have taken it, he wouldn't qualify under the conditions as I understand them though

[Katman]

...but at one stage he said if that was an option he would have taken it...

And if your father is of sound mind, then no-one should have the right to prevent him implementing that option.

[TheDemonLord]

It's probably time to resurrect this thread.

Given the topic, That is exceptionally Ironic.

I'm not sure if it's intentional or not - but well played.

[Katman]

I must say, I'm highly surprised this subject doesn't seem to be generating any discussion anymore.

Donald Trump must be consuming everyone's undivided attention.

[mashman]

I must say, I'm highly surprised this subject doesn't seem to be generating any discussion anymore.

Donald Trump must be consuming everyone's undivided attention.

Sanctioned legal ways to die Number 1: Check the legislation... which, like a great many other things in life, we're only likely to do should we need it.

[RDJ]

Do you think they will ask some Australians to write it?.....

Nah. The RFP specified 'clever'.

[Paul in NZ]

Maybe I have a perspective on this....

In November - its our 40th anniversary

Prob been a couple 42 years

I'm sitting here witnessing the fact I'm loosing her a little every day and in her better moments - she hates it... Lambs are those little sheep, the tide doesnt come in - the oceans full or empty aND SHE WAS NOT SURPRISED IT RAINED BECAUSE THE OCEANS FULL (FUCKIN CAPS lock)

Yes we have good days but - like Vicki they diminish... Of course, considering my heath issues and that I've taken on a disabled grandson, we are surrounded by support... erm.... any minute now... OK nah - no one gives a flying fuck until Vicki needs to go into a home and THEN everyone cares (not) until we are gutted financially

When Vicki has a lucid moment - she just wants to die.... Lets face it - wtf has she got to look forwards to - everything we worked for its pointless because - well at 63 shes only got a wee while to live and fuck all of that will be good years. We will keep on because we DO have good days...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SCCoXbGCh9Y

But we are beggering ourselves to keep her going...

Dignity? Nope but I think when medical science cant/wont help and you have exhausted yourself then you have an absolute right to demand a dignified closure not matter what fucking Mike King has to say

[RDJ]

I'm sorry to hear this, Paul.

This is what it comes down to for all too many of us.

But - and there is a but - we can always find an exit without legislating doctors and nurses to do this for us.

They need to keep us alive if they can.

Let's task ourselves or others to kills us quicker, if that's what we want.

I'm not in your situation yet sir, but I will be.

I prefer that the medical profession is oriented and legislated to keep us alive and as comfortable as we can be.

I recommend that we delegate execution to others.

I know this is contentious.

I wish you and yours well.

[Katman]

I recommend that we delegate execution to others.

That statement right there exposes the true nature of your crocodile tears.

[mashman]

That statement right there exposes the true nature of your crocodile tears.

Yeah. Nah. That someone prevents it from happening at the moment shows that that delegation has already taken place, but it does make sense to have something in place to protect and assist appropriately... and that goes double for any "executioners". Did you just play the man :shifty:

[Katman]

Did you just play the man

I'm not the one reducing Paul's dilemma to quip about 'execution'.

[FJRider]

I'm sorry to hear this, Paul.

This is what it comes down to for all too many of us.

But - and there is a but - we can always find an exit without legislating doctors and nurses to do this for us.

They need to keep us alive if they can.

Let's task ourselves or others to kills us quicker, if that's what we want.

I'm not in your situation yet sir, but I will be.

I prefer that the medical profession is oriented and legislated to keep us alive and as comfortable as we can be.

I recommend that we delegate execution to others.

I know this is contentious.

I wish you and yours well.

My comment is as follows ... and there will be others (or not) in agreement ... but I feel more questions need to be answered first.

The medical profession have taken the Hippocratic Oath. The oath sworn was to save lives ... NOT take them. And this includes abortions. Some doctors will not perform them either. And abortions are definitely not legal everywhere.

