🚀 go-pugleaf

David Moss (d-moss@adfa.oz.au) wrote:
: Euthanasia banned in Australia !
: 
: At 1:05am local time the Australian Senate passed Kevin Andrews'
: private members Bill, the Euthanasia Laws Bill 1996, by 38 votes to
: 33.
: 
: "Living in Australia" thanks everyone involved in the campaign against
: patient killing in Australia.
: 
: The Senate vote was close, without the concerted efforts of many
: thousands of people the Senators may well have made the wrong choice.
: 
: The battle against euthanasia in the Territories is won, but the war
: against patient killing in the States could be about to begin.
: 
: Keep watching this WWW site for details and be ready to fight again to
: keep:
: "Living in Australia
: without Deadly Deliverance"
: 
: 
: David Moss,
: personal opinion only.
: try http://www.adfa.oz.au/~adm/politics for Australian Politics
: 

I quote from the above web page (emphasis mine):

-begin quote-

The Euthanasia Issue 

On 1 July 1996 The Northern Territory of Australia enacted what may well
be the most controversial pieces of legislation in the entire world: the
Rights of the Terminally Ill Act 1995. On that day Australia entered the
history books as the first country in the world to 

legalise_the_deliberate_and_premeditated_killing_of_innocent_people.

 Hailed by its supporters as at last
conferring the "right to die" and reviled by its opponents as an attack on
the fundemental "right to life", euthanasia is a hot political issue that
transcends traditional Party politics. The issue is so tremendously
important to the shape of out future society that both sides will stop at
nothing which may further their cause. Keeping this in mind, 

_I_present_a_balanced_view_of_the_euthanasia_issue.

    The Deliverance Site promotes euthanasia

    while Living in Australia opposes euthanasia 

-end quote-

It could just be me, but by first describing euthanasia in such terms, 
doesn't that sort of invalidate this idea of a "balanced view" of the issue?

Ian
-- 
  _-_|\   Ian Thomas - iant@bruce.cs.monash.edu.au WARNING: Map      \_
 /     \   http://www.cs.monash.edu.au/~iant       not to scale :-)  </'
 \_.-._/  <-----------------------------------------------          /)
      v                                                            (/`

Ashraf Ghebranious <axg708@anu.edu.au> wrote:

>David Moss wrote:

>The biggest supporters of the Andrews bill are the so called christians.
>I wonder if they had been in the garden with christ on the night he knew
>he was to die if they would have tried to talk him out of it..

>'Please dont die for our sins. It would be such a waste'

>Of course, he wasn't terminally ill, but he sure as hell knew he was
>going to die. He opted to die. 

I read he pleaded to be spared right up to the end.

>Of course, in modern day Australia,
>thanks to the senate, that would be illegal.

As it was back then. Read it again. There was a legal framework in
place to regulate killing in the Roman empire. They had their own
"slippery slope" however and it was only too easy to sidestep the
regulations and put an unpopular, vulnerable person to death.
If you think human nature has changed in the last 2000 years, I
suggest you open your eyes once in a while.


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

yiet@visual.net (yiet) wrote:

>In article <adm.859253641@ccadfa>, adm@ccadfa.cc.adfa.oz.au (David Moss) wrote:

>> Anyone who thinks the "Australian Politics Resource" at 
>> http://www.adfa.oz.au/~adm/politics
>> is biased against euthanasia is cordially invited to visit a real
>> anti-euthanasia WWW site at http://www.geocities.com/~dmoss
>> to experience real and unashamed anti-euthanasia bias. 
>> I write that site too.

>I visited it and found it well....... :- [[  (boring).

Have someone read it to you yiet, or better yet _explain_ it to you !
I did put a few pretty pictures in for people like yourself to look at
but most of the resource was information, so you probably found it
too challenging. Now that the euthanasia debate is off the front
burner I will be expanding the palliative care information to keep
the government to the committments it made in the Andrews Bill second
reading amendments. As a ghoul you will probably find that boring too,
but anyone who cares about terminal patients will find it exciting.

>David is convinced that is because of him that the Senate  voted in favour
>of the Andrew's Bill.  Well,  if that makes him feel important......

Not important yiet, humble and proud. I am only one little person
among the thousands who actively campaigned on this issue.
As to the impact of my efforts: I will put the invitation on which I
took my place in the Senator's guests gallery in my scrap-book, and I
will away file the little pile of letters from Senators thanking me
for my efforts. 

I take it you sat on your backside and whinged impotently while it was
all happening around you.


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

David Moss <d-moss@adfa.oz.au> wrote in article
<5h8k5o$fs4$1@euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au>...
> yiet@visual.net (yiet) wrote:
> 
> >In article <adm.859253641@ccadfa>, adm@ccadfa.cc.adfa.oz.au (David Moss)
wrote:
> 
> >> Anyone who thinks the "Australian Politics Resource" at 
> >> http://www.adfa.oz.au/~adm/politics
> >> is biased against euthanasia is cordially invited to visit a real
> >> anti-euthanasia WWW site at http://www.geocities.com/~dmoss
> >> to experience real and unashamed anti-euthanasia bias. 
> >> I write that site too.
> 
> >I visited it and found it well....... :- [[  (boring).
> 
> Have someone read it to you yiet, or better yet _explain_ it to you !
> I did put a few pretty pictures in for people like yourself to look at
> but most of the resource was information, so you probably found it
> too challenging. Now that the euthanasia debate is off the front
> burner I will be expanding the palliative care information to keep
> the government to the committments it made in the Andrews Bill second
> reading amendments. As a ghoul you will probably find that boring too,
> but anyone who cares about terminal patients will find it exciting.
> 
> >David is convinced that is because of him that the Senate  voted in
favour
> >of the Andrew's Bill.  Well,  if that makes him feel important......
> 
> Not important yiet, humble and proud. I am only one little person
> among the thousands who actively campaigned on this issue.
> As to the impact of my efforts: I will put the invitation on which I
> took my place in the Senator's guests gallery in my scrap-book, and I
> will away file the little pile of letters from Senators thanking me
> for my efforts. 
> 
> I take it you sat on your backside and whinged impotently while it was
> all happening around you.
> 
> 
> David Moss,
> personal opinion only.
> try http://www.adfa.oz.au/~adm/politics for Australian Politics
> 

Tell me David, what would have been your next step had the
"un-representative swine" voted against the Andrews bill?



Brenton

In article <01bc38e6$cea53ba0$c5626682@jersey.pc.pa.uq.edu.au>, "beckert"
<beckert@gpo.pa.uq.edu.au> wrote:
> 
> Who voted YES  & who voted NO ??
 
