🚀 go-pugleaf

weaver1@world.std.com (Frank Weaver) wrote:


>>
>>Try a parochial perspective: what happens in Scotland and the US does not
>>particularly concern us, since it does not provide us with useful impirical data
>>regarding the possible effect of our laws, 

>Chris Wake would obviously disagree with you, with his incessant 
>ranting about an 'inalienable right to life' (found in no Australian
>document, AFAIK, but prominent in an American one). 

Australia is a signatory to the UN universal declaration of human
rights, so I can confidently quote:

"Article 3:
Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person."

Since the declaration in an international treaty, the federal
government can legally enforce it among the States under the external
affairs powers in the Australian Constitution.

The federal government has used the external affairs powers on other
occasions, notably protection of a World Heritage listed wilderness
area, and the removal of a state's anti-sodomy laws. 



 >Ditto plaintiffs 
>who challenged the law, citing as evidence the anti-VE portions of 
>reports from the Special Senate Committee on Euthanasia and Assisted 
>Suicide (Canada), the New York State Task Force on Life and the Law 
>(US), and the Select Committee of the House of Lords on Medical Ethics 
>(UK).  Or Judge Angel, whose dissent from the NT Supreme Court's 
>decision relied almost entirely on English and Canadian cases, one of 
>which I also mentioned (http://www.austlii.edu.au/do/sinodisp.pl/au/cases/nt/supreme.ct/unrep836.html).

Auslii seems to be having trouble with your reference, but I will
believe you. The Australian legal system is perfectly able to examine
proceedings form other countries. The proceedings of other
Commonwealth countries do have some impact on our system of precedent,
but they can be quite validly disregarded by our Judges if their legal
direction conflicts with Australian opinion.

I believe I was the first to bring up Justice Angel's obiter dictum on
euthanasia, given as it was in a case which decided the entirely
different question of whether the NT Assembly had the power to enact a
euthanasia law. As far as I kanow Angel's obiter is the only
Australian precedent on the issue. The case decided it was within the
NT's jusisdiction to enact a euthanasia law, but Angel's words on the
nature of euthanasia are still precedent. The Andrews Bill, currently
before the Australian Senate may well overturn the jurisdiction issue,
leaving Angel's condemnation of euthanasia to stand alone.
(At last count 16 Senators had spoken in favour of the Andrews Bill
and 7 against, the debate continues today)

>>though I am (personally) interested
>>in what happens elsewhere.  This thread is primarily about an Australian Law
>>in an Australian state 

>But it's had precious little to do with Australian law per se. 
>There's been nothing about the Supreme Court's decision, nothing about 
>the constitutional firestorm Andrews' bill has raised among the State 
>Ministers, only a little about the widespread public support for VE
>in Australia.  Instead, you and Mr. Moss have served up the standard 
>anti-euthanasia propaganda found in the Sacred Congregation for the 
>Doctrine of the Faith's "Declaration on Euthanasia"  or copped from 
>various American and Canadian websites.

Frank, I had thought you one of the more serious members of this
debate. Further back in this thread, and in a number of related
threads, I have quoted extensively from the RTI Act, Justice Angel's
obiter, and related documents. I have my own anti-euthanasia WWW 
site at http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/8270 with a reasonable
collection of material from an Australian perspective, including many
Australian resources on the issue. I do hope you restore your
credibility by apologising after you have read my resource.

>[snip]
>>> >So witholding life sustaining procedures in not an issue for us in
>>> >Australia, 
>>> 
>>> 'Legal' and 'not an issue' are two very different things. 
>>
>>In this case it is not an issue because it is legal and so are NFR

>Playing dense again, Jan?  I've given you citations to anti-euthanasia
>organizations in four countries, Australia included, and one worldwide 
>in scope, that consider it part of their mission to keep such laws
>from being written, to oppose their passage, and to resist and revoke
>them if possible.  Kindly provide us with one anti-euthanasia 
>organization -- just one, from anywhere in the world -- that endorses 
>patients' rights to refuse life-sustaining treatments with no exceptions 
>and no casuistry.  With references, if you please.

Queensland Right to Life
"QRTL does not object to the withdrawal of burdensome treatment or the
administration of painrelieving treatments intending specifically to
control pain, that may - as a secondary effect- bring forward time of
death, this is not euthanasia."

Please not that the Right to Life movement began in Brisbane
Queensland. I quote QRTL because they have a WWW page which allows me
to cite a reference you can easily check. The quote came from:
http://www.qrtl.org.au/euthanasia/index.htm

>>(Not For Resuscitation) orders.  Not all Australians, nurses included,
>>are aware of this as I discovered a week ago when my (casual) assistant
>>was horrified to see an NFR order in a patient's clinical notes.  

>Haven't much respect for the intelligence of your fellow Ozians, do
>you, mate?  How about some documentation for this?

I have already posted the relevant section of the South Australian
legislation concerning a competent patients right to refuse treatment.
In addition I can now quote from the recent Senate Committee of
inquiry into euthanasia and the RTI Act where it states:

"Individuals have the unfettered right to forego medical treatment.
Suicide is not a crime, although we as a community spend millions of
dollars each year trying to counsel and dissuade the suicidal."

Since I know you love to check references, you can find it on the WWW
at :
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/8270/sensum.htm#TofC9



>[snip]
>>It is not very useful looking at the arguments of the American
>>anti-euthanasia brigade to gain an impression of their Australian 
>>counterparts' perspective.

>It's naive, at the minimum, to believe that the anti-euthanasia 
>organizations are not swapping as much information, rhetoric, and 
>tactics back and forth as possible. It is even more so considering how
>much of the 'American (and the Canadian, and the English and the 
>fill-in-the-country-here) anti-euthanasia brigade' is in fact the
>'Vatican anti-euthanasia crusade.'  

Well I can call your bluff on that one right away. I am not a Roman
Catholic, nor am I in any way motivated by the Vatican. I am pleased
to promote their anti-euthanasia messages among  the 4 Christian
denominations, and alongside the 4 non-Christian Religions I sought
out. The only reason I stopped collecting religious viewpoint at that
stage was because I wanted to keep the religious viewpoint in
proportion to the other viewpoints I present. 

>Or how much the 'secular'
>right-to-life groups cooperate in other areas of their common
>agenda.  But in light of their actual activities... well, I've given
>two posts worth of examples on that.

It is in the nature of people with similar goals to share their
resources. The pro-euthanasia lobby certainly does. Here in Australia
they have a national organisation with a central "fighting fund". As
far as I know there is no similar coalition among anti-euthanasia
lobbyists.

>Actually, I'm perversely flattered, not so much because you've played
>the Xenophobe Card rather than stick to the subjects under
>discussion, but that you've played it with such an obvious double
>standard that I can't help feeling I'm the unique target. 

It was not so much the Xenophobe card as the Ethnocentrist card.
We play that one regularly against Septic Tanks, it generally trumps.

>Well, my posts can speak for themselves -- not that they'll listen to
>me, anyway. (I work so hard -- feeding them a good vocabulary, 
>keeping their grammar neat and pressed, you'd think they could show 
>their author a little respect, but noooo...:-)

As I said, I reckon you are one of the more intelligent posters to
this group. Thats about as much respect as anyone can expect here, and
even that only lasts as long as your next post...

David Moss,
personal opinion only.
try http://www.adfa.oz.au/~adm/politics for Australian Politics