Suicide and Voluntary Euthanasia

James Austin said:

did anyone see this?

just 3 days remaining if you want to view it.

go to http://www.abc.net.au/iview/
and select "the suicide tourist"

understandably a subject few wish to think about, . . . . . but we all stand in the same queue

Click to expand...

I saw the last 25 minutes of it when it first aired a week or so ago...great doco
and a great, proper outcome for all concerned...the way it should be the world over.

gav said:

...

So a healthy person who is sound of mind wishes to die, that's OK?

stocksontheblock, I'm not against euthanasia but it's not as simple as you make it sound...

Click to expand...

People who commit suicide make it OK, euthanasia trick would merely reduce the pain factor, also hit and miss in some circumstances and sometimes horrifically disfigured rest of life.

gav said:

Well then an individual should also have the right - without question - to make his or her own decision about what they put in their own body. Just because the govt says smoking dope is illegal (or any other illegal drug for that matter), who are they to say what I can/cannot do with my own body? ESPECIALLY when there are legal drugs that cause massive health problems in society Eg. ciggies and alcohol...



So a healthy person who is sound of mind wishes to die, that's OK?

stocksontheblock, I'm not against euthanasia but it's not as simple as you make it sound...

Click to expand...

I think you missed the point, the person should be healthy and of sound mind when making the decision that that's what they want, whether ill or not, the decision to end their life should be made when "sane".

So, if you are in a bad way now then to die you should at least be of a sound mind. If you wish to die later in life due to certain circumstances yet you are preparing for it now, then again you should be of sound mind.

As for as simple as that, yes it is. Why should it not be as simple as that. My choice, my choice is a simple one. How is it not that simple, it only becomes complicated when other people are involved in making or changing or objecting to my individual decision.

As for your other comment about drugs and the like, I'm not going to argue that one with you. I guess there are just a few more consequences to those elements of choice that have a broader effect.

stocksontheblock said:

As for your other comment about drugs and the like, I'm not going to argue that one with you. I guess there are just a few more consequences to those elements of choice that have a broader effect.

Click to expand...

Young healthy sane people killing themselves does not have any consequences?

And why won't you argue about the use of illegal drugs? Your words, and I quote:

stocksontheblock said:

My view: its an individuals choice, and thus an individual should have the right - without question - to make his or her own decision about what to happen to him or her when the time comes.

Click to expand...

stocksontheblock said:

My choice should be respected, regardless of the reason for it, and especially regardless of your own values and morals.

If you wish to live/carry on then do so, if I wish to die/end it then I should be allowed to do so.

Click to expand...

If you believe an individual has the right to end their own life, why shouldn't they have the right to do what they want to their body when they are alive??? After all, it is their own body - they should be able to do what they like with it...

gav said:

Young healthy sane people killing themselves does not have any consequences?

Click to expand...

I'm not to sure where you think I said this was OK? Nor, did I say it didn’t have any consequences. However, the consequences are what? The consequences are insular, in so far as a society may wonder why someone would do it, the real and net effect is to those, and those only who have a direct relationship with this person – not the community as a whole, apart from any moral or value inputs that community has towards such actions.

I think your comment in itself is somewhat spurious, in broadly speaking terms, a "healthy sane" person would not kill themselves, so I’m not sure what that has to do with anything I have said?

gav said:

And why won't you argue about the use of illegal drugs? Your words, and I quote:





If you believe an individual has the right to end their own life, why shouldn't they have the right to do what they want to their body when they are alive??? After all, it is their own body - they should be able to do what they like with it...

Click to expand...

Once again, you have completely missed the point of what was said. Try focusing on all I said, and the context, and not the words you think I said.

What I said was that I was not going to argue that - either for or against - as in principle I agree. However, drugs as a social issue have broader consequences than those of someone who wishes to take their own life, or, where the case may be, be assisted to end their life.

You most certainly have the right to snort, inject or take whatever it is you like. However, the broader consequences of those actions can, and often in many cases lead to consequences that effect other people, such as crime, prostitution etc. These are consequences which affect others outside of the circle of ‘family & friends’, which is the only consequence of my right to live, or in this case, die.