These ones voted against voluntary euthanasia:
Abbott, A. J. Adams, D. G. H.
Anderson, J. D. Andrew, J. N.
Andrews, K. J. Anthony, L. J.
Bailey, F. E. Baldwin, R. C.
Barresi, P. A. Bartlett, K. J.
Beazley, K. C. Billson, B. F.
Bishop, B. K. Bradford, J. W.
Brereton, L. J. Broadbent, R. E.
Cadman, A. G. Cameron, E. H.
Cameron, R. A. Causley, I. R.
Charles, R. E. Costello, P. H.
Crosio, J. A. Downer, A. J. G.
Draper, P. Elson, K. S.
Evans, M. J. Evans, R. D. C.
Fahey, J. J. Filing, P. A.
Fitzgibbon, J. A. Forrest, J. A.
Gambaro, T. Gash, J.
Grace, E. J. Grace, E. L.*
Hatton, M. Hawker, D. P. M.
Hicks, N. J.* Hockey, J. B.
Howard, J. W. Johnston, R.
Jull, D. F. Kelly, D. M.
Kelly, J. M. Kemp, D. A.
Lee, M. J. Lieberman, L. S.
Lindsay, P. J. Lloyd, J. E.
Martin, S. P.
McArthur, F. S. McClelland, R. B.
McGauran, P. J. McLeay, L. B.
Mossfield, F. W. Moylan, J. E.
Mutch, S. B. Nelson, B. J.
Neville, P. C. O'Connor, G. M.
Price, L. R. Prosser, G. D.
Pyne, C. M. Quick, H. V.
Rocher, A. C. Ronaldson, M. J. C.
Scott, B. C. Sercombe, R. C. G.
Sinclair, I. McC. Slipper, P. N.
Smith, A. C. Smith, S. F.
Smith, W. L. Somlyay, A. M.
Southcott, A. J. Stone, S. N.
Tanner, L. J. Taylor, W. L.
Theophanous, A. C. Thomson, A. P.
Thomson, K. J. Truss, W. E.
Vaile, M. A. J. Vale, D. S.
Wakelin, B. H. West, A. G.
Williams, D. R. Wilton, G. S.
Worth, P. M. Zammit, P. J.

In article <01bc38e6$cea53ba0$c5626682@jersey.pc.pa.uq.edu.au>, "beckert"
<beckert@gpo.pa.uq.edu.au> wrote:

> Who voted YES  & who voted NO ??

These ones voted NO.

Abbott, A. J. Adams, D. G. H.
Anderson, J. D. Andrew, J. N.
Andrews, K. J. Anthony, L. J.
Bailey, F. E. Baldwin, R. C.
Barresi, P. A. Bartlett, K. J.
Beazley, K. C. Billson, B. F.
Bishop, B. K. Bradford, J. W.
Brereton, L. J. Broadbent, R. E.
Cadman, A. G. Cameron, E. H.
Cameron, R. A. Causley, I. R.
Charles, R. E. Costello, P. H.
Crosio, J. A. Downer, A. J. G.
Draper, P. Elson, K. S.
Evans, M. J. Evans, R. D. C.
Fahey, J. J. Filing, P. A.
Fitzgibbon, J. A. Forrest, J. A.
Gambaro, T. Gash, J.
Grace, E. J. Grace, E. L.*
Hatton, M. Hawker, D. P. M.
Hicks, N. J.* Hockey, J. B.
Howard, J. W. Johnston, R.
Jull, D. F. Kelly, D. M.
Kelly, J. M. Kemp, D. A.
Lee, M. J. Lieberman, L. S.
Lindsay, P. J. Lloyd, J. E.
Martin, S. P.
McArthur, F. S. McClelland, R. B.
McGauran, P. J. McLeay, L. B.
Mossfield, F. W. Moylan, J. E.
Mutch, S. B. Nelson, B. J.
Neville, P. C. O'Connor, G. M.
Price, L. R. Prosser, G. D.
Pyne, C. M. Quick, H. V.
Rocher, A. C. Ronaldson, M. J. C.
Scott, B. C. Sercombe, R. C. G.
Sinclair, I. McC. Slipper, P. N.
Smith, A. C. Smith, S. F.
Smith, W. L. Somlyay, A. M.
Southcott, A. J. Stone, S. N.
Tanner, L. J. Taylor, W. L.
Theophanous, A. C. Thomson, A. P.
Thomson, K. J. Truss, W. E.
Vaile, M. A. J. Vale, D. S.
Wakelin, B. H. West, A. G.
Williams, D. R. Wilton, G. S.
Worth, P. M. Zammit, P. J.

Yiet

adm@ccadfa.cc.adfa.oz.au (David Moss) writes:

>paul@xenu.ee.mu.oz.au (Paul Dwerryhouse) writes:

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

>>>Euthanasia banned in Australia !

>>No, the ability to legalise Euthanasia banned in the Territories.

>Sorry Paul, but euthanasia has always been banned in the States, passage
>of the Andrews Bill banned it in the Northern Territory so my title
>line is correct: euthanasia is now banned throughout Australia.

However the states may choose to change there mind and set up euthnasia
laws, the citosons of the NT have no such power.





-- 
Please excuse my spelling as I suffer from agraphia see the url in my header. 
Never trust a country with more peaple then sheep.  /\ /\ /\    Buy easter
Save the ABC Is $0.08 per day too much to pay?     (  X  X  )     bilbies.
I can't walk but I can fly. It's lucky to be ducky  \/ \/ \/

David Moss (d-moss@adfa.oz.au) wrote:
: Euthanasia banned in Australia !

Now ban me from comitting suicide if I get cancer, or helping my family 
members to do so too...

: "Living in Australia" thanks everyone involved in the campaign against
: patient killing in Australia.

"Patient killing" is way too emotive...you're implying that the choice to 
live or die does not rest with the patient, whereas in reality the 
patient must go through a long and possibly complex procedure to gain 
permission to die. Hardly corresponds with your image of mad doctors 
killing on a whim, does it?

So it's not legal. That won't stop it you know. Now step into my private 
life - thats the length youre going to have to go to to force your will 
onto people.

--
                ||||||||
                | ^  ^ |
               (| *  * |)
-----------oOOo---(__)---oOOo----------
   Daniel Meijer - Sydney, Australia.
              dm@zip.com.au
      p3034558@hardy.ocs.mq.edu.au
       http://www.zip.com.au/~dm/
----------------------------------------

Tony Molina wrote:

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

  >Euthanasia banned in Australia !

  >"Living in Australia" thanks everyone involved in the campaign
  against
  >patient killing in Australia.
  >
  >The Senate vote was close, without the concerted efforts of many
  >thousands of people the Senators may well have made the wrong
  choice.

  What are you talking about? They DID make the wrong choice.

  And I can't begin to tell you how incredibly wrong, mis-informed,
  short-sighted
  and selfish a choice they made. For the sake of those who worked to
  over-ride
  what *was* an excellent piece of legislation, I hope they never have
  to
  experience what those people who were waiting to rely on the law are
  having to.

