🚀 go-pugleaf

aus.politics removed.

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

>Peter Tittelbach" <peterrt@gil.com.au> wrote:

>>David Moss <adm@ccadfa.cc.adfa.oz.au> wrote in article
>><adm.853473643@ccadfa>...
>>> gcairns@mtpost.apana.org.au (Graham Cairns) writes:
>>> Sniped
>>> >In <adm.852846446@ccadfa> adm@ccadfa.cc.adfa.oz.au (David Moss) writes:

>>>Sniped
>> 
>>> I really don't understand why people have to pretend to that
>>> euthanasia is not killing. There _are_ times when killing is
>>> justified, even necessary. I had to face that fact as part of my
>>> military service or forever consider myself a hypocrit.

>>  I really don't understand why we have to pretend that euthanasia is
>>killing. My dictionary definition says "the putting of a person to death
>>painlessly" Perhaps we should substitute "killing" with "the putting to
>>death of". Of course I don't expect david to agree with this as this would
>>leave his argument without melodrama.

>Sounds fair enough to me. Its what I have been saying all along.
>Your dictionary definition of euthanasia is interchangeable with
>"killing a person painlessly".  After all, the method and result are
>identical. I am glad I heard at least one person admit that euthanasia
>is killing, it follows that the RTI Act is about killing people.

And still you are wrong. Who is being put to death? No one.
Who is being killed? No one.

A far better definition is one that excludes the word 'killing'
simply because it is inappropriate. 

No one is being put to death, so that doesn't apply either.
They are taking their own lives. If you like, they are given
the option to put themselves to death. Perhaps the definition
should simply read 'death with dignity', because that is exactly
what it is.

Voluntary euthanasia is simply the option of allowing a person to take
their
own lives with the assistance of a doctor. They are not being killed,
except
in the sense that they kill themselves. The doctor is not murdering
them.
David may wish otherwise, but it simply is not true.

The act has nothing to do with people being killed or murdered.



>> In david's earlier threads he referred to euthanasia as murder. Qualified
>>that by changing it to manslaughter and now he refers to it as killing.

>Check back through the threads Pete.
>You will find I said euthanasia is either murder or manslaughter
>depending on circumstances everywhere except the Northern Territory of
>Australia. I even quoted a NT Supreme Court Judge who said exactly the
>same thing.

 
>> I don't blame him for it is very hard to argue euthanasia=murder while we
>>have the lexicon to refer back to.

>Murder: n 1 Law. the unlawful killing of another human being with
>malice aforethought. (Macquarie Dictionary)

Not applicable to voluntary euthanasia in the NT or elsewhere (where
it would be considered suicide).
Can be applied to involuntary euthanasia, and should be.

>Action taken under the RTI Act is not unlawful, hence it is can not be
>murder. It would fit the definition of murder in any other state, or
>to my knowledge, , country.

David, no one is being murdered. With or without  malice afterthought. 
This definition is simply not applicable to voluntary euthanasia or
suicide, 
and you know it.
It is only applicable in cases of involuntary euthanasia, ie murder.


>We could go into this ad infinitum, but the plain fact is that
>euthanasia by definition is the deliberate and premeditated killing of
>a human being in a painless manner. Such action is unlawful in every
>instance except when conducted in accordance with the NT RTI Act.
>If you can argue the contrary, with evidence, I would be very
>interested. Unless you are going to claim the dictionary, the law and
>a Supreme Court judge are all wrong I fail to see how you will do it.


David, there is no deliberate or premeditated killing in the sense you
mean. I wish we could get past this block in your understanding, but it
seems obvious that you either don't want to understand, or simply
cannot understand.

Voluntary euthanasia only exists in the Northern Territory.
The terminally ill person asks to die, and asks for assistance
in dying - when given they kill themselves. They themselves.
The law protects anyone with them at the time of death, whether
the person assisted with the setting up of equipment or not.

In any other state, such a situation would be suicide if they are alone
If they are with someone that other person could be charged with
manslaughter,
which is why these people tend to die alone in these circumstances. 
An injustice removed by the Northern Territories act.

It amazes me that you can think this is a bad thing.


Rest sniped.


David continues to argue a case which simply doesn't exist.

He would prefer people to die alone, without help, without the presence
of loved ones.

He also invokes the bogus German and Russian experience.
He knows they have nothing to do with voluntary euthanasia, or suicide,
but keeps bringing them up.

He continues the lie about doctors doing the killing. He knows this
is wrong, but keeps peddling it.

He knows the terminally ill person kills themselves. The doctor is
there to help or intervene to stop it, nothing more.

He knows that euthanasia is suicide, but without the law getting in
the way. It allows the terminally ill to die by their own hand, in
the presense of loved ones, knowing they will not be charged with
murder or manslaughter after the event.

David knows the act exists to allow the terminally ill to get help
to die with dignity, rather than continue in pain or dying alone.

He knows the Northern Territory did not legislate on life and death,
but rather on giving people the choice to end their lives, if they
wish it. No one is forcing people to use this law. They must request
to be allowed to use it.

David would deny us all the choice of the manner and time of death.

David would rather we all suffered for months or years, with no
respite from the pain. Begging for death, but not allowed to die.

Amazing.

Iain.