As much as some doctors will be happy to aid a patient to relieve pain and suffering ... this final step may be beyond them ... to be assisting in their death. Is it reasonable to ask a doctor to do this .. ??? Maybe make him/her wear a hood to keep their identity a secret .. ??

The removal of pain and suffering is the intent. Whom will benefit more from the result of the proposed legislation ... the patient ... or the patients family .. ???


That statement right there exposes the true nature of your crocodile tears.

And that statement right there ... exposes the true nature of your attitude in each and (almost) every post you make.

Is Euthanasia murder or just assisting suicide .. ??? Murder is still against the law.

And there are still legislative sanctions against 'assisting or abetting' the suicides of others, under Section 179 of the Crimes Act 1961. Or how does the proposed legislation "Differ" in meaning or intent ... from those two crimes ... ???

And the right to decide when they can die is not law yet. Still a few hoops for the Governing party to jump through and over first.


Or NOT.



THAT is one of their choices too ... regardless of the result of any referendum. It's not binding ... remember ...

Are you voting YES for that other referendum too ... ??



More people actually want the right to a living wage ... and that is what they'll be voting for.


Priorities ... for them ... I guess.

[Katman]

Is Euthanasia murder or just assisting suicide .. ??? Murder is still against the law.

Euthanasia would be carried out only with the full consent of the person who is already dying.

So no, it's not murder.

And the fact that you're trying to imply that it could be seen as such, exposes the disingenuous nature of your argument.

[mashman]

I'm not the one reducing Paul's dilemma to quip about 'execution'.

I get why Dr's and Nurses shouldn't be tasked with euthanising people. The dichotomy of dedicating ones life towards saving life only to be asked to put people down cannot be an easy thing to be tasked with, because it runs counter to/removes "what is best for the patient" where what is best would be to let go. As such, I don't really see it as a quip.

Something different then.

If insurance companies agreed to payout insurance policies on economic grounds i.e. they accept the economic benefits of money flowing into the economy v's minus one human being stating that they've had enough and leaving, I reckon we would see a tide of horror unlike anything we've ever witnessed. Then again I Am a little biased there, coz I'd be very tempted to push to the front of the line, coz fark, the stupidity on display in this world............

[Katman]

I get why Dr's and Nurses shouldn't be tasked with euthanising people. The dichotomy of dedicating ones life towards saving life only to be asked to put people down cannot be an easy thing to be tasked with, because it runs counter to/removes "what is best for the patient" where what is best would be to let go. As such, I don't really see it as a quip.

I've spoken to a number of nurses and doctors who wholeheartedly support the bill.

And you're welcome to your opinion but I absolutely see it as a flippant quip.

In fact, I struggle to see how anyone could fail to recognise his implication that if Paul and his wife are considering this as a possible end-process, RDJ simply likens it to an execution.

That opinion is fucking repugnant.

[mashman]

I've spoken to a number of nurses and doctors would wholeheartedly support the bill.

And you're welcome to your opinion but I absolutely see it as a flippant quip.

In fact, I struggle to see how anyone could fail to recognise his implication that if Paul and his wife are considering this as a possible end-process, RDJ simply likens it to an execution.

That opinion is fucking repugnant

Yup, it wouldn't be a hard thing to add to the responsibilities short of funding and finding those who will help.

Dontcha just feel the :love:

He also said "Let's task ourselves or others to kills us quicker, if that's what we want.".

You are welcome to your opinion.

[Katman]

He also said "Let's task ourselves or others to kills us quicker, if that's what we want.".

And his mistake is that he presumes that every doctor and nurse shares his opinion.

They don't.

[mashman]

And his problem is that he presumes that every doctor and nurse shares his opinion.

They don't.

That may well be the case given that he stated "But - and there is a but - we can always find an exit without legislating doctors and nurses to do this for us.", but I don't think he's that dumb... bit arrogant maybe, however he is saying that there are other ways outwith legislating that doctors and nurses MUST, by law, carry out a sentence of death prematurely, and that is true.

The alternative would point us towards privatisation though (I envision, eventually, funeral homes employing "specialists", somewhat like quick marriages in Vegas, except you leaves separately), and no, just no, no no no.