Sorry Tony

But I hope they do

Richard

  = Tony =

   ,-._|\   Melbourne, AUSTRALIA
  /  Oz  \  Internet: amolina@ozemail.com.au
  \_,--.x/
        v

In article <3339A967.28ED@southwest.com.au>,
Mark Addinall <addinall@southwest.com.au> wrote:

>I'm sorry for interrupting. I haven't posted to this thread because I
>believe 'mercy-killing' has been carried out by the medical profession
>since Hypocrates was a lad and nothing much is going to change it.

And perhaps the NT Bill had more to do with protecting those medicos from
gaol than 'compassion'... The whole issue is a lot more complex than a
yes/no to 'do you believe in death with dignity?'.

>I have a problem with this group of people, 'the majority', that keep
>making all these sweeping decisions for me. Where do they live?
>What are thier names?

>With all the travel I do around Australia I have yet to bump into
>anyone that has been asked an opinion on this issue (or dare I say
>it, gun control). Not one person.

>The media must like the pro argument I feel. The little poll question
>was delivered with a 'caring' smile and was not worded;

>   "are you in favour of the mass slaughter of hospitalised
>    Australians.....   YES/NO"

>Mark (noticing a trend by the media) Addinall.

It sometimes takes a while to notice. After all, most people believe what
they read, so it's not so uncommon. Read a book by Edward Herman and Noam
Chomsky called 'Manufacturing Consent'. A real eye opener. I am (as you know)
totally opposed to firearms in the community, but I'll agree with you
100% when it comes to the mass media's treatment of that and other issues.

Cheers,
Marty.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Martin Gleeson       Webmeister  |  http://www.unimelb.edu.au/%7Egleeson/
Information Technology Services  |  Email    : gleeson@unimelb.edu.au
The University of Melbourne, Oz. |  Opinions : Mine, all mine.
      "I hate quotations."  -- Ralph Waldo Emerson, Journals (1843)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

On Mon, 24 Mar 1997 15:39:41 GMT, d-moss@adfa.oz.au (David Moss)
wrote:

>Euthanasia banned in Australia !

Ahahaha - with 60% of doctors carrying out euthanasia at some stage,
you are deluding yourself.

We will win in the end, David. Have no doubt about that. Australia has
a long history of allowing decency to eventually win. The mere fact
that Parliament failed to reflect the will of the people is a sign of
the cowardice of the Parliamentarians involved. It is to be hoped that
the future will bring better representation and, more importantly,
better organisation of the pro-decency groups.

Personally, it is my hope that someone makes a point of Andrews'
refusal to represent the wishes of his electorate at the next
election. Maybe then his electorate will elect a more responsible
representative, interested in the needs of the electorate rather than
some fanciful notion of 'God'. I know I'll be raising the issue in my
electorate (Bennelong), reminding people of this failure to represent.

Must be time to move on revoking the abortion laws now, eh. After all,
that's just more patient killing, isn't it?

Or are you just a hypocrite? Do you and Andrews support baby killing
while denying capable adults the right to determine the time of their
own death due to not having attended the right courses at Uni?

Must be time for some action, eh? Bigger and better things. A chance
to save 50,000 lives per annum rather than just 100-200.

Go for it!

--
Cheers,
Geoff

                           geoffatiwsdotcomdotau
***************   If you're not lost, you're not trying!   *****************

David Moss wrote:

  Ashraf Ghebranious <axg708@anu.edu.au> wrote:

  >David Moss wrote:

  >The biggest supporters of the Andrews bill are the so called
  christians.
  >I wonder if they had been in the garden with christ on the night he
  knew
  >he was to die if they would have tried to talk him out of it..

  >'Please dont die for our sins. It would be such a waste'

  >Of course, he wasn't terminally ill, but he sure as hell knew he
  was
  >going to die. He opted to die.

  I read he pleaded to be spared right up to the end.

  >Of course, in modern day Australia,
  >thanks to the senate, that would be illegal.

  As it was back then. Read it again. There was a legal framework in
  place to regulate killing in the Roman empire. They had their own
  "slippery slope" however and it was only too easy to sidestep the
  regulations and put an unpopular, vulnerable person to death.
  If you think human nature has changed in the last 2000 years, I
  suggest you open your eyes once in a while.

No I suggest that you let people decide what to do and don't use
religous rhetoric as if you are better than everybody else.  You sort of
person sickens me with your innate belief in good and right, if it
wasn't for people like you the world would be a much better place to
live.

Richard

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

In Message-ID <5h65r8$nkk$1@euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au>,
d-moss@adfa.oz.au (David Moss) wrote:-

>Euthanasia banned in Australia !

Yet another erosion of the rights and freedoms of Australians. When
will it stop?

>At 1:05am local time the Australian Senate passed Kevin Andrews'
>private members Bill, the Euthanasia Laws Bill 1996, by 38 votes to
>33.

What a disgrace. Totally out of step with what the Australian public
wants.

Unrepresentative swill. Keating got THAT right, anyway.

>"Living in Australia" thanks everyone involved in the campaign against
>patient killing in Australia.

There aren't too many of your supporters here, Davo. Religious bigots
and fundamentalist crankoids are few and far between in aus.politics..
There's quite a few liars and hypocrites here though, admittedly.

(Better check where else you've spammed this nonsense to..) Oh. Well,
you'll not get much support from aus.general either. Dunno about the
other one.

>The Senate vote was close, without the concerted efforts of many
>thousands of people the Senators may well have made the wrong choice.

>The battle against euthanasia in the Territories is won, but the war
>against patient killing in the States could be about to begin.

>Keep watching this WWW site for details and be ready to fight again to
>keep:
>"Living in Australia
>without Deadly Deliverance"

Fuck off. And may your hebrew god fuck off with you.


   "Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty - power is
   ever stealing from the many to the few."
                        -WENDELL PHILLIPS, speech (1852)

paul@xenu.ee.mu.oz.au (Paul Dwerryhouse) writes:
| Here we have a clear case of the majority of Australia telling a group of
| a hundred thousand odd people what they can or can't do.

Um, no, we have a clear case of 70 odd people telling a group of a
hundred thousand odd people what they can or can't do. They openly
acknowledge that polls suggest that "the majority of Australia" don't
think the way these 70 did.
	- Cameron Simpson, cs@zip.com.au, DoD#743
	  http://www.zip.com.au/~cs/
--
People who only point out the problems are the biggest problem in the US today
	- jh4y+@andrew.cmu.edu (John William Hollis, III)

Aim_Junk_Email@sum1.else.please (Alan Peyton-Smith=avps@tpgi.com.au) writes:

>In Message-ID <5h65r8$nkk$1@euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au>,
>d-moss@adfa.oz.au (David Moss) wrote:-

>>At 1:05am local time the Australian Senate passed Kevin Andrews'
>>private members Bill, the Euthanasia Laws Bill 1996, by 38 votes to
>>33.

>What a disgrace. Totally out of step with what the Australian public
>wants.

