🚀 go-pugleaf

Iain Jameson wrote:
> 
> A third person - a 69 yeal old man -  used the
> Northern Territory law to end his life on Monday.
> 
> Interesting that it only made page 5 of the
> Adelaide Advertiser.
> 
> Iain.

Well it made the front page of the Australian. along with follow-up
articles inside.

My feeling is that the sooner the whole subject becomes of less interest
to the media
the more opportunity there will be for those seeking this option to do
so without
the added burden of sensationalism.

Anyone who makes such an enormous decision must be in a desperate
situation.  Given
that it cannot be acted on legally without close scrutiny by competent
suppliers of the means to achieve the desired result, I do not subscribe
to the view that it is a
matter with which outsiders should concern themselves.

So roll on the time euthanasia is left to those personally involved;
this would be so much more manageable for the unfortunate people who
choose to make the ultimate irrevocable decision.

Bill wrote:
> 
> In article <32E6CA58.3B75@dsto.defence.gov.au>,
> Iain.Jamesonx@dsto.defence.gov.au says...
> >
> >A third person - a 69 yeal old man -  used the
> >Northern Territory law to end his life on Monday.
> >
> >He was dying from stomach cancer.
> >
> >As usual, the anti-euthanasia brigade have deplored
> >this action.
> 
> Hell if these group of people have terminal illness would
> they reconsider their position .Euthanasia give us a choice
> to die , when it is no longer worth the pain to live . If these
> anti euthanasia brigade don't like it , then don't use it .
> Simple as that .
> >
> >The rest of us acknowledge his right.
> >Well, I do anyway.
> >
> >Interesting that it only made page 5 of the
> >Adelaide Advertiser.
> >
> >Iain.Bill,
I feel that you are diffenitely on the right track when you said that if 
people are against euthanasia, then don't use it. I suppose these same 
people that are against this would also let a dog with cancer or been hit 
by a car lay there to rely on it's own resources. If you are willing to 
mask the pain the person or animal is in with medicine, without any hope 
of recovery, why not let them out of their pain totally? I feel it is 
totally barbaric to make someone suffer for months or years waiting for 
the outcome that they know is waiting for them any way. Those of you that 
don't agree with euthanasia, apparently you have never had a loved one 
suffer for months trying to get thru to the end, death. Where is your 
compassion for our fellow human beings?

Cindy

In article <32E6CA58.3B75@dsto.defence.gov.au>, 
Iain.Jamesonx@dsto.defence.gov.au says...
>
>A third person - a 69 yeal old man -  used the 
>Northern Territory law to end his life on Monday.
>
>He was dying from stomach cancer.
>
>As usual, the anti-euthanasia brigade have deplored
>this action.

Hell if these group of people have terminal illness would
they reconsider their position .Euthanasia give us a choice 
to die , when it is no longer worth the pain to live . If these
anti euthanasia brigade don't like it , then don't use it .
Simple as that .
>
>The rest of us acknowledge his right.
>Well, I do anyway.
>
>Interesting that it only made page 5 of the
>Adelaide Advertiser.
>
>Iain.

Iain Jameson <Iain.Jamesonx@dsto.defence.gov.au> wrote:

>The rest of us acknowledge his right.
>Well, I do anyway.

I acknowledge his right too - he acted in a totally legal fashion.
What concerns me is the potential for the right to become an
obligation for those not as self-prepossed as this individual
undoubtably was.

>Interesting that it only made page 5 of the
>Adelaide Advertiser.

I guess we are become de-sensitised to it already, huh?

>Iain.


God Bless,

Patrick Canion
Pastor, Manning Assembly of God, Western Australia
pspat@iinet.net.au

pspat@opera.iinet.net.au (Patrick Canion) writes:

>I acknowledge his right too - he acted in a totally legal fashion.
>What concerns me is the potential for the right to become an
>obligation for those not as self-prepossed as this individual
>undoubtably was.

