🚀 go-pugleaf

David Moss wrote:
> 
> Euthanasia Lobby exposes RTI Dangers
> 
> "Recent publicity from the Australian pro-euthanasia lobby, intended
> to win Senators emotions, may backfire boosting support for the
> anti-euthanasia Andrews Bill."
> 
> "The publicity campaign featured pleas from patients who have all the
> necessary paperwork signed, but are not yet ready to end their lives.
> Euthanasia advocates have been using letters, and even voice
> recordings from patients to apply emotional pressure on  the eve of
> the Andrews Bill vote."
> 
> "Instead they have exposed some fundamental flaws in the world's first
> euthanasia law, the Northern Territory's Rights of the Terminally Ill
> Act 1995."
> 
> "All of these patients convinced their doctor they were experiencing
> pain, suffering and/or distress to an unacceptable extent. This is the
> first and most basic requirement under the RTI Act. "
> 
> "Yet in the letters and recordings in the publicity, the patients
> indicate they had no intention of ending this suffering in the near
> future, unless forced to do so by the impending Senate vote."
> 
> "The patients are clearly willing to accept their level of pain,
> suffering or distress at this time, so the question must be asked:
> 'why did their doctor sign the paperwork in the first place?'"

Yes, they are willing to accept their level of pain at the moment. It
still could be to a large degree for which there are a lot of drugs that
can relieve this pain. But the core of the act was to enable this
patients to have the right to die at a time of their own undertaking.
The pain might not be bad enough at the moment (even though in a normal
person's mind it could be extreme) but it could get worse. They had
gotten all the necessary paperwork out of the way now that they are
capable to do so, so when they are not capable of living an ordinary
life anymore, they can die.

> "Another glaring weakness exposed is accountability for what happens
> when a patient rescinds a request under the RTI Act."
> 
> "The statements in the letters and recordings clearly show the
> patients do not wish to be 'assisted' to die at this time."

The patients do want to be assisted to die, but as you say not at this
particular time. That does not mean the paperwork should be destroyed.
Once again, the core of the act is for the patients to die with dignity
at a time of their chosing. So they had done all the legal requirements
now so they can die when they choose to. but now it is too late.

In my opinion Euthanasia should be allowed (it is practised in hospitals
here in Melbourne unofficially, as was stated in an open letter by nine
doctors to the age when the law was first introduced into the NT
parliament).

It was obivous the Andrews Bill would have been passed but I still feel
the two patients who had the legal requirements done should have been an
exception the anti-euthanasia law.

One day this law will be passed in a state, and then the Federal
parliament will have no constitutional power to override the law. Until
that day there will be a lot of unnecessary suffering by a lot of
people. 
Not only will those people be affected but also there family and friends
who will have to see them go through this pain.
Euthanasia has and always will be done illegally throughout Australia
and the world (and no DPP will ever prosecute). So why can't it just be
law?

Jim (expressing his own personal opinion)
-- 
Jim Adamopoulos			Contact: 0419 431 877
Student:   Bachelor of Commerce
Deakin University Australia
e-mail:  jadamo@deakin.edu.au           
http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/4861