>Unrepresentative swill. Keating got THAT right, anyway.

Says the man who, unlike about 70% of the population, opposes the death 
penalty.  You're a bit selective with your "everyone else is uneducated 
rabble" theory aren't you?

"beckert" <beckert@gpo.pa.uq.edu.au> writes:

>Tell me David, what would have been your next step had the
>"un-representative swine" voted against the Andrews bill?

There are a number of steps which could have been taken had the
Senate rejected the Andrews Bill. Some are legal, others legislative.

A large proportion of Senators who voted "no" did so only because
they percieved the Northern Territory was being unfairly singled
out by the Bill, which has no affect at all on the States.

My next step would be to encourage an MP to introduce a Bill which would
preclude deliberate patient killing throughout Australia.

Those MP's and Senators who conscientiously oppose euthanasia but voted
against the Andrews Bill for the reasons above would most likely support
an anti-euthanasia Bill which did not single out the Territories.

There are also a number of international lobbying options available.

I certainly wouldn't rage impotently the way the pro-euthanasia lobby 
is doing at present.

David Moss,
personal opinion only.

In article <5h9v7a$ps9@proxy5.proxy.ozemail.net>,
Alan Peyton-Smith=avps@tpgi.com.au <Aim_Junk_Email@sum1.else.please> wrote:
>In Message-ID <5h65r8$nkk$1@euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au>,
>d-moss@adfa.oz.au (David Moss) wrote:-
>
>>Euthanasia banned in Australia !
>
>Yet another erosion of the rights and freedoms of Australians. When
>will it stop?

We can always make exceptions...

-- 
R. Kym Horsell
KHorsell@EE.Latrobe.EDU.AU              kym@CS.Binghamton.EDU 
http://WWW.EE.LaTrobe.EDU.AU/~khorsell  http://CS.Binghamton.EDU/~kym

In article <yiet-2503971451000001@pinc223.pinc.com>,
   yiet@visual.net (yiet) wrote:
>In article <01bc38e6$cea53ba0$c5626682@jersey.pc.pa.uq.edu.au>, "beckert"
><beckert@gpo.pa.uq.edu.au> wrote:
>
>> Who voted YES  & who voted NO ??
>
>These ones voted NO.
>
>Abbott, A. J. Adams, D. G. H.
<snip...ptang>
 >Worth, P. M. Zammit, P. J.
 >
 
these people voted Yes to the Andrews Bill Yiet.. they did not vote no

Love

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Eleanor Shipp
"There's only one thing worse than being talked
about, and that's not being talked about"..OW
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Paul Dwerryhouse wrote:
> 
> adm@ccadfa.cc.adfa.oz.au (David Moss) writes:
> 

> Here we have a clear case of the majority of Australia telling a group of
> a hundred thousand odd people what they can or can't do. If the people of
> the Northern Territory were not happy with the law, then they could easily
> have voted out the government at a forthcoming election and had the law
> revoked.
> 

I'm sorry for interrupting. I haven't posted to this thread because I
believe 'mercy-killing' has been carried out by the medical profession
since Hypocrates was a lad and nothing much is going to change it.

I have a problem with this group of people, 'the majority', that keep
making all these sweeping decisions for me. Where do they live?
What are thier names?

With all the travel I do around Australia I have yet to bump into
anyone that has been asked an opinion on this issue (or dare I say
it, gun control). Not one person.

The media must like the pro argument I feel. The little poll question
was delivered with a 'caring' smile and was not worded;

   "are you in favour of the mass slaughter of hospitalised
    Australians.....   YES/NO"

Mark (noticing a trend by the media) Addinall.

In article <5h65r8$nkk$1@euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au>, d-moss@adfa.oz.au says...
>
>Euthanasia banned in Australia !
>
>At 1:05am local time the Australian Senate passed Kevin Andrews'
>private members Bill, the Euthanasia Laws Bill 1996, by 38 votes to
>33.

Typical of politician who are more self serving than serving the people .


>"Living in Australia" thanks everyone involved in the campaign against
>patient killing in Australia.

I hope all these people who campaign for the Andrew's Bill would die a
long painful and horrible death .

>The Senate vote was close, without the concerted efforts of many
>thousands of people the Senators may well have made the wrong choice.

What wrong decision . Isn't it the senate endorsing the Andrew Bill consider
to be a wrong decision.  It wrong because  it not only did it override  a law 
which was pass by a legitimate elected parliament of Australia , but also a 
person wish to die after long bout of terminal illness .I hope all politician
and all those do gooders in this society would one day have a long painful 
death .

>
>The battle against euthanasia in the Territories is won, but the war
>against patient killing in the States could be about to begin.

So NT go ahead with there plan to become a state . These Federal Politician
it might seem are incompetent enough to not listen to the majority of popular 
opinion and it's NT best interest become a state .

>
>Keep watching this WWW site for details and be ready to fight again to
>keep:
>"Living in Australia
>without Deadly Deliverance"
>
>
>David Moss,
>personal opinion only.
>try http://www.adfa.oz.au/~adm/politics for Australian Politics
>

In article <adm.859245361@ccadfa>, adm@ccadfa.cc.adfa.oz.au says...
>
>paul@xenu.ee.mu.oz.au (Paul Dwerryhouse) writes:
>
>>d-moss@adfa.oz.au (David Moss) writes:
>
>>>Euthanasia banned in Australia !
>
>>No, the ability to legalise Euthanasia banned in the Territories.
>
>Sorry Paul, but euthanasia has always been banned in the States, passage
>of the Andrews Bill banned it in the Northern Territory so my title
>line is correct: euthanasia is now banned throughout Australia.

The federal government can not impose their will on the state and the state
which the constituion regards as state issue and clearly euthansasia is a state 
issue and not a federal issue . If in the situation does occur , where
the a state passes legislation which would legalised euthanasia , any attempt
by the federal parliament to overturn these legislation would be deem 
unconstitutional . Therefore Euthanasia is only banned in the territory and is
not ban throughout the country . Your limited knowledge of the political 



