🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <5h0890$h7d$1@euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au>, d-moss@adfa.oz.au (David Moss) says:
>
>Euthanasia Lobby exposes RTI Dangers
>

>
>"Yet in the letters and recordings in the publicity, the patients
>indicate they had no intention of ending this suffering in the near
>future, unless forced to do so by the impending Senate vote."
>

>Mr David Moss,
>personal opinion only.
>"Living in Australia - without Deadly Deliverance"
>http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/8270
>
What a lot of rubbish! (Most of it snipped.) *Who* is going to
force any patient who has signed with their doctor that when
the time is ripe they want help - *who* is going to force them
to go to their deaths, if they're still able to make decisions
for themselves and don't feel they are ready for receiving
the help, despite whatever the level of pain and discomfort
they are in for the time being. Who, or what?

Brian

In article <5h0890$h7d$1@euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au>, d-moss@adfa.oz.au wrote:

> Euthanasia Lobby exposes RTI Dangers
[snip]

Who reported this David?

Yiet

bpl@lynx.co.nz (Brian Paul Lilburn) wrote:

>In article <5h0890$h7d$1@euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au>, d-moss@adfa.oz.au (David Moss) says:
>>
>>Euthanasia Lobby exposes RTI Dangers
>>

>>
>>"Yet in the letters and recordings in the publicity, the patients
>>indicate they had no intention of ending this suffering in the near
>>future, unless forced to do so by the impending Senate vote."
>>
>What a lot of rubbish! (Most of it snipped.)

You may think so Brian, but the facts are otherwise.
I have a video recording of pro-euthanasia lobbyists faxing out copies
of the letters, and listening to the audio recordings. I could hardly
believe the lengths to which the pro-euthanasia lobby would go myself.

> *Who* is going to
>force any patient who has signed with their doctor that when
>the time is ripe they want help - *who* is going to force them
>to go to their deaths, if they're still able to make decisions
>for themselves and don't feel they are ready for receiving
>the help, despite whatever the level of pain and discomfort
>they are in for the time being. Who, or what?

Its not a matter of forcing people to their deaths, although it is a
macabre possibility.* Its a matter of how badly the RTI Act is already
being misused.

The RTI Act was purportedly enacted so that a terminally ill person
suffering intolerable pain or suffereing could be assisted to commit
suicide.

What we have seen however, is the Act being used as an insurance
policy against fear. People who are obviously willing to tolerate
their level of pain or suffering are "signing up" to be killed later,
if the need arises.

An even more macabre possibility is that a patient's mental condition
may deteriorate to the point of incompetence, leading to the situation
that a person could be killed who is clearly incompetent to take a
life and death decision. The fact they took out an "insurance policy"
against fear earlier in their illness is no consolation, they would be
unable to reasonably agree at the end, yet they could be killed
anyway.

If you read the RTI Act you will learn that a signed request is like a
sword of Damocles. It is not up to the patient when or how it drops,
but the doctor. The patient does not even have to be conscious.

Pre-signed RTI certificates are nothing more than an insurance policy
against fear, yet not only are they open to the most horrendous
misuse, but we are currently seeing terminal patients' fear used as a
hostage for political leverage. 

The morals and scruples of the pro-euthanasia lobby have been exposed
at last, and its not a pretty sight. I wouldn't be surprised if a few
of the more honest Senators who oppose the Andrews Bill for "states
rights" reasons will now support it, just to be certain of ending such
a dangerous and badly misused law.

David Moss,
personal opinion only.

* There have been cases where relatives of an incompetent person have
refused to allow the person to recieve food or water via a feeding
tube even though the person themselves asks for food and water. There
is a legal possibility that relatives may force the "assisted suicide"
of an incompetent patient with a pre-signed certificate even though
that person tries to rescind the request after becoming incompetent.
Chilling, horrible, impossible ?  Until recently so was legal patient
killing itself.








>Brian


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

On Sat, 22 Mar 1997 21:33:39 GMT, Brian Paul Lilburn <bpl@lynx.co.nz> wrote:

>In article <5h0890$h7d$1@euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au>, d-moss@adfa.oz.au
(David Moss) says:

>>"Yet in the letters and recordings in the publicity, the patients
>>indicate they had no intention of ending this suffering in the near
>>future, unless forced to do so by the impending Senate vote."