There is certainly a risk that such an atrocity may occur. The risk of 
this atrocity, however, does not justify the certainty of many others: 

- the certainty of prolonged merciless torture of the dying, 40% of
whom, according to a recent US survey, will experience extreme pain for
many days before they die;

- the certainty of unregulated involuntary euthanasia by benevolent but
mistaken doctors and nurses, who have admitted that euthanasia is
regularly practiced, law or no law;

- the certainty of the emotional and financial devastation that such
prolonged suffering inflicts on the families of the dying.

Obviously there are many risks involved in all this. If a patient is
mentally competent, however, then we can only assume that they themselves
are the most suitable person to weigh up these risks and determine a course
of action. To take this right away from patients is not to eliminate the
risk of an atrocity - it is to guarantee that atrocities are commonplace.

-- 
| mailto:pete@zip.com.au | pgp DB 3A A3 D8 A7 6A BB 25 EF 2E F4 A4 8F 29 BB E2 |
| http://www.zip.com.au/~pete/ |         Give away what you don't need.        |

Peter Merel <pete@zip.com.au> wrote:

>pspat@opera.iinet.net.au (Patrick Canion) writes:

>>I acknowledge his right too - he acted in a totally legal fashion.
>>What concerns me is the potential for the right to become an
>>obligation for those not as self-prepossed as this individual
>>undoubtably was.

>There is certainly a risk that such an atrocity may occur. The risk of 
>this atrocity, however, does not justify the certainty of many others: 

I guess this assessment is the crux of my opposition to VE (and
perhaps one of the main objections to having it legalised).  I'm not
quite as quixotic in my conclusion as you are.

It will be interesting to see what the view of the Senate is!

>-- 
>| mailto:pete@zip.com.au | pgp DB 3A A3 D8 A7 6A BB 25 EF 2E F4 A4 8F 29 BB E2 |
>| http://www.zip.com.au/~pete/ |         Give away what you don't need.        |



God Bless,

Patrick Canion
Pastor, Manning Assembly of God, Western Australia
pspat@iinet.net.au

Cindy Chaney <"lindenk@se-iowa.net"@se-iowa.net> wrote:

>I feel that you are diffenitely on the right track when you said that if 
>people are against euthanasia, then don't use it. I suppose these same 
>people that are against this would also let a dog with cancer or been hit 
>by a car lay there to rely on it's own resources. 

No, we would not Cindy. Reason being because we value the life of a
dog much less than that of a human. So we kill it quickly and
humanely, rather than go through the expense of treatment, time spent
in looking after it and the emotional cost of supporting it.
Remember though, we also "euthanise" dogs when they become
inconvenient. When they get old and messy. When our lifestyle changes
and they no longer fit in with our plans. When we want to go on
holiday without worrying about their care and feeding, or its too
expensive to have someone else do it.

When you bring up the old "we treat dogs better" story, please
consider _exactly_ how we treat dogs, and the many reasons we
"euthanise" them.

When you devalue a human life by permitting people to be "put down"
because we "treat dogs better",  you lubricate the top step of the
dreaded "slippery slope". 

>If you are willing to 
>mask the pain the person or animal is in with medicine, without any hope 
>of recovery, why not let them out of their pain totally?

If they wish to commit suicide, thats their choice.
If they want someone else to kill them, thats society's choice.

My research into the euthansasia issue has taught me that in almost
every case where a terminally ill person in pain has requested
physician assisted suicide, he/she has withdrawn the request as soon
as proper pain management was effected.

> I feel it is 
>totally barbaric to make someone suffer for months or years waiting for 
>the outcome that they know is waiting for them any way. Those of you that 
>don't agree with euthanasia, apparently you have never had a loved one 
>suffer for months trying to get thru to the end, death. Where is your 
>compassion for our fellow human beings?

My compassion extends to relieving their pain rather than killing
them.  Would you not rather permit your loved one to enjoy your
company for as much of the short time they have left ?  Or are you the
sort of persn who would simply snuff them out and then have your hair
done in the time you saved ?

We often hear this "relatives in agony for months" saga from the
pro-euthanasia camp. Much better they take their bloodthirsty thumb
off the "green needle" plunger and hand the pain management job over
to someone who cares about a person rather than an agenda.




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

David Moss (d-moss@adfa.oz.au) wrote:
>My research into the euthansasia issue has taught me that in almost
                                                              ^^^^^^
This is the operative word here.