>
>>As the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory, Shane Stone, pointed out 
>>on ABC Radio's "AM" program this morning, this bill treats the residents
>>of the Northern Territory and the ACT as second class citizens.
>
>It is Stone's job to vigourously represent his constituents.
>The fact remains that nothing has changed with respect to the way
>the Commonwealth has the last word in Territory government. Their
>constitution was written to allow Commonwealth override for good reason,
>and the euthanasia issue highlights that reason was sound.
>
>>>The battle against euthanasia in the Territories is won, but the war
>>>against patient killing in the States could be about to begin.
>
>>It is quite clear that it is time for the Northern Territory to become a 
>>State in its own right.
>
>On the contrary, this issue highlights the fact that the population base
>of the NT, and hence the size of its Parliament is still far too small
>for Statehood. There are Local Government councils with more constituents than
>the entire Northern Territory. If you would be happy handing over life
>and death decisions to your own local council, only then could you
>honestly call for NT Statehood. Most councils I know are flat out
>organising when pot-holes are filled in, or rubbish collected. Ask the
>people of Wannaroo in WA if they would trust their council as a State
>government. I seem to recall there are more people in Wannaroo than the NT.
>
>>I am disgusted by the Senate's decision to pass this bill - quite clearly 
>>we have not been able to separate church and state within Australia,
>>as the majority of the pro-Andrews-bill speeches demonstrated. Once more
>>we have a government that is run by religious zealots who care more for the
>>proliferation of their warped beliefs than they do the rights of people
>>to make decisions for themselves.
>
>I really wish people would stop pushing the "religious fanatics"
>barrow.  I sat through the entire second reading Senate proceedings,
>committe stages and third reading. Iand barely heard religion
>mentioned. The Lyons forum recieved more attention.  Face it Paul,
>people like me consistently oppose euthanasia without reference to
>religion, besides noting the fact that >90% of Australians claim to
>hold religious beliefs which oppose patient killing.
>
>
>>I would encourage all of the States of Australia to introduce their own
>>bills legalising euthanasia, where the Commonwealth government will not
>>be able to reach them.
>
>The argument that the Commonwealth cannot override the States on this issue
>is false. We all know Australia is a signatory to the UN Declaration of
>Human Rights. Only if the Commonwealth is willing to acknowledge life to
>have a lower priority than trees, or the right to bend over and bugger, can
>it fail to impose the obligations of this treaty using its external affairs
>power.
>
>As I said, the war against patient killing is not yet over, but the
>pro-euthanasia lobby was devastated by passage of the Andrews Bill.
>Most speakers against the Bill in the Senate were not supporting
>euthanasia, but making a misguided effort to apply the principle of
>States Rights to the Territories. Doubtlessly the euthanasia lobby will
>try the same tactics next time, but even the Democrats are not hypocritical
>enough to vote down Tasmania's rights twice, then argue the opposite on
>a "right to life" issue.
>
>David Moss,
>personal opinion only.
>http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/8270 for anti-euthanasia resources.
>
>
>
>

Paul Dwerryhouse wrote:

> It is quite clear that it is time for the Northern Territory to become
> a State in its own right.

It is not that easy Paul. It would require a change of the constitution
which would require a national referrendum. I do not see a problem of
this occurring if it is seeked and a referendum is approved.
-- 
Jim Adamopoulos			Contact: 0419 431 877
Student:   Bachelor of Commerce
Deakin University Australia
e-mail:  jadamo@deakin.edu.au           
http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/4861

In article <5haie1$r8t$2@nargun.cc.uq.edu.au>,
   s325282@student.uq.edu.au (Bill) wrote:
>In article <adm.859245361@ccadfa>, adm@ccadfa.cc.adfa.oz.au says...
 >>
 >>paul@xenu.ee.mu.oz.au (Paul Dwerryhouse) writes:
 >>
 >>>d-moss@adfa.oz.au (David Moss) writes:
 >>
 >>>>Euthanasia banned in Australia !
 >>
 >>>No, the ability to legalise Euthanasia banned in the Territories.
 >>
 >>Sorry Paul, but euthanasia has always been banned in the States, passage
 >>of the Andrews Bill banned it in the Northern Territory so my title
 >>line is correct: euthanasia is now banned throughout Australia.
 >
 >The federal government can not impose their will on the state and the state
 >which the constituion regards as state issue and clearly euthansasia is a  
 >state issue and not a federal issue . If in the situation does occur , where
 >the a state passes legislation which would legalised euthanasia , any attempt
 >by the federal parliament to overturn these legislation would be deem 
 >unconstitutional . Therefore Euthanasia is only banned in the territory and is
 >not ban throughout the country . Your limited knowledge of the political 


Wrong

The Federal Government can override a State law when it has the power to make 
such a law. If there are two laws one made by the states, one by the Federal 
govt and both are legitimate Acts within the boundaries of the constitution, 
then the federal law has precedence.

Now if the Federal govt does not have power to make such a law, then the High 
court might see it differently, but in the past, the states have come off second 
best in most disputes.

Love

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Eleanor Shipp
"There's only one thing worse than being talked
about, and that's not being talked about"..OW
--------------------------------------------------------------------

> 
>    "are you in favour of the mass slaughter of hospitalised
>     Australians.....   YES/NO"
> 
> Mark (noticing a trend by the media) Addinall.
> 

Makes it sound as if people are going to be dragged screaming from the
hospital beds & "neutralised". Just a little distant from the requirements
of the NT euthanasia act.

Perhaps...
"are you in favour of subjecting hospitalised Australians to prolonged and
inhumane agony, loss of dignity & removing their ability to make an
informed decision re their treatment" ?



Brenton

Alan Peyton-Smith (avps@tpgi.com.au) typed:
 : 
 : Fuck off. And may your hebrew god fuck off with you.

Oooh, now there's a bit of a giveaway.

- Robi

In Message-ID <5ha1t5$4af@silas.cc.monash.edu.au>,
altapeto@silas.cc.monash.edu.au (The Greased Cougar from the Planet
Big Bollocks) wrote:-

>Aim_Junk_Email@sum1.else.please (Alan Peyton-Smith=avps@tpgi.com.au) writes:

>>In Message-ID <5h65r8$nkk$1@euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au>,
>>d-moss@adfa.oz.au (David Moss) wrote:-

>>>At 1:05am local time the Australian Senate passed Kevin Andrews'
>>>private members Bill, the Euthanasia Laws Bill 1996, by 38 votes to
>>>33.

>>What a disgrace. Totally out of step with what the Australian public
>>wants.

>>Unrepresentative swill. Keating got THAT right, anyway.

>Says the man who, unlike about 70% of the population, opposes the death 
>penalty. 

Difference being, I'm not trying to impose my views on everyone else.

>You're a bit selective with your "everyone else is uneducated 
>rabble" theory aren't you?

When ever did I say that? It's you .edu types who think that way. And
David Moss, too, of course.


   "Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty - power is
   ever stealing from the many to the few."
                        -WENDELL PHILLIPS, speech (1852)

adm@ccadfa.cc.adfa.oz.au (David Moss) writes [sample only]:
[...]
>The fact remains that nothing has changed with respect to the way
>the Commonwealth has the last word in Territory government. Their
>constitution was written to allow Commonwealth override for good reason,
>and the euthanasia issue highlights that reason was sound.
[...]

Y'know David, I do believe you've set a new standard for self-satisfied
smugness with this post.

Cheers,  Ian S.