[TheDemonLord]

I've spoken to a number of nurses and doctors who wholeheartedly support the bill.

It depends on how you interpret the Hippocratic oath.

What does "Do no Harm" mean?

Some would argue the pro-longing suffering, by either artificially sustaining life or by denying a means to end it, is doing harm.

Others would argue that providing the best possible treatment to ease suffering as much as possible constitutes doing no harm, and that actively ending someones life is a violation of this oath.

Then there is the suicide aspect to consider - we view suicide, in society as generally a bad thing (and rightly so in my opinion), what is the moral framework that condemns the act of taking ones life because they cannot bear their current circumstances in life, yet permits someone to allow a doctor to take their life because they cannot bear their current circumstances in life.

And yes, I'll hear the argument that a terminal disease with no hope of cure is not the same as say getting divorced and loosing everything you cared for and that the 2 situations are not directly comparable.

I'll posit though that there is an issue of perspective - and that the terminally ill patient and the suicidally depressed both see that there is definitively no hope for the future, so may as well end it.

[Autech]

Try as I might, I cannot understand what argument people can have against euthanasia.

Any ideas?

Actually had quite a debate with my other half about this last night. We are two different types of brain, she's looks to the emotive side of things when I'm generally logical.
In my mind if someone is guaranteed to die, goes through the process of signing off with at least 2 doctors that they're not being pushed into doing so then yep, let em go out with dignity.
I do a lot of work in retirement villages and remember all to well seeing my grandmother in hospice care, was not nice and definitely not dignified.

Wife's point is that we are humans, humans make mistakes and there will be some abuse of it. There have been cases oversea of coercion of the elderly from family to pop their clogs as they feel they're getting in the way. My thoughts are that with the way the bill is structured I don't see this being possible in NZ, and for the very few cases that may end up like that there will be so many others that benefit from being able to make the choice. These advertisements that have been put out by religious fanatics today will only increase this "fear" factor in those unsure. I do hope people read the bill rather than going off what something the TV shows.

[Katman]

It depends on how you interpret the Hippocratic oath.

What does "Do no Harm" mean?

Perhaps you don't know the Hippocratic Oath as well as you think you do.

https://www.nlm.nih.gov/hmd/greek/greek_oath.html

[TheDemonLord]

Perhaps you don't know the Hippocratic Oath as well as you think you do.

https://www.nlm.nih.gov/hmd/greek/greek_oath.html

Bit of an own-goal there:


I will not give a lethal drug to anyone if I am asked, nor will I advise such a plan;

[Katman]

Bit of an own-goal there:

Not really, because I don't believe that something written nearly 2500 years ago should be immune to amendment over time.

[TheDemonLord]

Not really, because I don't believe that something written nearly 2500 years ago should be immune to amendment over time.

It seems that what was written is entirely relevant to today, regardless of age, since it's dealing with the same fundamental issue.

What's more - it predates the Christian concept of sanctity of life, so it seems at least that there was a rationale for prohibiting it and that we shouldn't be so quick to dismiss it.

[Katman]

It seems that what was written is entirely relevant to today, regardless of age, since it's dealing with the same fundamental issue.

What's more - it predates the Christian concept of sanctity of life, so it seems at least that there was a rationale for prohibiting it and that we shouldn't be so quick to dismiss it.

I'm not suggesting we dismiss it.

I'm suggesting that there's room for amendment/interpretation in a 2500 year old oath.

After all, you yourself said it depends on how we interpret it.

[Paul in NZ]

Just jumping back in around Hippocratic oaths and so on....

OK - so a doctor takes an oath to do no harm etc.... Fucking bullshit... Oh OK they wont actually put the knife in BUT they will simply walk away from an issue because its too hard, theres no known cure and (most importantly of all) - theres no funding..

Now these examples are 100% real and recent...

