🚀 go-pugleaf

jan@orchide.dialix.oz.au (jan) wrote :

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

>> David Moss wrote:
>> > 
>> > 
>> > >From what I can ascertain, the main or in some cases the sole argument
>> > >against euthanasia for some people seems to be the so called legalized
>> > >taking of life, which has been described as dangerous, as it may open up
>> > >the possibility of homicide under the guise of euthanasia.
>> > 
>> > Firstly, euthanasia IS homicide. (the deliberate killing of humans).
>> > Euthanasia laws such as the RTI Act legalise homicide under certain
>> > conditions, one of which is currently willingness on behalf of the
>> > patient.
>> > 
>> 
>> 
>> Speaking of straw, move the bales someone.
>>

> Move your own bales. 

Oh, such a witty response. I hope the rest is just as piercing.


>> 
>> Incorrect statement : No one is being murdered.
>>

>Did you see the words "murdered" or "murder" here? 
>Mr. Jameson is the only one using this emotive word in this post.

David continues to use the killing = murder arguement
here. At least get your facts straight before joining in.


>> 
>> Understand now?

> Absolutely!  

Well done, there is hope for you yet.


>> 
>> 
>> > The risk exists that once we accept that it is legal to kill people in
>> > the first place, we have pushed aside one of society's safety
>> > barriers. Without taking that first step it is impossible to reach the
>> > other, ever decreasing obstacles.
>> > 
>> 
>> 
>> Incorrect statement : No one is being killed.

>  So no one dies. Right?


Ah, I wrote too soon.

Before you post your next reply learn the differnece
between killing/murder and voluntary euthanasia.

I assure you, they are different.


>> 
>> Understand now?

> Definitely.


Ah, excellent.


>> > Once we legalise killing of people who ask, what about those who
>> > cannot ask ?  Or those who _would_ ask if they had the intelligence to
>> > do so ?  And next those who _should_ ask ? And next those bastards who
>> > refuse to ask when its obvious everyone would be happier if they did ?
>> > 
>> 
>> 
>> Incorrect statement : No one is being killed.

> Even when someone kills him/herself someone is still being killed.


Sigh. By whom may I ask?

According to David, by someone else. 
I hope you have enough sense to understand that the terminally
ill person is taking their own life. No one is being killed
in the sense David means. No one is being deprived of a life they 
still want.

David likes to throw in the kill and murder words to
confuse the issue. I see it worked.


>> 
>> Understand now?

> Of course it's simple.


Yes it is, I'm glad you agree.


>> Until David Moss and those like him understand that no one is
>> being killed, this debate will get no where.

>NO it won't until you understand that someone *is* being killed.


Sigh. Just like David. You just don't understand do you?
Who is being killed? No one.

Once again : the person takes their own life. If you mean they
'kill' themselves, then yes. If you mean, like David, that
someone else is killing them, ie murder, then you are wrong.
After reading your entire post, it is obvious that this
is what you mean.


>Proof: there is a fatal dose of poison in the corpse at the
>end of the process.


Administered by themselves, no one else.

By this point I take it that you side with David on the way
the word 'killing' is to be interpreted here.

Simply put, you are wrong.


>Of course there will be no debate if nobody could see through the
>fiction that no one is being killed.  A fiction designed to stop
>debate among other things. This it would seem is what Mr Jameson is  
>really trying to achieve rather than that the debatte goes somewhere.


Because no one is, by your use of the word.
When you understand that such a usage is not appropriate,
we will get somewhere.

No one is being killed in the sense that their wanted life
is being taken from them by someone else.

The person in question asks to die and asks for help in dying.
When it is granted, they end their own lives.

Do try to understand.


>Thus:

>In <32D56C89.26DC@dsto.defence.gov.au>
>Iain Jameson <Iain.Jamesonx@dsto.defence.gov.au> writes:



>> David Moss wrote:
>> > personal opinion only.
>> 
>> Which is the whole point. So please stop forcing your personal opinions
>> and religion onto people who don't want them.
>> 

> I *do* understand?


Good. Glad to hear it.


>> 
>> Euthanasia is a choice for those suffering a terminal illness.
>> 

> And having someone else kill them.


Damn, wrote too soon again.

Who killed them? Name the person or persons involved.
That is, name the person who pressed the enter button.

Can you? If you said Mr Dent and Mrs Mills then you are
correct. They pushed the button and ended their own lives.

But you wouldn't have, would you? From the above it is obvious
that you think they were murdered, ie killed by someone
else.

You are wrong.


> There is no ethical or moral difference between killing someone
> and helping them to do it.  Even the NT legislators do not agree
> with you or they would not have included provision for certification
> by a psychiatrist that the subject is competent to consent to his
> own death or a medical practitioner that the disease is terminal.
> Leave such provisions out and any one may assist an endogenously
> depressed person (suicidal & treatable) in the same way without
> fear of prosecution. 


Your opinion only.

My opinion is that there is a huge difference in murdering
someone and allowing a person suffering a terminal illness
to die with dignity.


Your interpretation of what the legislators feel is again
just your opinion.

The law simply means ONLY those suffering a terminal disease
AND want to die, are allowed to use the law. This why the
provision is included, not because they disagree with my opinion.
I doubt they even know me or my opinion.

The provision in question was never going to be left out, and
never will be. You and David can make up bogus arguements about
that, but you are wrong.


>Now do *you* understand?


I understand you come across as an arrogant uncaring person who 
would rather see someone suffer for months or years rather than 
be allowed to voluntary end their life, and die with dignity.


It is obvious you do not understand the difference between
murder and voluntary euthanasia.

It is obvious you do not understand that the person is taking
their own life, not being killed by someone else.


>regards

> Jan


Iain


----

Remove any x's from my email address if you feel
the need to email me.