-- 

Ian Staples                        MS-Mail: staplesi@dpi.qld.gov.au
c/- P.O. Box 1054 MAREEBA          Phone  : +61 (0)70 928 555 Home 924 847
Queensland Australia 4880            Fax  : +61 (0)70 923 593   "   "   "

In article <5h8kgn$fv0$1@euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au>, d-moss@adfa.oz.au says...
>
>Ashraf Ghebranious <axg708@anu.edu.au> wrote:
>
>
>As it was back then. Read it again. There was a legal framework in
>place to regulate killing in the Roman empire. They had their own
>"slippery slope" however and it was only too easy to sidestep the
>regulations and put an unpopular, vulnerable person to death.
>If you think human nature has changed in the last 2000 years, I
>suggest you open your eyes once in a while.

Apparently,for some people like yourself, human nature hasn't changed
in 2000 years...  but evolution will eventually phase you all out over
time...

-- 
BENJAMIN PETERS
The South East Queensland Electricity Corporation
Email: bp007@seqeb.gov.au

In article <5hcfnn$em7@cdn_news.telecom.com.au>, EShipp@tennet.com says...
>
>In article <5haie1$r8t$2@nargun.cc.uq.edu.au>,
>   s325282@student.uq.edu.au (Bill) wrote:
>>In article <adm.859245361@ccadfa>, adm@ccadfa.cc.adfa.oz.au says...
> >>
> >>paul@xenu.ee.mu.oz.au (Paul Dwerryhouse) writes:
> >>
> >>>d-moss@adfa.oz.au (David Moss) writes:
> >>
> >>>>Euthanasia banned in Australia !
> >>
> >>>No, the ability to legalise Euthanasia banned in the Territories.
> >>
> >>Sorry Paul, but euthanasia has always been banned in the States, passage
> >>of the Andrews Bill banned it in the Northern Territory so my title
> >>line is correct: euthanasia is now banned throughout Australia.
> >
> >The federal government can not impose their will on the state and the state
> >which the constituion regards as state issue and clearly euthansasia is a  
> >state issue and not a federal issue . If in the situation does occur , where
> >the a state passes legislation which would legalised euthanasia , any 
attempt
> >by the federal parliament to overturn these legislation would be deem 
> >unconstitutional . Therefore Euthanasia is only banned in the territory and 
is
> >not ban throughout the country . Your limited knowledge of the political 
>
>
>Wrong
>
>The Federal Government can override a State law when it has the power to make 
>such a law. 

Wrong . Where do you can this ludicrous legal opinion ? The state laws can't be 
overide by federal politician which are considered to be state issues and 
voluntary euthanasia is considered to be a  state issue .The only way the 
federal government can override this state law is by calling for a national 
referemdum which would strip the state of that power to legislate for that 
issue and I think if this referemdum does occur , it would totally be reject by 
the people of Australia .

>If there are two laws one made by the states, one by the Federal 
>govt and both are legitimate Acts within the boundaries of the constitution, 
>then the federal law has precedence.

Than why the hell to we have state parliament when the federal government can 
overrides laws when they see those law which are consider to state issue to be 
unreasonable .

>


>Now if the Federal govt does not have power to make such a law, then the High 
>court might see it differently, but in the past, the states have come off 
second 
>best in most disputes.

The only time they won out was when they are threaten with a referemdum 
and also the public opinion are in favour of the federal politician on this 
issue .However as you and I do know that the majority of Australia do support
euthanasia and definitely the people would side with the state government in
a referemdum if any state govenrment legislate for euthanasia .

			Bill

David Moss wrote:
>> The Senate vote was close, without the concerted efforts of many
> thousands of people the Senators may well have made the wrong choice.

Who said that the senate made the write choice? Why should the senate be
able to intervene in the rights of human beings?
 
> The battle against euthanasia in the Territories is won, but the war
> against patient killing in the States could be about to begin.

In the territories? What you had a battle with the Australian Capital
Territory?
Yes a law could be passed in the states and if it does you can't go off
crying to federal parliament because they do not have any constitutional
power in the area with the states.
 
In my opinion I think it is time the 2 territories be treated like a
State of Australia (as they are in all other circumstances).
There should be a referrendum at the next election to change the
constitution to give the territories all the powers of the states as set
out in the constitution.

The senate is meant to be a fair representation of Australia with equal
number of Senators in each state. Why then do the ACT and NT only have 2
representatives and the other states 6 representatives?
This is one problem that needs answering.

-- 
Jim Adamopoulos			Contact: 0419 431 877
Student:   Bachelor of Commerce
Deakin University Australia
e-mail:  jadamo@deakin.edu.au           
http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/4861

beckert wrote:

> A victory for who ??
> 
> Certainly not the Oz public who appear to support euthanasia (at least 2:1).

That is true. Why do they kick up such a fuss when it is legalised and
they have kept quiet to the fact that it has been done in hospitals
throughout the country for years on end?

-- 
Jim Adamopoulos			Contact: 0419 431 877
Student:   Bachelor of Commerce
Deakin University Australia
e-mail:  jadamo@deakin.edu.au           
http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/4861

David Moss wrote:

> My next step would be to encourage an MP to introduce a Bill which would preclude deliberate patient killing throughout Australia.

The federal government has no constitutional power to do so David. The
only reason they were able to do so was that the territory is not
covered in the constitution and the government has the power to override
any acts of the territories parliament.

But they can't make an act to ban it throughout Australia. It is legally
unable to do so under the Australian Constitution.

-- 
Jim Adamopoulos			Contact: 0419 431 877
Student:   Bachelor of Commerce
Deakin University Australia
e-mail:  jadamo@deakin.edu.au           
http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/4861

David Moss wrote:

> The argument that the Commonwealth cannot override the States on this issue
> is false. We all know Australia is a signatory to the UN Declaration of
> Human Rights. Only if the Commonwealth is willing to acknowledge life to
> have a lower priority than trees, or the right to bend over and bugger, can
> it fail to impose the obligations of this treaty using its external affairs
> power.

The UN Declaration of Human Rights is not legally binding. It is only a
"gentleman's agreement".
The UN Declaration of Human Rights cannot override a countries
constitution. The constitution states that the Federal Parliament cannot
make laws in regards to the states to such a matter. They cannot
override the law whatsoever if a State decided to make such a law. The
High Court would laugh at such an argument as you have suggested.

Stop giving this bullshit arguments which have no real effect on the
argument.
-- 
Jim Adamopoulos			Contact: 0419 431 877
Student:   Bachelor of Commerce
Deakin University Australia
e-mail:  jadamo@deakin.edu.au           
http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/4861

The Greased Cougar from the Planet Big Bollocks wrote:

> Er.. what's so dignified about death-by-laptop?  If you want to kill
> yourself, keep the doctors out of it and throw yourself in front of a
> train.  But not during peak hour, please.
 
And you call that dignified? These people did have the option of chosing
to die in the privacy of their own home with no pain (as they were put
to sleep.)

-- 
Jim Adamopoulos			Contact: 0419 431 877
Student:   Bachelor of Commerce
Deakin University Australia
e-mail:  jadamo@deakin.edu.au           
http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/4861

Bill wrote:

> I hope all these people who campaign for the Andrew's Bill would die a
> long painful and horrible death .