>What a lot of rubbish! (Most of it snipped.) *Who* is going to
>force any patient who has signed with their doctor that when
>the time is ripe they want help - *who* is going to force them
>to go to their deaths, if they're still able to make decisions
>for themselves and don't feel they are ready for receiving
>the help, despite whatever the level of pain and discomfort
>they are in for the time being. Who, or what?

Human nature, Brian.  Eventually, the temptation to cut a few corners
to get to the old fart's estate or trim a few dollars off the health
care budget will cause some people to just bump them off either by
coercion, persuasion, the planting of doubt in the patient's mind or
by taking the approach extolled by Nike.

Reg.

-- 
----------------------------------------------------------
Friends help you move.  Real friends help you move bodies.

In article <5h0890$h7d$1@euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au>, d-moss@adfa.oz.au wrote:

> Euthanasia Lobby exposes RTI Dangers
> 
> "Recent publicity from the Australian pro-euthanasia lobby, intended
> to win Senators emotions, may backfire boosting support for the
> anti-euthanasia Andrews Bill."
>  
> "The publicity campaign featured pleas from patients who have all the
> necessary paperwork signed, but are not yet ready to end their lives.
> Euthanasia advocates have been using letters, and even voice
> recordings from patients to apply emotional pressure on  the eve of
> the Andrews Bill vote."
> 
> "Instead they have exposed some fundamental flaws in the world's first
> euthanasia law, the Northern Territory's Rights of the Terminally Ill
> Act 1995."
> 
> "All of these patients convinced their doctor they were experiencing
> pain, suffering and/or distress to an unacceptable extent. This is the
> first and most basic requirement under the RTI Act. "
> 
> "Yet in the letters and recordings in the publicity, the patients
> indicate they had no intention of ending this suffering in the near
> future, unless forced to do so by the impending Senate vote."
> 
> "The patients are clearly willing to accept their level of pain,
> suffering or distress at this time, so the question must be asked:
> 'why did their doctor sign the paperwork in the first place?'"

A person may know that they want to avail themselves of the NT law
and be in (some) pain - but not want to make a mad dash for the end
right now.   

Quit twisting things David.... It does no good to your cause!

Yiet

In Message-ID <5h0890$h7d$1@euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au>,
d-moss@adfa.oz.au (David Moss) wrote:-

>Euthanasia Lobby exposes RTI Dangers

>"Recent publicity from the Australian pro-euthanasia lobby, intended
>to win Senators emotions, may backfire boosting support for the
>anti-euthanasia Andrews Bill."
> 
>"The publicity campaign featured pleas from patients who have all the
>necessary paperwork signed, but are not yet ready to end their lives.
>Euthanasia advocates have been using letters, and even voice
>recordings from patients to apply emotional pressure on  the eve of
>the Andrews Bill vote."

>"Instead they have exposed some fundamental flaws in the world's first
>euthanasia law, the Northern Territory's Rights of the Terminally Ill
>Act 1995."

>"All of these patients convinced their doctor they were experiencing
>pain, suffering and/or distress to an unacceptable extent. This is the
>first and most basic requirement under the RTI Act. "

>"Yet in the letters and recordings in the publicity, the patients
>indicate they had no intention of ending this suffering in the near
>future, unless forced to do so by the impending Senate vote."

>"The patients are clearly willing to accept their level of pain,
>suffering or distress at this time, so the question must be asked:
>'why did their doctor sign the paperwork in the first place?'"

>"Insufficient safeguards against inappropriate access leave the RTI
>Act seriously flawed."

>"Another glaring weakness exposed is accountability for what happens
>when a patient rescinds a request under the RTI Act."

>"The statements in the letters and recordings clearly show the
>patients do not wish to be 'assisted' to die at this time."

>"The RTI Act is very clear about the procedure should the patient
>decide he/she does not want to proceed."

>"Yet instead of destroying the paperwork as required by the Act, we
>are seeing these patients held hostage to the pro-euthanasia lobby's
>demands on the Senate."

>"If the pro-euthanasia lobby is willing to thumb its nose at the
>existing safeguards in the act in order to attract publicity, what
>hope do we have that these safeguards will be applied when no-one is
>looking ?"

>"Even the financial safeguards built into the RTI Act barely survived
>its first use."

>"The Voluntary Euthanasia Fighting Fund which has so far raised in
>excess of $6000 coincidentally has an advertisement on the
>"Deliverance" Internet site, the only place in the world Dr Philip
>Nitschke announces details of deaths under the RTI Act."

>"By exclusively announcing details alongside a request for donations
>to his passionate cause, Dr Nitschke may well be in breach  of the RTI
>Act."