Whether or not drugs were to be legalised or decriminalised etc would make very little difference to the consequences of taking those drugs. Drugs are, broadly, an inherently individual choice to take and hence you become addicted to them you will quite possibly become dependent on the State or charity to ‘support’ you. I don’t know, yet I would suspect that those who wish to end their life are there as a result of events that might be beyond their control and thus are dependent on a system which otherwise they would not want to be – sure drug takers don’t want to be, yet theirs is always self inflicted.

To allow a person to end their life how, and when, and as they wish would also allow those – family & friends – who are affect by this decision to possibly accept it, understand it and support it. Hence, possible consequences could be reduced by ensuring communication and ‘inclusiveness’ is a primary part of my right to die.

In saying that, I don’t see your examples of consequences that reach beyond family & friends. What are the consequences, why is it that you say this is not simple? What makes this so hard, or difficult?

Despite less than satisfactory results from the internet filtering trial, Senator Conroy is apparently determined to proceed with this. Even if we don't care about pornography being blocked (though this should still imo be the individual's right to choose), it seems we will now be blocked entirely from accessing any information about right to die options.

Voluntary Euthanasia Advocate and Director of Exit International, Dr Philip Nitschke, has slammed the Government’s announcement of the mandatory Internet Clean Feed proposed by Communications Minister Senator Stephen Conroy today.



Said to be mandatory to prevent Australian’s access to all RC (refused classification) material, Dr Nitschke has said the Clean Feed is the thin edge of the censorship wedge. Although where voluntary euthanasia is concerned, this is the final nail in the coffin for voluntary euthanasia advocacy in this country.



Speaking from Sydney, Dr Nitschke said ‘I feel extremely angry on behalf of the members of our organisation and all other interested folk who will find themselves barred from accessing information about their end of life choices.



What the government is implementing with this mandatory Net censorship is the final act of more than a decade of preventing elderly and seriously ill Australians the right to determine the time and manner of their passing.



It was not enough that conservative, Catholic politicians of the likes of Kevin Andrews took away the Territory’s Rights of the Terminally Ill Act back in 1997.



In 2001, the Howard Government amended the Customs Act to make it illegal to import and export printed material about voluntary euthanasia.



In 2006, the Howard Government introduced the Suicide Related Materials Offences Act which prevents the use of the telephone, fax, email and the internet to discuss end of life issues.



In 2007, the Office of Film and Literature Classification approved the publication of the best-selling Peaceful Pill Handbook, only to have their decision overturned upon instruction of then Attorney General Philip Ruddock by the Literature Review Board.



Dr Nitschke said he is now looking at seeking political asylum overseas and investigating countries where free speech and one’s right to information are taken seriously.



‘I really pity the elderly folk. Our seniors deserve better than this.’



To say to rational adult Australians that they cannot use the telephone, cannot import printed material, cannot buy a book and now cannot visit the websites they wish is just outrageous.



Inquiries Philip Nitschke 0407 189 339 or Email: contact@exitinternational.net

Click to expand...

What right do the government have to so interfere in our lives?

Suicide is looked upon as an irrational decision to end ones own life. He should have only used the word euthanasia. Attracted the wrong attention.

I recommend that anyone reading this forum who supports Euthanasia to contact the organisation on the bottom of Julia’s post to show your support. 80% of people in this country agree with Euthanasia but the controlling minority are constantly eroding the rights of the majority. It is time to speak up for what you believe in !!!!

Wysiwyg said:

Suicide is looked upon as an irrational decision to end ones own life. He should have only used the word euthanasia. Attracted the wrong attention.

Click to expand...

Where does Phillip Nitschke use the word 'suicide'?
To use the word 'euthanasia' not prefixed by 'voluntary' conjures up way more horrible visions.

And, in the absence of voluntary euthanasia being available, I'd disagree that suicide is necessarily an irrational decision. If you are old, in pain, knowing you will never get better and every day is an ordeal, it seems to me like a completely rational decision. It just shouldn't be necessary.

Perhaps you could explain why you think it's necessarily irrational?

Julia said:

Where does Phillip Nitschke use the word 'suicide'?
To use the word 'euthanasia' not prefixed by 'voluntary' conjures up way more horrible visions.

And, in the absence of voluntary euthanasia being available, I'd disagree that suicide is necessarily an irrational decision. If you are old, in pain, knowing you will never get better and every day is an ordeal, it seems to me like a completely rational decision. It just shouldn't be necessary.

Perhaps you could explain why you think it's necessarily irrational?

Click to expand...

Perhaps you should look at the front page of the website you so fervently support.

