🚀 go-pugleaf

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:
>>dbromage@metz.une.edu.au (David Bromage) writes:
>>
>[snip]
>>> Passive euthanasia is letting nature take its course without giving
>>> treatment to prolong life. Active euthanasia is the deliberate taking of
>>> a life WITH THE PATIENT'S CONSENT.
>>
>>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.

>>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. 

>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 in a country with
clear statutory law criminalising assisting suicide, and killing.

[cut]

>>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 believe Jan is an Australian
health care worker who deals with the situation regularly. We have
specific legislation in different parts of Australia regarding
withdrawal of treatment at request of a patient or his/her
representative. ie in South Australia:

"Protection for medical practitioners, etc.

16. A medical practitioner responsible for the treatment or care of a
patient, or a person participating in the treatment or care of the
patient under the medical practitioner's supervision, incurs no civil
or criminal liability for an act or omission done or made-

   (a)  with the consent of the patient or the patient's
representative or without consent but in accordance with an authority
conferred by this Act or any other Act; and

   (b)  in good faith and without negligence; and

   (c)  in accordance with proper professional standards of medical
practice;
        and

   (d)  in order to preserve or improve the quality of life."

So witholding life sustaining procedures in not an issue for us in
Australia, when Australians fight for, or against euthanasia we
disagree over what Americans refer to as active euthanasia.

[cut]

>>Hope this helps.

Likewise.

BTW Frank, your encrypted e-mail key does not appear to be on a
keyserver near me, and I am sure religiously inclined people find your
.sig offensive.

You might like to include the "reasons" section of my anti-euthanasia
WWW site "Living in Australia without Deadly Deliverance" in the lists
you post from time to time. http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/8270



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