My case - I asked for a PSA test... Oh fuck.... Go in for the biopsy which the surgeon totally fucked up because he wanted to try a new procedure so he had a bit of an extra poke around.... Post op the surgeon didnt want to see me so he got his nurse to do it... Bad news - you have cancer (again) - good news is we think we got it early (fuck off you did I asked for the bloody test). Now after the procedure you migh get a bit of bleeding... as an engineer I'm thinking a 'bit' isnt a number or amount so what is a bit? 2 nights in a row I wake up with the sheets drenched in blood - literally like someone slaughter a lamb in my lap and needing fresh sheets at 2am... WTF - so I ring the surgeon - I get the nurse.... her explanation - well now you know what its like to be a woman.......

OK - so i have prostate cancer and of the 2 surgeons in WGN who do this privately - ones right off my fuckin christmas card list...

So come the actual op - I go with the guy who did my previous testicular cancer job. hes a funny bastard - I tell him I'm amazed he doesnt remember me as no other man has ever had my testicles in his hands... he didnt even blink but assured me hes VERY promiscuous like that... Oh how we laughed...

So - before the OP - we have the discussion re possible complications... Look - you might end up impotent (its a big word meaning you cant get a stiffy) but dont worry we are a full service operation and we got ya back bro (turns out he meant until the check cleared)..

I have the operation... I wake up - 13 tubes hanging out of me... 1 day later he fronts and - well - erm - there was a LOT of scarring from the biopsy and - well 2 hours turned into 3.5 hours and... But dont worry we got ya back (I was worried) and yes - no erections so straight to plan C - caveject.... Cant put a price on love? I can - $150 for 4 injections and guess what - they either dont work OR work too well.. Fuck..

Dont worry - hes got my back right? Erm after 3 prescriptions (insanely hard to get) its politely suggested I can get this from my GP so fuck off and stop bugging me. Thankfully I find someone else that helps out with a genuine plan B and lifes OK...

OK - I'm not dead - but..... I didnt exactly get cared for either - oh - do you want to talk to someone about never getting and erection again? Yup - $175 an hour to talk to a woman who takes 2 hours to explain its natural to be upset... I mean what the actual fuck - how about a strategy here???

OK - enough of this - Vicki

We fought tooth and nail to get the initial neurology appt - like Vicki rang EVERY fucking day for 3 months to see if there was a cancellation... Eventually shes on first name terms with the receptionist. Go privately? Tried that too - her GP wouldn't even write a referral until Vicki did one of those bonkers that trump did. She scored lower than a breeze block but that wasnt important as we would redo the test in 6 months and compare - I damn near punched her face in and there was a VERY VERY pointed discussion that resulted in a referral...

So - we get our appointment....

4 hours.... Its a very difficult diagnosis BUT eventually he twigs and starts asking the right questions and reduces Vicki to a boiled cabbage - the poor thing was litterally deconstructed in front of me and reduced to a quivering sniveling wreck... (not blaming him - it was the only way to the truth) - his to post grad dr's were in tears, we were in tears it was simply horrific.... He reaches his conclusion - takes a detailed look at the scan again and - OK I think you have FTD and its advanced - I estimate you have 3 to 5 years to live and not all of these will be good years so I suggest you go home and live the best life you can - thank you its been nice to meet you and BOOM we are in the corridor

That was a pisser of a ride home!!!

Literally there has been ZERO after care... We are too young for the charities etc let along dealing with a Dx like that? Its a wonder we didnt drive off a cliff on the way home...

How can a major hospital tell someone they are a dead woman walking and just let them go - never check up - never ask 'are you ok'?

Then 6 weeks later I got my Cancer dx.. same deal... Its not breast cancer and you are a fat old white guy so fuck off...

Doctors and their oath? Fuck them they do PLENTY of harm mostly by doing fuck all to actually help people. the LAST people I would care about in this debate is their fuckin feelings or oaths

[FJRider]

Euthanasia would be carried out only with the full consent of the person who is already dying.

So no, it's not murder.

People that commit suicide ... do it with ... to use your words ... their own consent or intent to die. Not always successful I might add.