>every case where a terminally ill person in pain has requested
>physician assisted suicide, he/she has withdrawn the request as soon
>as proper pain management was effected.
>
>> I feel it is 
>>totally barbaric to make someone suffer for months or years waiting for 
>>the outcome that they know is waiting for them any way. Those of you that 
>>don't agree with euthanasia, apparently you have never had a loved one 
>>suffer for months trying to get thru to the end, death. Where is your 
>>compassion for our fellow human beings?
>
>My compassion extends to relieving their pain rather than killing
>them.

Even Hypocrates (as in Hypocratic Oath) performed euthanasia. If he
couldn't devise a treatment for an ailment, he would prescribe poison.

>We often hear this "relatives in agony for months" saga from the
>pro-euthanasia camp. Much better they take their bloodthirsty thumb
>off the "green needle" plunger and hand the pain management job over
>to someone who cares about a person rather than an agenda.

One of the jobs of a doctor is to relieve suffering. If modern medecine is
unable to do this, what are the alternatives? 

Cheers
David

s325282@student.uq.edu.au (Bill) wrote:

>Hell if these group of people have terminal illness would
>they reconsider their position .Euthanasia give us a choice 
>to die , when it is no longer worth the pain to live . If these
>anti euthanasia brigade don't like it , then don't use it .
>Simple as that .

Fraid its not as simple as that Bill.
Check out
http://octarine.cc.adfa.oz.au/~dmoss/living/resource/kevorkia.htm
for a chilling example of how your "choice to die" has already been
perverted in the good ole US of A.

BTW, did you know morphine has no upper threshold limit to pain
relieving action ? I didn't till I read around a bit. 

Cheers,


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

pspat@opera.iinet.net.au (Patrick Canion) writes:

>Peter Merel <pete@zip.com.au> wrote:

>>There is certainly a risk that such an atrocity may occur. The risk of 
>>this atrocity, however, does not justify the certainty of many others: 

>I guess this assessment is the crux of my opposition to VE (and
>perhaps one of the main objections to having it legalised).  

That its risk is outweighed by the horrible certainty of the consequences
without it? I'm afraid you're not making yourself clear - I infer but do
not understand how you imagine the risk outweighs the certainties - explain
please.

>I'm not quite as quixotic in my conclusion as you are.

How is hating torture quixotic? 

-- 
| mailto:pete@zip.com.au | pgp DB 3A A3 D8 A7 6A BB 25 EF 2E F4 A4 8F 29 BB E2 |
| http://www.zip.com.au/~pete/ |         Give away what you don't need.        |

dbromage@metz.une.edu.au (David Bromage) wrote:

>Even Hypocrates (as in Hypocratic Oath) performed euthanasia. If he
>couldn't devise a treatment for an ailment, he would prescribe poison.

Then perhaps Hippocrates was a hypocrit ?

From the Hippocratic Oath:
"I will not give a fatal draught to anyone if I am asked, nor will I
suggest any such thing. neither will I give a woman means to
procure an abortion. "

Hmmm, seems there are a lot of hypocrits around nowadays !

>One of the jobs of a doctor is to relieve suffering. If modern medecine is
>unable to do this, what are the alternatives? 

If you don't know how to do the job yourself, swallow your pride and
ask someone who can. I do it all the time in my line of work, often
knowing _who_ is more useful to my job than knowing _how_.

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

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

>we value the life of a
>dog much less than that of a human. So we kill it quickly and
>humanely, rather than go through the expense of treatment, time spent
>in looking after it and the emotional cost of supporting it.

Most first world people spend a great deal more money on feeding and
maintaining their family pets than they do on the poor. In the world
today there are more than 1.2 billion people with incomes under a dollar
a day; this is already less than is spent feeding a small dog. When you
factor in the cost of grooming, housing, litter and veterinary you'll
see that people really don't value the lives of their pets less
than "a human" - they just value them less than they do their own family.

Okay, chalk that one up to basic human selfishness, but don't we kill
our pets because they're too much trouble? Well, I can't speak for
folks around David's neighbourhood, but no, no one I know has ever 
killed a _pet_ to "save trouble". 