Just in case you haven't looked at the website, which you surely must have being such a strong supporter, I have provided a screen shot so as everyone can see.

In dealing with the public and bureaucracies, it does pay to think about what sort of reaction certain words would provoke. Suicide is evident in all age groups and is attached to a poor mental state.

Wysiwyg said:

Perhaps you should look at the front page of the website you so fervently support.

Just in case you haven't looked at the website, which you surely must have being such a strong supporter, I have provided a screen shot so as everyone can see.

Click to expand...

We were not talking about the website. You were, presumably, responding to the passage I had quoted from Phillip Nitschke. This did not contain the word suicide.
However, that's unimportant.

Again, you omit what it doesn't suit you to quote. The phrase is "assisted suicide" which is the whole point of the voluntary euthanasia movement. i.e. that when there is no hope of recovery, it's reasonable to assist people to painlessly end their lives.

In dealing with the public and bureaucracies, it does pay to think about what sort of reaction certain words would provoke. Suicide is evident in all age groups and is attached to a poor mental state.

Click to expand...

Assisted suicide is an honest expression.

I'll ask you once again why you think it's irrational to want to end a life which consists only of suffering? That is all voluntary euthanasia is about.

Julia said:

Assisted suicide is an honest expression.

I'll ask you once again why you think it's irrational to want to end a life which consists only of suffering? That is all voluntary euthanasia is about.

Click to expand...

Suicide is evident in all age groups and is attached to a poor mental state.

Wysiwyg said:

Suicide is evident in all age groups and is attached to a poor mental state.

Click to expand...

Again, you parrot off the same stuff. If you are going to make claims such as that you should provide a reference for such an assertion.

And again, you fail to answer the question I have asked.

I give up. Readers will draw their own conclusions.

Irrispective of your views, the bigger issue here is the government which is meant to serve the community, is now so actively trying to impose the extreme views of a power broking minority upon us all.....

Sure censor out podophilia and certain levels of extreme sexual or violent behaviour that are deemed by the thought police to be unsavoury or non-essential to life..... But to censor intelligent discussion is outrageous.....whether you believe in the right to life or the right to end life, surely you deserve the right to read about it, discuss it and have public and open debate on the issue....

This is outrageous....in any other counrty they would be marching in the streets.....but us good old aussies all work to hard to be bothered standing up for our rights....

condog said:

This is outrageous....in any other counrty they would be marching in the streets.....but us good old aussies all work to hard to be bothered standing up for our rights....

Click to expand...

Exactly why they do it, they know that Aussies are useless, all talk about it but no one does a thing. The Government and the people forget that the Government works for us, not the other way around.

I've always found terms "government" and "public servant" contradictory.

You're all quite right. Have you sent an email to Conroy and for that matter other politicians protesting about this?

This is Senator Conroy's email address:

minister@dbcde.gov.au

I hears a lot 'bout de yoofs 'n asia, but I ask; what hav de yoof 'n asia done wrong?

ABC radio were talking about this today: http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/06/22/2934139.htm?site=northtas Tasmania the progressive state! Finally something useful from the greens.

New bid to legalise voluntary euthanasia
Updated June 23, 2010

The lobby group Dying With Dignity says it is thrilled the Tasmanian Government plans to look at legalising voluntary euthanasia. Greens leader Nick McKim introduced a voluntary euthanasia private members bill last year but it failed to win support.

In her budget reply speech Deputy Premier Lara Giddings told parliament says would work closely with Mr McKim to reintroduce the proposal. She says the proposed legislation needs to be simplified and she will look at other countries where voluntary euthanasia is legalised.

'These issues are ones that don't sit comfortably with all members of parliament but that doesn't mean that we should not be open about them," she said. Dying With Dignity spokeswoman Margaret Sing says she's been talking to Ms Giddings and Mr McKim about the laws........."

Click to expand...

During my news rounds the other day I noticed Germany has most recently introduced euthanasia but for terminally ill and not personal reasons...

Friday, 25 June 2010

Germany's Justice Minister, Sabine Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger, said the Karlsruhe federal court ruling brought clarity to cases involving terminally ill patients.

The ruling does not legalise active assisted suicide, which is punishable by up to five years in prison in Germany, the news website Spiegel Online reports.

The ruling applies to passively assisting death through the removal of artificial life support. It makes this legal if the patient has given clear consent.

Click to expand...