Why does it need a Doctor to carry it out .. ??? Most caregivers in such situations are well trained and capable of giving injections. Or administering any pain killing medications.

Let that caregiver end their days knowing they killed they killed their loved one. Would you be happy to do it .. ??


And the fact that you're trying to imply that it could be seen as such, exposes the disingenuous nature of your argument.

Euthanasia is a prettier word that murder. Not as hard on the mind as assisted suicide either. Both of which (as I stated in my original post) is not legal in NZ yet.

If Euthanasia is made legal ... would you support assisted suicide being seen as the same thing .. ?? Or ... in your opinion ... is it not.


The nature of MY argument is exactly as I've posted. My intent was not to imply anything. Did I not ask YOU if Euthanasia is murder (by using another nicer name) or just assisting suicide (by using another nicer name).


Euthanasia is just a legal way of killing people ... people they want dead. And getting them killed. Because (usually) they don't want to do it themselves.


Euthanasia

Noun

the painless killing of a patient suffering from an incurable and painful disease or in an irreversible coma.

Similar:

mercy killing. assisted suicide. Physician-assisted suicide. Merciful release. Happy release. Quietus

[Katman]

Euthanasia is just a legal way of killing people ... people they want dead.

Stop talking bullshit.

The Bill is about terminally ill people having the right to choose when they die and the manner in which they die.

It is not about killing a person that someone else wants dead.

[TheDemonLord]

I'm not suggesting we dismiss it.

I'm suggesting that there's room for amendment/interpretation in a 2500 year old oath.

After all, you yourself said it depends on how we interpret it.

I'm not so sure - When the Greeks wrote that, I think it's a fair assumption that it was written specifically for patients who had painful and unknown ailments who asked their physician for a means to die.

That to me doesn't seem too far removed from what this bill is ostensibly aimed at, the key difference the known vs unknown ailments part.

The Greeks reasoned that this was wrong, I think that the logical premises that they held to support such a statement are still worthy of consideration today.

I agree that there's scope for interpretation as to what constitutes doing no wrong - but I find myself drifting back to the position I held 4 years ago: Even if I support that someone so afflicted should be able to humanely choose to die, I'm still not convinced that our Legal system can have the appropriate checks and balances.

[Katman]

I'm not so sure - When the Greeks wrote that, I think it's a fair assumption that it was written specifically for patients who had painful and unknown ailments who asked their physician for a means to die.

That to me doesn't seem too far removed from what this bill is ostensibly aimed at, the key difference the known vs unknown ailments part.

The Greeks reasoned that this was wrong, I think that the logical premises that they held to support such a statement are still worthy of consideration today.

I agree that there's scope for interpretation as to what constitutes doing no wrong - but I find myself drifting back to the position I held 4 years ago: Even if I support that someone so afflicted should be able to humanely choose to die, I'm still not convinced that our Legal system can have the appropriate checks and balances.

Regardless of what the intent of the oath is, this referendum is not about the Hippocratic Oath.

There are already doctors who have expressed their willingness to assist in the process if legislation changes to allow them.

This referendum is about giving people a right - it's not about robbing doctors of anything.

[Swoop]

Euthanasia would be carried out only with the full consent of the person who is already dying.
Spot on.
Too many hand-wringers out there are misinterpreting what the specifics of this act are. Parliament has already passed it, just that Whinnie demanded this referendum.


I get why Dr's and Nurses shouldn't be tasked with euthanising people.
Here's a simple fact. They are already doing this.
Assisting in a peaceful death, with far less pain than what the patient is suffereing from.


I'm currently watching my Mother's health deteriorate rapidly in a rest home. Dignity is gone, quality of life is gone, just an "existance" now.
Not even a cognitive ability to enter into this type of end-of-life act, even if it were legal right now.

People should have the freedom of choice, while they are mentally capapble of doing so.

[Paul in NZ]

Spot on.
Too many hand-wringers out there are misinterpreting what the specifics of this act are. Parliament has already passed it, just that Whinnie demanded this referendum.