People kill animals for food, because they're pests, or just out of
sheer bloody-mindedness. Some people acquire an animal with the
intention of making it a pet but don't have the emotional capability to
do so and kill it on this account.

Pets, real pets, are special. People get attached to them, love them,
and will go to extraordinary lengths to care for them. When a real pet
is put to sleep, it is generally a decision filled with anguish and only
considered when the owner has no alternative that will spare their
beloved suffering. This is indeed euthanasia: the motive is love and
compassion, not expedience.  With regard to real pets, we certainly do
seem to "treat dogs better".

>When you devalue a human life by permitting people to be "put down"
>because we "treat dogs better",  you lubricate the top step of the
>dreaded "slippery slope". 

You speak as if "the slippery slope" were more than a fallacy. No one so
far has introduced a single piece of historical data to lend real support 
to this argument. If you really think that chalk can spontaneously turn to
cheese, let's have some kind of realistic scenario in which it can: start
with the RTI laws and show how you expect them to degrade, and justify 
each degradation by considering popular support and popular opposition to it.
If you can't explain how you think this could happen, you can't expect us to
consider it more than a macabre fantasy.

>If they wish to commit suicide, thats their choice.
>If they want someone else to kill them, thats society's choice.

Then you support physician-assisted suicide? I seem to recall that you
don't.  Frankly, I don't see why any victimless crime should be
society's concern, and this seems to be a thoroughly victimless crime:
the dying person benefits by determining their own fate, and the
assistant benefits by the exercise of their compassion. Why should
society then concern itself?

>My research into the euthansasia issue has taught me that in almost
>every case where a terminally ill person in pain has requested
>physician assisted suicide, he/she has withdrawn the request as soon
>as proper pain management was effected.

Figures please, David - I recall your thinking that a few gun-nut emails
were statistically significant on that issue - let's have the results of
any formal poll that backs your contention here, not handwaving.

Also, please explain why the choice of one dying person should be
impressed on some other dying person who does not share their beliefs
and experiences.

Also, please explain why the right to suicide, which you agree is enjoyed
by the healthy, should be taken from those few people who have a rational
desire to avail themselves of it.

>We often hear this "relatives in agony for months" saga from the
>pro-euthanasia camp. Much better they take their bloodthirsty thumb
>off the "green needle" plunger and hand the pain management job over
>to someone who cares about a person rather than an agenda.

40% of the dying experience severe, unmanageable pain on a regular basis.
When they're not experiencing this pain, this 40% are generally doped to
the eyeballs: their existence is a cycle of agony and unconsciousness.

If you care about a person, you respect their choices; if your don't
respect their choices, you don't care. What you're promoting is the
institutionalized torture of those for whom pain management is a joke.
Reread Dent's and Mills's accounts of their suffering, and then explain
why we should not respect their choices.

-- 
| mailto:pete@zip.com.au | pgp DB 3A A3 D8 A7 6A BB 25 EF 2E F4 A4 8F 29 BB E2 |
| http://www.zip.com.au/~pete/ |         Give away what you don't need.        |

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

>Fraid its not as simple as that Bill.
>Check out
>http://octarine.cc.adfa.oz.au/~dmoss/living/resource/kevorkia.htm
>for a chilling example of how your "choice to die" has already been
>perverted in the good ole US of A.

An excellent example of how a lack of regulation leads to abuse. If Ruth
Klooster had been attempting this under the NT law, she would not have
succeeded. By opposing these laws, you're promoting exactly this kind
of abuse.

But it's also worth noting that the article has no evidence that
Kevorkian would have cooperated with Ruth Klooster - and that seems to
make this article rather a slur on Kevorkian. Does anyone know what
criteria Kevorkian uses to determine which patients he will accept?

-- 
| mailto:pete@zip.com.au | pgp DB 3A A3 D8 A7 6A BB 25 EF 2E F4 A4 8F 29 BB E2 |
| http://www.zip.com.au/~pete/ |         Give away what you don't need.        |

David Moss (d-moss@adfa.oz.au) wrote:
>dbromage@metz.une.edu.au (David Bromage) wrote:
>>One of the jobs of a doctor is to relieve suffering. If modern medecine is
>>unable to do this, what are the alternatives? 
>
>If you don't know how to do the job yourself, swallow your pride and
>ask someone who can. I do it all the time in my line of work, often
>knowing _who_ is more useful to my job than knowing _how_.

