🚀 go-pugleaf

David Moss <adm@ccadfa.cc.adfa.oz.au> wrote in article <adm.860716515@ccadfa>...
> Old Wolf <oldwolf@tpgi.com.au> writes:
 
Christ you're a fraud Moss. 

> >If the patient is the one who makes the final decision (i.e 'presses the 
> >button'), then they are committing suicide - which is legal as you said 
> >in an earlier post.  The patient already had the right to commit suicide 
> >before the RTI Act, and still does even now.  Since the doctor isn't the 
> >one doing the killing, why do you say the RTI Act is about the right to kill?  
> >With or without the RTI Act, people are still able to kill _themselves_.
 
He's right. No matter what screen of utterly mindless 
bullshit you put up, you clowns are stuffed on this one boy. 

> While Dr Nitschke and the pro-euthanasia lobby have used patient
> involvement as a publicity stunt, it is not a requirement under the RTI Act.
 
Pity it means they can use that approach and blow you clowns out of the water. 

> The Act allows the doctor to "assist" the patient to end his/her life.
> It then goes on to define the word "assist" to mean anything from
> prescribing a lethal drug to actually rolling up the sleeve and injecting
> a lethal drug into the patient. Once the papers have been signed there
> is nothing to prevent a doctor injecting lethal drugs into the IV drip
> of a sleeping patient any time beyond 48 hours later. Active patient 
> involvement in the killing process was not required.
 
Whoopy do. They certainly can use that approach NOW tho cant they Davey boy ?

> The use of a laptop computer to dehumanise the killing,  and involvement 
> of the patient in the killing process is blatent propaganda. 

Pity it fucks you fundys right up the arse tho Dave. 

> It seems to have fooled a lot of people.
 
You think this pathetic charade actually fools anyone at all Davey boy ?