Here's a simple fact. They are already doing this.
Assisting in a peaceful death, with far less pain than what the patient is suffereing from.


I'm currently watching my Mother's health deteriorate rapidly in a rest home. Dignity is gone, quality of life is gone, just an "existance" now.
Not even a cognitive ability to enter into this type of end-of-life act, even if it were legal right now.

People should have the freedom of choice, while they are mentally capapble of doing so.

You have my sympathy and support - I certainly know which way I'm voting

[jellywrestler]

You have my sympathy and support - I certainly know which way I'm voting

I heard two words I understood from my mother in law in six years, it was just cruel, then again, this is really only for people who have something that will see them have less than six months to live, so maybe wouldn't have applied to her case.
I'm voting for it.

[onearmedbandit]

Euthanasia done right.

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12367235&fbclid=IwAR2i1R48oJ2P3YEeFS_7awE860PFn18WzpFQmIRfw-2CGfHgfSJ63DBV3J8

[caseye]

Seems actual cases makes them a bit squeamish Paul, really do know which way I'm voting.
My dads 87 with a pre existing prostate condition since he was 73. He's fine, one of the lucky ones, but the dementia and the swollen ankles (probably heart issues) are there too! He's great one day, forgotten it all the next.
We've discussed this very issues many times, under the present regime,could I, would I? Honestly don't know. Referenda in this country need to be binding and acted on a whole lot sooner, than , if we get back in.
Much respect to you both mate.

[Paul in NZ]

Hi Guys
I have had a few supportive messages from Kiwi Bikers. That’s actually really kind and appreciated.
I guess on reflection I came across kinda whiney but that was not my intention. I was more trying to explain that very often situations arise where there are no easy answers from the medical system. These are your no casserole conditions. What I mean by that is, break your arm or leg in a motorcycle accident and your mates turn up and bring over a meal or something and commiserate and have a laugh. Get dementia or prostate cancer and everyone gets a bit awkward and you literally never see some people again. I get that – it’s a bit confronting.
Worst of all you never hear from the DHB either. In most cases – ‘oh you are too younger and active’ and that includes charities. Go back to breaking a leg – oh we have ACC paying for everything including a taxi to work etc etc. In our case – well we did participate in a global DNA markers experiment (at our cost) but we even had to ask for the 2 year follow up from the neurology dept.
IMHO – if you provide no support or care you also default on your right to deign someone a dignified ending.
Our recent experience has lead me to a totally different view of the world and my relationship with the DHB as well as changing my personal values.

[Oakie]

Well that is settled.
My Step-father would approve. Once a robust farmer, in his older years he got so sick that he could hardly move and was for a time paralyzed. I remember being with him one day in the nursing home when someone commented that old Harry from down the hall passed away last night. All my step-father said was "lucky bastard". That got my attention.

[mashman]

Now they just need to open the criteria a little further i.e. allow anyone the right to choose to leave this fucked up charade whenever they like without financial penalty.

[F5 Dave]

Wow you do seem unhappy. Ok its a bit windy, but that will pass and summer is coming. Should be a good summer to get out on your bike.

How about planning on a nice bacon based cook up in the morning?

Bacon always makes better

[Oakie]

Wow you do seem unhappy. Ok its a bit windy, but that will pass and summer is coming. Should be a good summer to get out on your bike.

How about planning on a nice bacon based cook up in the morning?

Bacon always makes better

My mate cooked me bacon and eggs for breakfast. My wife is preparing a bacon and chicken wrap for lunch for lunch. Happy boy!

[caseye]

My mate cooked me bacon and eggs for breakfast. My wife is preparing a bacon and chicken wrap for lunch for lunch. Happy boy!

Pig in Blankie for Dinner and yer in Heaven!:niceone:

[mashman]

Wow you do seem unhappy. Ok its a bit windy, but that will pass and summer is coming. Should be a good summer to get out on your bike.

How about planning on a nice bacon based cook up in the morning?

Bacon always makes better

Got no teeth to eat bacon with. What a dilemma eh.

[F5 Dave]

Smoothie?


.