There comes a point where there is nothing more which can be done. If
you've got terminal cancer the only thing which can be done is to keep
giving morphine to relieve the pain, and prolonged treatment with morphine
will kill you anyway.

Cheers
David

Peter Merel <pete@zip.com.au> wrote:

>>Peter Merel <pete@zip.com.au> wrote:
>>There is certainly a risk that such an atrocity may occur. The risk of 
>>this atrocity, however, does not justify the certainty of many others: 
 
I wrote:

>>I guess this assessment is the crux of my opposition to VE (and
>>perhaps one of the main objections to having it legalised).  

>That its risk is outweighed by the horrible certainty of the consequences
>without it? I'm afraid you're not making yourself clear - I infer but do
>not understand how you imagine the risk outweighs the certainties - explain
>please.

Sorry, I guess my earlier postings stay fresh in my mind while
forgotten by others.  From a Christian perspective of eternity the
legalisation of VE will see people dying sooner.  From a perspective
of evangelisation this means that the chances of someone dying before
hearing and accepting the gospel are increased.  That means more
people will miss out on eternity in Paradise because of the
legalisation of VE, and ANYTHING is better than that, even accepting
that some will therefore suffer more on earth because it is not
legalised.  Not to mention the (IMO) inevitable moral consequences on
society of becoming de-sensitised to accelerated death.


>>I'm not quite as quixotic in my conclusion as you are.

>How is hating torture quixotic? 

Peter, you are an intelligent man - I wasn't referring to hating
torture, merely your evaluation of the equation you positted.  I hate
the fact that anyone has to suffer pain and indignity at any time of
their lives.  I can't change that, but I can tell people about how
Someone has changed where they can spend eternity.

-- 
     Give away what you don't need.        |

BTW, excellent advice!


God Bless,

Patrick Canion
Pastor, Manning Assembly of God, Western Australia
pspat@iinet.net.au

Peter Merel <pete@zip.com.au> wrote:

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

>>Fraid its not as simple as that Bill.
>>Check out
>>http://octarine.cc.adfa.oz.au/~dmoss/living/resource/kevorkia.htm
>>for a chilling example of how your "choice to die" has already been
>>perverted in the good ole US of A.

>An excellent example of how a lack of regulation leads to abuse. If Ruth
>Klooster had been attempting this under the NT law, she would not have
>succeeded.

All it takes is a couple of co-operative doctors, and don't try to
tell me it can't be done. My wife's grandfather had a "co-operative"
doctor sign his fitness to drive certificate year after year, long
after he was too blind to read a newspaper. 

> By opposing these laws, you're promoting exactly this kind
>of abuse.

Wrong Peter, by opposing the RTI Act I am ensuring that _any_ instance
of one person deliberately killing another remains illegal. No
exceptions means no misinterpretations.

>But it's also worth noting that the article has no evidence that
>Kevorkian would have cooperated with Ruth Klooster - and that seems to
>make this article rather a slur on Kevorkian. Does anyone know what
>criteria Kevorkian uses to determine which patients he will accept?

Glad you asked Peter. The answer gives us an insight into what we may
be letting ourselves in for by legalising euthanasia..

From the WWW resource http://www.iaetf.org/fctkev.htm

"In March 1990, a Detroit paper carried an article stating:

 Applications are being accepted. Oppressed by a fatal disease, a
severe handicap, a crippling deformity?
 Write Box 261, Royal Oak, Mich. 48068-0261. Show him proper
compelling medical evidence that you should die, and Dr. Jack
Kevorkian will help you kill yourself, free of charge." (8)"

Sounds like careful selection to me, lets look at how the might have
been vetted.

From the same resource:

"Doesn't Jack Kevorkian limit his services to the terminally ill who
are not depressed?

Definitely not.