How could you be a true supporter of euthanasia?
You obviously don't know the core of the argument to stop euthanasia.
It is to stop people from suffering and long painful and horrible death.
How could you then go off and wish these people that?

Jim

ps. don't get me wrong I support euthanasia but I support it so no
person has a long and painful death. I could never wish that on anyone.
-- 
Jim Adamopoulos			Contact: 0419 431 877
Student:   Bachelor of Commerce
Deakin University Australia
e-mail:  jadamo@deakin.edu.au           
http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/4861

Aim_Junk_Email@sum1.else.please (Alan Peyton-Smith=avps@tpgi.com.au) writes:

>>>What a disgrace. Totally out of step with what the Australian public
>>>wants.

>>>Unrepresentative swill. Keating got THAT right, anyway.

>>You're a bit selective with your "everyone else is uneducated 
>>rabble" theory aren't you?

>When ever did I say that? It's you .edu types who think that way. And
>David Moss, too, of course.

You said, amongst other things, "I'm sure you'll agree with me that the 
vast majority of Australians don't think about issues as much as they 
should."  Your subsequent posts confessed your self-perception as some 
sort of genius.

In article <33397590.1DDC@deakin.edu.au>, jadamo@deakin.edu.au says...
>
>Bill wrote:
>
>> I hope all these people who campaign for the Andrew's Bill would die a
>> long painful and horrible death .
>
>How could you be a true supporter of euthanasia?
>You obviously don't know the core of the argument to stop euthanasia.
>It is to stop people from suffering and long painful and horrible death.
>How could you then go off and wish these people that?
>
>Jim
>
>ps. don't get me wrong I support euthanasia but I support it so no
>person has a long and painful death. I could never wish that on anyone.

You are rite about it , but the problem is these people don't really know
how terminally ill people feel when the option to die with dignity is taken 
away from them , These do gooder should experience this horrific life 
experience
first before they should stop or campaign against euthanasia .

			Bill

BENJAMIN PETERS wrote:
> 
> In article <5h8kgn$fv0$1@euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au>, d-moss@adfa.oz.au says...
> >
> >Ashraf Ghebranious <axg708@anu.edu.au> wrote:
> >
> >
> >As it was back then. Read it again. There was a legal framework in
> >place to regulate killing in the Roman empire. They had their own
> >"slippery slope" however and it was only too easy to sidestep the
> >regulations and put an unpopular, vulnerable person to death.
> >If you think human nature has changed in the last 2000 years, I
> >suggest you open your eyes once in a while.
> 
> Apparently,for some people like yourself, human nature hasn't changed
> in 2000 years...  but evolution will eventually phase you all out over
> time...
> 
> 

Please get your quotes right Benjamin. David talked about the romans. I
talked about compassion.


Ashraf

Jim Adamopoulos <jadamo@deakin.edu.au> writes:

>The Greased Cougar from the Planet Big Bollocks wrote:

>> Er.. what's so dignified about death-by-laptop?  If you want to kill
>> yourself, keep the doctors out of it and throw yourself in front of a
>> train.  But not during peak hour, please.
> 
>And you call that dignified? These people did have the option of chosing
>to die in the privacy of their own home with no pain (as they were put
>to sleep.)

I agree with Euthanasia and the right for one to take one's own life, but 
I think we're fooling ourselves to call any suicide "dignified"- it's a 
cop out.  I know a bloke who hung himself in his bedroom because he 
couldn't get a girlfriend.  It would have been relatively quick, and it 
was done in privacy.  Was this dignified?

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

>Actually things aren't all that bad.

>According to a `letter to the Editor' in todays
>"Australian" newspaper (April 1, 1997), the Northern 
>Territory may be able to show it's contempt for the 
>Andrew's bill by getting the Attorny-General to grant 
>any doctors helping patients to die immunity from 
>prosecution.

If so I will personally prosecute anyone who contravenes the Crimes
Act in this way. I will also prosecute the AG for conspiracy to pervert
the course of justice. Go clutch at another straw, that one just sank.

>Interesting times.

Aren't they ?

David Moss,
personal opinion only.

In article <adm.859880418@ccadfa>, David Moss <adm@ccadfa.cc.adfa.oz.au> wrote:
[...]
>
>If so I will personally prosecute anyone who contravenes the Crimes
>Act in this way. I will also prosecute the AG for conspiracy to pervert
>the course of justice. Go clutch at another straw, that one just sank.

Well, given the opinion surveys, perhaps we the people should be suing
Parliament (and yourself as an unrepresentative minority group
lobbyist) for perverting the course of justice.

I wonder why people such as yourself are so determined to impose your
minority opinions on the whole population.

Dave

harsant@newsserver.trl.oz.au (Dave Harsant) writes:

>In article <adm.859880418@ccadfa>, David Moss <adm@ccadfa.cc.adfa.oz.au> wrote:
>[...]
>>
>>If so I will personally prosecute anyone who contravenes the Crimes
>>Act in this way. I will also prosecute the AG for conspiracy to pervert
>>the course of justice. Go clutch at another straw, that one just sank.

>Well, given the opinion surveys, perhaps we the people should be suing
>Parliament (and yourself as an unrepresentative minority group
>lobbyist) for perverting the course of justice.

Be my guest, so long as you pay your own costs.
Oh yes, I am not a lobbyist for an unrepresentative minority group,
I am simply a self motivated private individual. The efforts of
thousands of individuals like me prevailed over the efforts of the
hundreds of people in the NCVE to convince MPs and Senators what was
the right path for Australia on this issue.

>I wonder why people such as yourself are so determined to impose your
>minority opinions on the whole population.

Personally its because I think deliberate killing is bad for Australian
society. Are you trying to tell me I should not speak out about what I
believe to be best for Australia ? Or just that I shouldn't be able to
do it effectively ?

David Moss,
personal opinion only.

The Greased Cougar from the Planet Big Bollocks wrote:

> I agree with Euthanasia and the right for one to take one's own life, but
> I think we're fooling ourselves to call any suicide "dignified"- it's a
> cop out.  I know a bloke who hung himself in his bedroom because he
> couldn't get a girlfriend.  It would have been relatively quick, and it
> was done in privacy.  Was this dignified?

I agree with you entirely. my comments seemed to have been
misinterpreted. I do not think that euthanasia is suicide at all. I was
just responding to the fact that someone compared euthanasia to suicide
which I do not think it is at all.

Jim
-- 
Jim Adamopoulos			Contact: 0419 431 877
Student:   Bachelor of Commerce
Deakin University Australia
e-mail:  jadamo@deakin.edu.au           
http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/4861

David Moss wrote:
> 
> Personally its because I think deliberate killing is bad for Australian
> society. 