>"The pro-euthanasia lobby's publicity campaign has backfired badly"

>"Their publicity highlights just how badly the controversial
>legislation is already being misused."

>"Australian Senators are due to vote on a Bill to overturn the RTI Act
>on Monday, and by exposing widespread misuse of the RTI Act at the
>last moment, the pro-euthanasia lobby may well have sealed its fate."

Gad, what is this stuff? Just who or what are you quoting here,
David????


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

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

>> What we have seen however, is the Act being used as an insurance
>> policy against fear. People who are obviously willing to tolerate
>> their level of pain or suffering are "signing up" to be killed later,
>> if the need arises.

>That is how it should be. The process of having got all the signatures
>takes quite a few months to get. 

Bulls**t !
I can believe it may take some time to find a trio of doctors willing
to believe transparent lies, but if the law is used properly it should
have been quite streamlined.

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

step 2: get a specialist in your terminal illness to confirm the diagnosis
of the terminal illness.

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

step 4: wait 7 days, then someone can sign the papers.

step 5 wait 48 hours, then someone can kill you.

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

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


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. 

The suffering must be unacceptable to the patient..
Thats the way the Act is written, but its already being misused.

In the few months it takes to get all the legal
>requirements, how much extra suffering must these people take.

Months only if you have to search for medicos who disregard the law.
The RTI Act itself only requires 9 days to satisfy it.
(less than the cooling off period for door-to-door sales contracts)

>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?

>In my opinion I think people who had "signed up" were aware that they
>could be mentally uncapable in the future. That is when these people
>would no longer like to live and to stop their families seeing them in
>such a condition. 

Thats quite an assumption. People change their minds all the time.


>> If you read the RTI Act you will learn that a signed request is like a
>> sword of Damocles. It is not up to the patient when or how it drops,
>> but the doctor. The patient does not even have to be conscious.

>The patient (or it's legal authority in case of mental incapacity) does
>have to be concious to in fact press the return button to inject the
>necessary medicines. 

Sorry Jim, you are wrong. Yet another victim of the pro-euthanasia lobby's
publicity campaign surrounding the RTI Act. Certainly all deaths which
occured so far used a laptop PC and patient involvement, but the Act
does not specify it be done that way. Nitschke could have quite legally
injected lethal drugs into the IV drip of a sleeping patient 48 hours
after the ink was dry on the papers.

If the act had said what you state and the act was
>still in force, if such a case occured then the courts would make a
>change to the act.

Sorry Jim, courts cannot change an Act of Parliament. Only an amendment
by the enacting parliament, or override by a superior parliament can
change an Act.

Perhaps you should have helped oppose the RTI Act, now that you are
aware of how dangerous it really was.

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

David Moss wrote:
> 
> Euthanasia Lobby exposes RTI Dangers
> 
> "Recent publicity from the Australian pro-euthanasia lobby, intended
> to win Senators emotions, may backfire boosting support for the
> anti-euthanasia Andrews Bill."
> 
> "The publicity campaign featured pleas from patients who have all the
> necessary paperwork signed, but are not yet ready to end their lives.
> Euthanasia advocates have been using letters, and even voice
> recordings from patients to apply emotional pressure on  the eve of
> the Andrews Bill vote."
> 
> "Instead they have exposed some fundamental flaws in the world's first
> euthanasia law, the Northern Territory's Rights of the Terminally Ill
> Act 1995."
> 
> "All of these patients convinced their doctor they were experiencing
> pain, suffering and/or distress to an unacceptable extent. This is the
> first and most basic requirement under the RTI Act. "
> 
> "Yet in the letters and recordings in the publicity, the patients
> indicate they had no intention of ending this suffering in the near
> future, unless forced to do so by the impending Senate vote."
> 
> "The patients are clearly willing to accept their level of pain,
> suffering or distress at this time, so the question must be asked:
> 'why did their doctor sign the paperwork in the first place?'"

Yes, they are willing to accept their level of pain at the moment. It
still could be to a large degree for which there are a lot of drugs that
can relieve this pain. But the core of the act was to enable this
patients to have the right to die at a time of their own undertaking.
The pain might not be bad enough at the moment (even though in a normal
person's mind it could be extreme) but it could get worse. They had
gotten all the necessary paperwork out of the way now that they are
capable to do so, so when they are not capable of living an ordinary
life anymore, they can die.

