🚀 go-pugleaf

Old Wolf <oldwolf@tpgi.com.au> writes:

>David Moss wrote:
>> 
>> Old Wolf <oldwolf@tpgi.com.au> writes:
>> 

>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_.

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.

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.

The use of a laptop computer to dehumanise the killing, and involvement
of the patient in the killing process is blatent propaganda. 
It seems to have fooled a lot of people.

David Moss,
personal opinion only.
http://www.geocities.com/~dmoss for Australian anti-euthanasia resources.