"Terminally ill," as defined in most proposals to legalize euthanasia
and assisted suicide, means a life expectancy of six months or less.
(54) Yet the majority of Jack Kevorkian's "patients" did not fall
within the meaning of "terminally ill." (Kevorkian has defined
terminal illness as "any disease that curtails life even for a day."
(55) His attorney, Geoffrey Fieger, has written, "Any disease that
curtails life-span is terminal."(56) 

     He has testified that, if a person is depressed over illness or
disability, "the depression becomes irrelevant. "(57)

     He has written that the deaths of sick or disabled people would
benefit society:

          "[T]he voluntary self-elimination of individual and mortally
diseased or crippled lives taken collectively can  only enhance the
preservation of public health and welfare." (58)

     When questioned by Time magazine, Kevorkian said that doctors
will decide who dies: 

     Q. How do you decide whom to help? Does the patient have to
suffer from a life-threatening illness?

     A. No, of course not. And it doesn't have to be painful, as with
quadriplegia. But your life quality has to be nil. 

     Q. And who decides that?

     A. That's up to physicians, and nobody can gainsay what doctors
say. It all boils down to the integrity of the  doctors....

     Q. What about people who suffer emotionally and want to die?

     A. ...Once this gets going as a practice for physically
debilitated people, the psychiatrists are going to have a whopping job
because it is going to be up to them to decide how this fits into
their field. (59)

Twenty-seven people died from June 1990 through January 1996 using one
of Jack Kevorkian's machines."






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

Peter Merel <pete@zip.com.au> wrote:

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

>Okay, chalk that one up to basic human selfishness, but don't we kill
>our pets because they're too much trouble? Well, I can't speak for
>folks around David's neighbourhood, but no, no one I know has ever 
>killed a _pet_ to "save trouble". 

You obviously lack life experience Peter. Not everyone is "nice".
Ask the RSPCA how many animals they "put down" at holiday time.
My 12 year old daughter did a school project on dogs last year. She
emulates my research methods, and thanks to the marvels of data
storage I can tell you 750  unwanted dogs passed through the
Queanbeyan City Pound in 1995, of which 500 were destroyed.
(The rest were recycled to new owners) Queanbeyan Pound has
recieving cages open to the public 24 hours a day in an effort to curb
"dumping".

It grieves me to think that someone naive enough to think large
numbers of people do not have unwanted pets euthanised argues that RTI
will not be misused from the same naivety.

To quote a human example in anticipation of your challenge:

"A middle-aged man requested euthanasia for his elderly, dying father
so he could bury his dad before going on holiday. That kind of request
is easily made, and granted, once a country opens the door to
euthanasia, ... Dr. Karel Gunning ... said acolleague told him about
receiving this request and trying to oblige the son by giving the
father a huge dose of morphine. It failed to kill the sick man, who
was found sitting up happily in bed that evening. Gunning said the
episode "just shows you the mentality" in the Netherlands ....
[Pitfalls of euthanasia cited, Ailing father death target, by Rebecca
Wigod, Vancouver Sun, 4.10.94: B1.]"

If you are not convinced by now, Peter,  you are beyond the reach of
reasonable persuasion. 

>>When you devalue a human life by permitting people to be "put down"
>>because we "treat dogs better",  you lubricate the top step of the
>>dreaded "slippery slope". 

>You speak as if "the slippery slope" were more than a fallacy. No one so
>far has introduced a single piece of historical data to lend real support 
>to this argument.

9% of deaths in the Netherlands are now due to euthanasia.

Although you will undoubtably "call foul" I evoke the T4 programme
in Nazi Germany as a historical example of out of control euthanasia.
(Even NAZI leaders tried unsuccessfully to stop it) To read a little
of the horror of the T4 programme see:
http://octarine.cc.adfa.oz.au/~dmoss/living/resource/nazit4.txt

> If you really think that chalk can spontaneously turn to
>cheese, let's have some kind of realistic scenario in which it can: start
>with the RTI laws and show how you expect them to degrade, and justify 
>each degradation by considering popular support and popular opposition to it.
>If you can't explain how you think this could happen, you can't expect us to
>consider it more than a macabre fantasy.