What is this term deliberate killing?  Killing implies someone else doing 
the dirtywork.  However, voluntary euthanasia, under the NT Bill, 
enshrines the right of the individual to perform their own death, 
suicide, etc.  It is the individual's decision, and no-one else's.  
Others must assess their mental and physical states, but only the 
individual makes the decision.

Are you trying to tell me I should not speak out about what I
> believe to be best for Australia ? Or just that I shouldn't be able to
> do it effectively ?
> 

Naturally you should speak out about what you think is best for 
Australia,  but you should always consider what you are saying before it 
is said.  Personally, I think that welfare can breed dependency on the 
state and kill individual expression and pride.  But I sure as hell have 
never been in the situation where I have needed welfare for my daily 
existence, so I don't think I have any right to bleat out such a view.  
More importantly, I would not support any measure to change the welfare 
state until I had some personal experience in the matter, either first 
hand, or through observation and understanding.

Now you think you should tell those people, who want to die because their 
lives are painful, depressing, undignified and near ending, that they 
should not have this one wish obeyed because it's not good for Australian 
society !!  

Why is death seen to be such a bad thing anyway?  Religious freaks go on 
about God being the only one who has the power to give & take life, but 
as I understand it he also gave us choice! 

The only thing being killed around here is individual choice.  I wonder 
how you and all others who supported the Andrews Bill would have felt 
about assuming the pain and suffering that terminally ill people feel 
every minute of every day, in return for the passage of the legislation. 
 I believe you all would have at least had second thoughts.  

Sleep well my friend, because many others can't.

xx

? the platypus {aka David Formosa} <dformosa@st.nepean.uws.edu.au>
wrote:

>adm@ccadfa.cc.adfa.oz.au (David Moss) writes:

>>Sorry Paul, but euthanasia has always been banned in the States, passage
>>of the Andrews Bill banned it in the Northern Territory so my title
>>line is correct: euthanasia is now banned throughout Australia.

>However the states may choose to change there mind and set up euthnasia
>laws, the citosons of the NT have no such power.

Correct, that is the difference between a Territory and a State.
Territory governments are called into being at the stroke of a federal
pen, and can be overriden just as easily.

If a State decides to enact patient killing I feel the external
affairs powers of the federal constitution will be brought out for a
little exercise. Unless people feel they should only ever be used
against Tasmania of course.



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

p3034558@hardy.ocs.mq.edu.au (Daniel Meijer) wrote:

>David Moss (d-moss@adfa.oz.au) wrote:
>: Euthanasia banned in Australia !

>Now ban me from comitting suicide if I get cancer, or helping my family 
>members to do so too...

I have no intention of stopping you or anyone else from committing
suicide, that has been your right since section 16 of the Crimes Act
was inserted in 1975. Suicide is not a threat to anyone but the person
who does it. Legalising one person killing another however, is.

>: "Living in Australia" thanks everyone involved in the campaign against
>: patient killing in Australia.

>"Patient killing" is way too emotive...you're implying that the choice to 
>live or die does not rest with the patient, whereas in reality the 
>patient must go through a long and possibly complex procedure to gain 
>permission to die. Hardly corresponds with your image of mad doctors 
>killing on a whim, does it?

Less time than the cooling off period for door-to-door sales contracts
in NSW. As for a mad doctors whim, well I really don't want to get
sued for defamation, and the truth is not a defence in Australia.

>So it's not legal. That won't stop it you know. Now step into my private 
>life - thats the length youre going to have to go to to force your will 
>onto people.

Happens all the time when the police believe a crime has been
committed. Are you so pro-freedom that you would prefer the police
butt out of your affairs and not bother investigating if they have
reason to believe you were murdered ?

Libertarianism is attractive but true libertarianism, like true
socialism, is unattainable because of basic human nature.





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

David Moss wrote:

> I have no intention of stopping you or anyone else from committing
> suicide, that has been your right since section 16 of the Crimes Act
> was inserted in 1975. Suicide is not a threat to anyone but the person
> who does it. Legalising one person killing another however, is.

I thought that the way the process worked (via the you-beaut machine so 
highly publicised) was that the patient _was_ the person doing the 
killing.  They have the last say, in actually initiating the process, by 
answering "yes", to kill themselves.  Are you saying this is legal?

Old Wolf

The Greased Cougar from the Planet Big Bollocks wrote:
 
> I agree with Euthanasia and the right for one to take one's own life, 
> but I think we're fooling ourselves to call any suicide "dignified"- 

Corse it is. A damned sight more dignified than just letting nature take 
its course, particularly with the more obscene problems like not being 
able to breath properly or avoid shitting yourself/wetting yourself etc. 

Nothing wrong with choosing to skip that last period of a pretty obscene state of 'life'

> it's a cop out.  

Crap, in many cases its the sensible decision, just like it is with a pet/animal. 

> I know a bloke who hung himself in his bedroom because he couldn't get a girlfriend.  

Says sweet fuck all about people who end their own lives for sensible reasons. 

> It would have been relatively quick, and it
> was done in privacy.  Was this dignified?
 
It would have been a lot more dignified if we had the sense to make it convent
to end your life with dignity. There are some disadvantages with say having 
cheap and effective pills that will kill you, say like many had available in the 
40s, and the injection route has got its problems when most people cant 
do it themselves, but it should be feasible to do a lot better than a rope. 

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

>David, you are truely naive if you believe anyone can go home,
>state to their family they are going to commit suicide, and do
>it, in front of their family, and not expect that family to get
>into trouble with the law if they do nothing to stop it.

Simply telling the law the way it is Iain.

>The NTs euthanasia law ensured that this would never happen.

Tell me how the RTI Act invalidated sect 16 of the Crimes Act.

>Of course, lets not forget the trauma involved. David has.

There is a word for a person who would stop a person using the
"heaven's gate" method but smile and hold their hand as they get
the green needle from a doctor. Starts with "H"

>Guess you simply don't care.

If I didn't care I would not be interviewing palliative care nurses 
with a view to promoting their services. Unlike the pro-euthanasia
lobby my caring didn't stop with the Senate vote.

David Moss,
personal opinion only.

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

>David Moss wrote:

>> I have no intention of stopping you or anyone else from committing
>> suicide, that has been your right since section 16 of the Crimes Act
>> was inserted in 1975. Suicide is not a threat to anyone but the person
>> who does it. Legalising one person killing another however, is.

>I thought that the way the process worked (via the you-beaut machine so 
>highly publicised) was that the patient _was_ the person doing the 
>killing.  They have the last say, in actually initiating the process, by 
>answering "yes", to kill themselves.  Are you saying this is legal?

Assisting suicide is a crime in Australia.
The patient themselves commits no crime, but the person who provides
the equipment, knowing what it will be used for, the person who prescribes
the drugs, knowing what they will be used for, and the person who inserts
the needle, knowing the purpose, are all guilty of a crime.

As I said, over and over again, the RTI Act was not about the right to die,
but about the right to kill.

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