🚀 go-pugleaf

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

>David Moss wrote:

>So the terminally ill are lying now? Well done David, now you are
>insulting the terminally ill. Who next I wonder?


I can see you are one of _those_ people who stop thinking of people as
people once they are terminally ill. I suppose thats why you are able to 
morally justify giving them the green needle. The fact is, terminally ill
people are just as capable of dishonesty as people without terminal illness.
Some people tell the truth more frequently than others. Terminal illness
is irrelevant to which category a person falls.


>> step 1: convince any doctor you have a terminal illness and are suffering
>> unacceptably.
>> 


>Why should they be suffering unacceptably by your definition of
>the word? 

Because thats what the RTI Act requires. To act outside the provisions
of the RTI Act opens the door to prosecution under the Crimes Act.

>I suppose you would like them to wait until they are screaming 
>in agony before they go to the doctor.

No, I would prefer they recieved palliative care, that way they would
never have to suffer severe pain. But rejecting PC would be their choice,
as would suicide.

>> step 3: get "the" psychiatrist to verify you aren't suffering from clinical
>> depression.
>> 

>Which they probably are - they are dying David, possibly quite
>painfully. 
>I think that gives them the right to be depressed.

Are you alleging a further breach of the RTI Act by the psychiatrist ?


>> step 4: wait 7 days, then someone can sign the papers.
>> 
>> step 5 wait 48 hours, then someone can kill you.

>They end their own lives David, and you know it.

They committed suicide ? Why did they need the RTI Act then ?

>Now who posted that article concerning the ethics and credibility
>of a certain newspaper poll? No wait, the name will come to me ...

It was about opinion polls in general, and yes, it was me.
Are you now goint to attempt a justification of push polling by the
pro-euthanasia lobby ? That would be interesting.

>> Now its pretty obvious that if a person is willing to accept their
>> current level of suffering they fail the criteria for step one.
>> 

>Only because you want them to suffer before they seek help.
>Those of us who care, don't.

You don't care about honouring the built in safeguards of a euthanasia law ?
Now there's an admission for the scrap book !
You may well be featured in future press releases Iain.

>> I ask again, why did the doctor sign the papers in the first place ?
>> 

>Well let's see - because the patient wanted to use the option of
>voluntary
>euthanasia? And asked to use the option? Perhaps more than once?
>Just my guess.

Could be. After all who is a doctor to judge.
Without incurring a defamation charge, didn't I read about a certain
non-judgemental document who killed two people with methodone recently
because he/she deliberately acted non-judgementally ? Who could that
have been ? N...   N....  No... I can't quite bring myself to type it !

>> How do people know how much they will
>> >deterioate in the next few months? If what you are saying is the case,
>> >people can apply for the euthanasia law, when and only when the pain is
>> >insufferable.

So you admit the Act was being misused ?
Well why not just say so ?

>> >These people know they will die from their disease. What is wrong with
>> >them "signing up" to have their lives ended (not killed) for when they
>> >feel they are ready to leave this world?
>> 
>> Whats "wrong" is that it contravenes the law. If you start ignoring
>> portions of a euthanasia law you are already halfway down the slippery
>> slope. If the pro-euthanasia can't even keep to the rules when they are
>> trying to be squeeky clean for the media, what would they get up to once
>> the limelight of publicity faded to the murky world of dementia wards?
>> 

>This is simply David's way of ignoring facts.
>He knows the law hasn't been broken.

Good thing for the main players that the Senate overturned RTI.
Had it still been in force I would have ensured it was enforced to the
letter. 

>When should they "sign-up" David? When they are dead?

How about when they are "suffering unacceptably" as required in step 1
of the Act ? Of course if you couldn't care less about society, the
slippery slope, or possible abuse, perhaps we should automatically
sign people up at birth, just in case.

>David claims that voluntary euthanasia can be misused and then
>complains when it is shown that quite a lot of red tape has to
>be got past before the patient can use the law.

The legal requirements of the RTI Act don't seem to have been much of
an obstacle though do they ?

>He claims others can pressure the patient into using the option, only 
>to complain at the amount of red tape put in their way to catch that
>coercion.

Many forms of coercion cannot be prevented by any amount of red tape.
What I was talking about in this thread was the way the Act was _already_
being misused.


>Of course, he has only 'urban myths' to back his claims.

>I have let my family know I don't want to kept alive by machines
>if I am ever involved in a bad accident and cannot survive without
>them. Quite an assumption wouldn't you agree David?

Thats interesting.
So if you are involved in an accident and, for instance, get a perforated
aorta that requires repair, you have directed you be allowed to die when
use of a heart-lung machine would allow time for repair and full recovery ?
Some people would consider that silly you know, but even without RTI,
its your choice and no-one is trying to take it away.

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