Elsewhere in this newsgroup I have indicated the first step on the
slippery slope will be legalised euthanasia of mentally incompetent
patients who indicate their wishes before mental deterioration takes
place, perhaps even in writing. Find it, and refute it if you can.

>>If they wish to commit suicide, thats their choice.
>>If they want someone else to kill them, thats society's choice.

>Then you support physician-assisted suicide? 

No. Why do you suppose I follow these threads ?

>I seem to recall that you
>don't.  Frankly, I don't see why any victimless crime should be
>society's concern, and this seems to be a thoroughly victimless crime:
>the dying person benefits by determining their own fate, and the
>assistant benefits by the exercise of their compassion. Why should
>society then concern itself?

Killing another person is not victimless on account of willingness by
the victim, except in the NT when carried out in accordance with the
RTI Act. 

>>My research into the euthansasia issue has taught me that in almost
>>every case where a terminally ill person in pain has requested
>>physician assisted suicide, he/she has withdrawn the request as soon
>>as proper pain management was effected.

>Figures please, David - I recall your thinking that a few gun-nut emails
>were statistically significant on that issue - let's have the results of
>any formal poll that backs your contention here, not handwaving.

From the talarian guide:
"Clinicians in a pain clinic report seeing many patients who
considered suicide who changed their minds once given adequate
pain relief (Foley, 1991)." (Doctor Kathleen Foley is Chief of Pain
Services at the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York)

To quote Dr Foley from this reference:
"We frequently see patients referred to our Pain Clinic who request
physician-assisted suicide because of uncontrolled pain. We commonly
see such ideation and requests dissolve with adequate control of pain
and other symptoms, using combinations of pharmacologic,
neurosurgical, anesthetic, or psychological approaches."

". According to a 1992 manual produced by the Washing ton Medical
Association, Pain Management and Care of the Terminal Patient,
"adequate  interventions exist to control pain in 90 to 99% of
patients.""

Oh yes, and speaking of odd statistics, of the hundreds of letters,
phone calls and faxes he recieved before the lower house vote, 90%
were  anti-euthanasia according to one MP I interviewed recently.
He noted they were _not_ part of an orchestrated campaign, which is
fairly easy to pick out. Figure that one out.

>Also, please explain why the choice of one dying person should be
>impressed on some other dying person who does not share their beliefs
>and experiences.

As I said, anyone has the right to choose their own time of death.
They do not have the right to have someone else participate in causing
it. 

>Also, please explain why the right to suicide, which you agree is enjoyed
>by the healthy, should be taken from those few people who have a rational
>desire to avail themselves of it.

I suspect you mean people unable to carry out their wish to commit
suicide. Easy: because if someone else is involved it is not suicide !

>>We often hear this "relatives in agony for months" saga from the
>>pro-euthanasia camp. Much better they take their bloodthirsty thumb
>>off the "green needle" plunger and hand the pain management job over
>>to someone who cares about a person rather than an agenda.

>40% of the dying experience severe, unmanageable pain on a regular basis.
>When they're not experiencing this pain, this 40% are generally doped to
>the eyeballs: their existence is a cycle of agony and unconsciousness.

From "On Pain and Living - Chapter 8, Myths About Cancer Pain "
by David Cundiff, MD:

"Myth #4-- "Totally relieving cancer pain produces doped zombies
unable to think clearly or function normally."

Although patients may become unusually sleepy for two or three days
after beginning appropriate doses of oral morphine, they soon return
to being alert and mentally sharp. The morphine causes some of the
sleepiness. However, sleep deprivation because of the pain itself is
the most important factor. "

>If you care about a person, you respect their choices; if your don't
>respect their choices, you don't care. What you're promoting is the
>institutionalized torture of those for whom pain management is a joke.

>Reread Dent's and Mills's accounts of their suffering, and then explain
>why we should not respect their choices.

Number one obvious answer: because both Dent and Mills were capable of
ending their lives lawfully without using the RTI Act. Why do you
suppose articulate, visually evocative patients were chosen as the
test pilots for "Deadly Deliverance"?

