🚀 go-pugleaf

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

                Newsgroups: talk.euthanasia, aus.general, aus.politics

In article <5eo9bc$dvf$1@euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au>,
d-moss@adfa.oz.au (David Moss) wrote:
>weaver1@world.std.com (Frank Weaver) wrote:
>
>>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
>>                Newsgroups: talk.euthanasia, aus.general, aus.politics
>
>>In article <FF952D3w165w@orchide.dialix.oz.au>,
>>jan@orchide.dialix.oz.au (jan) wrote:
[snip]
>>>Passive euthanasia is a contradiction in terms 
>
>>How do you figure that?
>
>Easy, if you are passive, you do not do anything . Euthanasia, often
>called mercy killing, requires some action to be taken or nothing
>changes. Even taking the literal definition of euthanasia - painless
>death - action must be taken to ensure this occurs. If you take some
>action, you are not being passive. Hence passive euthanasia is a
>contradiction in terms.

Very neat, but even the physician who takes no action is doing
something, namely refusing to give medical treatment.  Just as often,
'passive euthanasia' is the term applied to 'letting nature take its 
course' by *withdrawing* treatments, such as removing the patient 
from a mechanical respirator or a nasogastric feeding tube.  These are 
definitely actions, but they do not kill, 'mercifully' or otherwise.
They may (or may not) let the patient die.

It may be that passive vs. active euthanasia is a distinction without
a difference, morally speaking.  If that is the case, there is no
moral difference between one person who requests the withdrawal of his
feeding tube and another who requests a lethal injection. 

>
>>>hence for the purposes
>>>of this debate the "passive" form is generally referred to as physician
>>>assisted suicide (PAS).  
>
>>Just how many references do you want me to present to show that PAS
>>opponents persistently equate it with a "right to kill"  patients?
>
>It really depends on how the word "assist" is defined.
>In the Northern Territory's RTI Legislation, "assist" can mean "kill".
>Hence PAS which occurs under the RTI Act can, in some cases, be active
>euthanasia. 

So you're agreeing with me, contra Jan, that opponents equate PAS
with an active 'right to kill.'  

>>Burke J. Balch wrote in NRL News: "The [Ninth Circuit Court] 
>>opinion justifies the killing not only of those supposedly 
>>competent individuals ..."  [http://www.nrlc.org/euthanasia/court.txt]
>>Note that this opinion struck down a law against providing the means to 
>>suicide (ie. assistance) at the person's request -- not actually
>>killing anyone.
>
>Assisting suicide is a crime here in Australia. It is a crime even in
>the Northern Territory if it occurs outside the guidelines of the RTI
>Act. The US legal system has very little influence 

Please read more carefully.  I said nothing about any legal system,
USA or otherwise.  I was documenting an instance in which a PAS
opponent equates PAS with a 'right to kill,' which is decidely not
passive.

[snip]
>>>The right of a person to refuse treatment is
>>>one neither (AFAIK) side of the debate wants to question.
>
>><*sigh*> Limited historical perspective, too. 
>
>Only from a USA ethnocentric viewpoint. 

I was not aware that Scotland was part of the USA.  I do notice you
deleted my reference and URL to the Scottish case I used to illustrate
just how limited Jan's perspective is.

I chose this case (at http://www.euthanasia.org/jj.txt) because it 
is the most recent (April, 1996) of the several examples -- e.g. 
Bland (England, 1993) or Elbaum (USA, 1992) -- for which I have 
clear documentation that the 'right to refuse treatment' is 
controversial or nonexistent.

In particular, it shows that there is NO RIGHT to refuse forced
feeding in Scotland.  And one side is adamant about keeping things
that way:

"Nourishment is a right of every human being and to deny food is 
to starve a person to death - this can never be morally right."
                        -- Cardinal Thomas Winning, in response to
                                the Johnstone decision

"Never" -- even if the patient refuses the forced-feeding tube.

[snip]
>So witholding life sustaining procedures in not an issue for us in
>Australia, 

'Legal' and 'not an issue' are two very different things.  Cardinal 
Winning's opinion is not an idiosyncratic one, but part of his
organization's policy (see, e.g. Karol Wojtyla, "Evangelium Vitae,"
Section 65). [The author, AFAIK, is not an American].  As a senior 
member of the same organization, Cardinal Clancy may be silent on 
this, but more likely as a matter of expedience than of principle.

Nor is that the only anti-euthanasia group that holds that persons 
should not be permitted to refuse life-sustaining treatment. The 
attitude is pervasive.

Such as on your own Web site.  A single click brings up an index to 
no less than three tirades against Do Not Resuscitate orders (refusal of
CPR) and Living Wills, which can include refusal of some treatments.

[snip]
>BTW Frank, your encrypted e-mail key does not appear to be on a
>keyserver near me, 

[keyserv.doc mailed]

[snip]
- -- 
Frank Weaver                                       Encrypted email preferred
weaver1@world.std.com                              PGP KeyID: 0AAE84B
                                                   On a keyserver near you
                         Blessed is the Water of Life,
            by the grace of the holy trinity: yeast, malt and hops

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2

iQCVAwUBMxpESUJ1zIgKroS1AQHz7QQAs+bjZL6HtdM7aFdsAOTA/hvac9yo9DQC
e1OCYjgFCVu0I6138tnMUgAxFraLQB7LlozRljijeCZWbxTotNBO4YBq1jk+DFCa
46DS5jF3bWxJBc+bSdbG4S57HhP/6bUNElo8rONEnnl5x5K1UdyU/3nu9QDmveVB
/3VjlVozId8=
=dna9
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----