🚀 go-pugleaf

Peter Merel <pete@zip.com.au> writes:

>d-moss@adfa.oz.au (David Moss) writes:

>>All it takes is a couple of co-operative doctors, and don't try to
>>tell me it can't be done. 

>You're mistaken. It takes three doctors, plus the repeated written
>assent of the patient, plus a lawyer and a judge. 

As usual, quote time, from the RTI Act:

"(c) two other persons, neither of whom is a relative or employee of,
or a member of the same medical practice as, the first medical
practitioner or each other -

(i) one of whom is a medical practitioner who holds prescribed
qualifications, or has prescribed experience, in the treatment of the
terminal illness from which the patient is suffering; and

(ii) the other who is a qualified psychiatrist"

(iii) in the case of the medical practitioner referred to in subparagraph (i), confirmed -

(A) the first medical practitioner's opinion as to the existence and seriousness of the illness; 

(B) that the patient is likely to die as a result of the illness; and 

(C) the first medical practitioner's prognosis; and

iv) in the case of the qualified psychiatrist referred to in
subparagraph (ii) - that the patient is not suffering from a treatable
clinical depression in respect of the illness;"

I find no reference to the need for a lawyer, or a judge to be involved.

Conspiracies of 6
>people are rare as hens' teeth outside the realm of popular fiction.

Tell that to the Companies and Securities Commission.

>Considering that one of the six must be the patient themself, while it
>is certainly within the bounds of possibility, the likelihood of abuse
>of these laws is truly miniscule.

Again you are mistaken.

These quotes are getting boring:

"(1) If a patient who has requested his or her medical practitioner to
assist the patient to end the patient's life is physically unable
to sign the certificate of request, any person who has attained the
age of 18 years, other than the medical practitioner or a medical
practitioner or qualified psychiatrist referred to in section 7(1)(c),
or a person who is likely to receive a financial benefit directly or
indirectly as a result of the death of the patient, may, at the
patient's request and in the presence of the patient and both the
medical practitioner witnesses (and where, in accordance with section
7(4) an interpreter has been used, also in the presence of the
interpreter), sign the certificate on behalf of the patient."

If you cannot see a yawning pit of danger in these provisions you have
never observed the administration of "safeguards" in the real world.

>>Wrong Peter, by opposing the RTI Act I am ensuring that _any_ instance
>>of one person deliberately killing another remains illegal. No
>>exceptions means no misinterpretations.

>David, you know this is not correct; a large percentage of the doctors
>and nurses polled have admitted to mercy killing of patients, even when
>the law would define this as murder. 

Exactly. The people involved are well aware of the gravity of their acts.
Perhaps we should legalise wife beating for the same reasons: it goes on
behind the scenes anyway. 


What you're proposing would ensure
>that these killings continue without control - without the oversight of
>the 6 people involved by the RTI act. Having no regulation of VE opens
>the door to all kinds of compassionate-but-mistaken killing.

Please explain exactly why people are going to stop committing these crimes
just because the NT opens the door to legalised patient killing. IMO
it is likely to make the decision to kill easier in such situations.


David Moss,
personal opinion only.