Kevorkian in the USA ensured  good publicity for his "test pilot" as
illustrated by the following quote from International Anti-Euthanasia
Task Force's "The Real Jack Kevorkian" at
http://www.iaetf.org/fctkev.htm :

"One rejected "patient" was a woman with multiple sclerosis who, he
explained, was "not a suitable candidate for the first use of the
Mercitron [Kevorkian's death machine]" because her situation wouldn't
garner the favorable coverage he needed for the "initial event." (6)"

To round off I looked up "euthanasia" in the "Helping People Cope"
dictionary at OncoLink, University of Pennsylvania Cancer Center.
(http://oncolink.upenn.edu/psychosocial/cope/glossary.html) 
It wasn't listed.






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

dbromage@metz.une.edu.au (David Bromage) wrote:

>There comes a point where there is nothing more which can be done. If
>you've got terminal cancer the only thing which can be done is to keep
>giving morphine to relieve the pain, and prolonged treatment with morphine
>will kill you anyway.

A quote from David Cundiff MD, Hospice Physician in "On Pain and
Living - Chapter 8,  Myths About Cancer Pain"

"Recent research demonstrates that opioids can be used for years to
relieve severe pain from cancer. There is no reason to avoid strong
opioids for severe pain at any point in a cancer patient's illness. I
currently follow three cancer patients who have been on opioids for
more than five years with good pain control."



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

In article <5cfpiu$f5a$1@euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au>, d-moss@adfa.oz.au wrote:

|
|s325282@student.uq.edu.au (Bill) wrote:
|
|>Hell if these group of people have terminal illness would
|>they reconsider their position .Euthanasia give us a choice 
|>to die , when it is no longer worth the pain to live . If these
|>anti euthanasia brigade don't like it , then don't use it .
|>Simple as that .
|
|Fraid its not as simple as that Bill.
|Check out
|http://octarine.cc.adfa.oz.au/~dmoss/living/resource/kevorkia.htm
|for a chilling example of how your "choice to die" has already been
|perverted in the good ole US of A.
|
|BTW, did you know morphine has no upper threshold limit to pain
|relieving action ? I didn't till I read around a bit.

Sure, a lethal dose will relieve any pain, permanently.

Do you care to provide references for your "no upper threshold limit" 
statement, or should we just take you on faith?



----
Paul Colquhoun                              Ph:  +61 2 9850-0901
Systems Administrator                      fax:  +61 2 9850-0817
TPG Internet                             email:  pcolquh@tpgi.com.au

Unless otherwise stated, this message is NOT an official TPGi document

On Sun, 26 Jan 1997 14:56:45 GMT, d-moss@adfa.oz.au (David Moss)
wrote:

>s325282@student.uq.edu.au (Bill) wrote:
>
>>Hell if these group of people have terminal illness would
>>they reconsider their position .Euthanasia give us a choice 
>>to die , when it is no longer worth the pain to live . If these
>>anti euthanasia brigade don't like it , then don't use it .
>>Simple as that .
>
>Fraid its not as simple as that Bill.
>Check out
>http://octarine.cc.adfa.oz.au/~dmoss/living/resource/kevorkia.htm
>for a chilling example of how your "choice to die" has already been
>perverted in the good ole US of A.
>
>BTW, did you know morphine has no upper threshold limit to pain
>relieving action ? I didn't till I read around a bit. 

I've been steadfastly refusing to enter into this debate, but that
last sentence did it.
You may be right about the ability of morphine to relive pain David,
but I had to watch the way in which it does it just a few years ago.
The patient was my father, who was suffering from terminal lung
cancer.   I watched a proud, strong man reduced to an incoherent,
dribbling wreck by the massive doses of morphine it was taking to stop
the pain.  Near the end, he didn't know his wife, or any other member
of his family.  To see such a proud man in this state broke my heart,
and I know it was breaking his too.  Thankfully, the doctors did what
many have done before and administered that extra couple of cc's to
end it.
If you want to argue for strict controls, I'm right behind you.  But
knowing first hand what these people have suffered, I can't see how
anyone could deny that there comes a time when death with dignity is
the right thing. That's the problem with drugs, sure you stop the
pain, but the spirit dies faster for it.



Owen Dare

      owend@globec.com.au
http://www.globec.com.au/~owend/