Euthanasia

[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

[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

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.