> "Another glaring weakness exposed is accountability for what happens
> when a patient rescinds a request under the RTI Act."
> 
> "The statements in the letters and recordings clearly show the
> patients do not wish to be 'assisted' to die at this time."

The patients do want to be assisted to die, but as you say not at this
particular time. That does not mean the paperwork should be destroyed.
Once again, the core of the act is for the patients to die with dignity
at a time of their chosing. So they had done all the legal requirements
now so they can die when they choose to. but now it is too late.

In my opinion Euthanasia should be allowed (it is practised in hospitals
here in Melbourne unofficially, as was stated in an open letter by nine
doctors to the age when the law was first introduced into the NT
parliament).

It was obivous the Andrews Bill would have been passed but I still feel
the two patients who had the legal requirements done should have been an
exception the anti-euthanasia law.

One day this law will be passed in a state, and then the Federal
parliament will have no constitutional power to override the law. Until
that day there will be a lot of unnecessary suffering by a lot of
people. 
Not only will those people be affected but also there family and friends
who will have to see them go through this pain.
Euthanasia has and always will be done illegally throughout Australia
and the world (and no DPP will ever prosecute). So why can't it just be
law?

Jim (expressing his own personal opinion)
-- 
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

> What we have seen however, is the Act being used as an insurance
> policy against fear. People who are obviously willing to tolerate
> their level of pain or suffering are "signing up" to be killed later,
> if the need arises.

That is how it should be. The process of having got all the signatures
takes quite a few months to get. 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. In the few months it takes to get all the legal
requirements, how much extra suffering must these people take.
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?

> An even more macabre possibility is that a patient's mental condition
> may deteriorate to the point of incompetence, leading to the situation
> that a person could be killed who is clearly incompetent to take a
> life and death decision. The fact they took out an "insurance policy"
> against fear earlier in their illness is no consolation, they would be
> unable to reasonably agree at the end, yet they could be killed
> anyway.

In my opinion I think people who had "signed up" were aware that they
could be mentally uncapable in the future. That is when these people
would no longer like to live and to stop their families seeing them in
such a condition. The people that took out these so called insurance
policies have made the decision to die. That is one prerequisite to
getting all the signatures. You must be sure that you want to end your
life in the near future (thats why you need a psychologists signature).
I am definitely sure that they would not want to live if they can't make
decisions for themselves.

> If you read the RTI Act you will learn that a signed request is like a
> sword of Damocles. It is not up to the patient when or how it drops,
> but the doctor. The patient does not even have to be conscious.

The patient (or it's legal authority in case of mental incapacity) does
have to be concious to in fact press the return button to inject the
necessary medicines. If the act had said what you state and the act was
still in force, if such a case occured then the courts would make a
change to the act.

An Act of Parliament is a guide to the law. It is then up to the courts
to specify the law if a problem occurs with the act.

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 you are so full of shit.

David Moss wrote:

> Sorry Jim, courts cannot change an Act of Parliament. Only an amendment
> by the enacting parliament, or override by a superior parliament can
> change an Act.

Courts cannot change an act of parliament but they are their to
interpret the act of parliament. That is the basis of what I'm getting
at. There is no act of parliament that has been written so perfect that
there will never be a day for the courts to interpret the meaning of the
section. Once the section has been interpreted in one way, other courts
will follow under the doctrine of precedence. The courts can in fact
make laws in relation to an act when they are asked to interpret a
section of the act that is unclear.
Therefore, courts can change the interpretation of a certain act of
parliament.

A superiot parliament, like the federal parliament, can only change acts
of a lower parliament if they have the power to do so. An area such as
euthanasia is under the health area. This area is the sole
responsibility of the states. The federal parliament has no say in the
matter.
 
> Perhaps you should have helped oppose the RTI Act, now that you are
> aware of how dangerous it really was.

Get Stuffed. What a load of shit.

I do admit, if what you say is right in terms of the wording of the act,
that their is area for abuse. However, the first sign of abuse and then
I am sure the DPP will lay charges against such person. This matter
would then have probably reached the Supreme Court for interpretation of
the Act of Parliament.
Courts have been directed to interpret an act on the basis on what the
act is trying to do. They are not necessarily required to follow an act
word for word (and must not if the result would be ludicrous)and can
make a finding based on what the purpose of the act was, using a number
of tools of interpretation such as parliamentary debates. These would
have shown that the purpose of the act was to assist terminally ill
patients who wanted to die.

Stop looking at the act word for word as the act would never have been
upheld in a court of law on a word for word basis (as they are required
to interpret on the purpose of the act)


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