🚀 go-pugleaf

Iain Jameson <Iain.Jameson@dsto.defence.gov.au> wrote:

>In his typical unbiased manner, David Moss wrote :


>>Iain Jameson <Iain.Jamesonx@dsto.defence.gov.au> writes:

>>Micheal Moore, having failed to introduce euthanasia to the ACT on
>>two previous occasions, is trying again.
>Good for him.

Yea, full marks for persistance. Too bad he isn't working towards
something wothwhile. 

>>He crowed that the ACT legislation, if implemented, will be much more
>>accessable than the NT, having fewer safeguards.

>'Crowed' David? Having a bad week are we?

Nice descriptive word for what he was doing in my opinion. I am sorry
if you are having a bad week Iain. So far I've had a fairly good one.

>Fewer safeguards huh? Must not let the people decide for themselves
>must we David? Must not let them believe they know what is best
>for themdselves, must we David?

How so Iain ? 
If people want to kill themselves, I see no problem with that.
Its only when it becomes acceptable for one person to kill another
that I start to get upset.  

>>Two doctors in agreement will be all that is necessary, a specialist
>>in the terminal disease or a psychiatrist apparently deemed unnecessary
>>in the nation's capital.

>Exactly how many doctors are needed David? Three? Ten? One hundred?
>And what will the specialist say David that isn't already known?

You have just highlighted how little you know about the dangers
inherent in legalising patient killing.  Why do we need a specialist
indeed !

Canberra Times Feb 15 reports an horrific story about Dr Kevorkian's
33rd victim in the USA. She is described as a 39 year old with
multiple sclerosis and no medical insurance. She feared becoming a
burden on her daughter and wanted to "die with dignity". She was
"assisted" to do so but an autopsy found no evidence whatsoever of
multiple sclerosis. 

If you and Moore can still argue there is no need for the
corroberation of a specialist in the supposedly terminal illness, you
are greater ghouls than even I can imagine.

>>Mr Moore has been hovering, ghoul like, on the edges of politics on this
>>issue, waiting for a change in the makeup of the ACT assembly before
>>attempt number 3 at implementing his patient killing dreams.

>Like Kevin Andrews hovers over all Australians, deciding only he knows
>what is best for us all?

He seemed to have a few supporters in the House of Reps, across the
whole spectrum of politics. 88 votes to 35 in fact. How many members
are there in the ACT Assembly ?

>Killing patients now are we? You are getting sicker with each post
>David.
>Are you seeing someone for this?

That is what this is all about Iain. Please face up to it.
Even the current Chief Minister of the NT, the man with the unenviable
task of defending the RTI Act has said:

   "... Euthanasia legislation can have all the safeguards imaginable,
   but at the end of the day, the principle remains - one person kills

   another person ..."

>>A recent reshuffle of the assembly has brought two new members into
>>government and Moore has leapt at the fresh opportunity.

>Excellent. A law that the majority of Australians want may get passed.

A law which the majority of Australians are confused about may get
passed. Most everyday people think its about the right to commit
suicide. Once you break through the "right to die" mantra and they
realize that laws like RTI confer the right to kill, its another
story. 

>David has a problem with this.
>Fair enough, that's his right.

And don't you just hate that ?

>>He appears to have abandoned his attempts to sneak in euthanasia through
>>the back door by allowing unqualified patients to set their own drug doses,
>>and is once again pushing for patient killing to be legalised.

>That would be your preferred option wouln't it David.
>Let the patient commit suicide and damn the consequences.
>Alone, afraid. That's how David want's it.

Actually I would prefer that our government put sufficient resources
into palliative care, and education about what to expect during the
closing stages of life, so people could face it with comfort and
courage.

Of course the cheaper option is to snuff em' if they complain too
much. Thats why the ACT might end up with a euthanasia law.

>Again with the patient killing.
>You simply do not understand what is going on here do you David?
>Perhaps you could ask someone to explain what voluntary euthanasia
>means.

I already asked the Chief Minister of the only place in the world to
legalise it,  I reckon thats pretty authoritative. 

>>When you consider the appalling financial situation of the health system
>>in the ACT you really have to wonder why the euthanasia issue keeps
>>bobbing to the top despite having been sunk twice already.

>Because people want such a law? Wow, what a dangerous concept - trying
>to pas a law the majority want.
>What next? Freedom of the press? The right to express an opinion?
>Dangerous times indeed.

Strange you should mention freedom of the press on this issue.
I have written political material for a few years now, but the _only_
time anyone has succeeded in censoring my words was on the issue of
euthanasia. But I don't really want to get into that now, the issue
itself is more important.

>>A common slogan of the anti-euthanasia camp is "kill pain, not patients".
>>If the new members of the ACT Assembly lack humanity, we may well see
>>them vote in favour of the cheaper option.

>A common slogan of our side is 'try to understand what is going on here
>before you tell us what we cannot do'.

Now let me see... you want it to become legal for a person to commit
an act which kills, or leads to the death of another innocent person
under certain carefully controlled circumstances, Right ?

>And what of those who do not want to kill the pain by palliative care?
>Ever thought of them David?

Yep. If they wish they can commit suicide, same as the rest of us.
Lets not drag the rest of society into it though, by allowing other
people to kill them. 

>Of course not. The selfish, arrogant uncaring rarely think about
>other people. It is you who lack humanity David.

Ah yes, the old ad-homineum villification. How predictable.
I would be interested to see if you have anything to substantiate your
allegations in the previous paragraph. Or could it be you simply want
society to remove a fundemental safeguard to satisfy your own selfish
needs, and are projecting your insecurities onto me ?

>You would force everyone
>to be just like you, uncaring and selfish. Some of us have the decency
>to let others decide for themselves how that want to live, and end, 
>their lives.

So do it. Anytime you like. Your choice.
Just don't expect anyone else to do it for you.

>>If anyone wants to know how to help the new ACT Assembly members choose
>>life instead of death, e-mail me or check out http://www.geocities/com/~dmoss

>Why? Will it be unbiased? What a joke.
Did I say it was ?
Of course its biased, fool !
If you want an unbiased Australian political resource try my
Australian Politics Resource at http://www.adfa.oz.au/~adm/politics

>>>Wonderful thing, choice.

>>Yes, isn't it.
>>The right to die was conferred by Sect 16 of the Crimes Act in 1975.
>>What Moore now seeks is the right to kill.
>>We can choose to oppose him.

>Indeed you can, which is you right.
>To bad you do so out of ignorance, arrogance, selfishness
>and a complete lack of compassion.

Haven't bothered to check out
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/8270 have you ?

Boy will you be embarrassed about the paragraph above when you do !

>Good to see you removed the reference to unbiased.

Iain, I write a number of WWW resources. Some are biased, some are
unbiased and some are merely technical in nature. I suggest you stop
drawing attention to your limited experience by harping on the
"biased" bit. People are laughing at you.

>Probably not. Let's not let the facts get in the way of
>a good emotional argument.

Oh, you _are_ going to find out the facts about euthanasia.
Can't wait for your next article.

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