Suicide and Voluntary Euthanasia

[Ruby]

It looks as though voluntary euthansia is going to be back on the agenda in federal parliament, and Julia Gillard is talking about allowing a conscience vote.

I wonder how many politicians will be willing to face the truth about this highly emotive issue (that is, that most people want it), or whether they will take the pious line of least resistance and start mouthing the same old useless platitudes we constantly hear, such as "the sanctity of life..........", and "palliative care is so good these days........"

I expect the churches will weigh into the argument again and do the usual pontificating about it being "sinful", etc, etc!!

I can only hope that the way might be opening up for a positive move forward, and that there is some sensible and mature debate about it.

 

[Knobby22]

Yes, it is good to see Ruby.

Gillard is on a hiding to nothing on the issue though.
She won't win votes from the Liberals through this issue and may see some votes drop off by religous elements. It will be interesting to see how Abbott scuttles this.

 

[Logique]

I can only hope that the way might be opening up for a positive move forward, and that there is some sensible and mature debate about it.

I second that Ruby. A conscience vote on this would be a good development.

 

[Calliope]

I second that Ruby. A conscience vote on this would be a good development.

This Bill is not about legalising voluntary euthanasia. It is about giving the Territories the right to legislate on voluntary euthanasia. In effect it would prevent the Parliament from rescinding this legislation as they did with the NT some years ago.

 

[Ruby]

This Bill is not about legalising voluntary euthanasia. It is about giving the Territories the right to legislate on voluntary euthanasia. In effect it would prevent the Parliament from rescinding this legislation as they did with the NT some years ago.

Correct, Calliope, but anything that re-introduces some discussion on this subject is good, in my opinion.

 

[Julia]

This Bill is not about legalising voluntary euthanasia. It is about giving the Territories the right to legislate on voluntary euthanasia. In effect it would prevent the Parliament from rescinding this legislation as they did with the NT some years ago.

Sure, but it raises the issue again, and Bob Brown has made clear that the Greens intend to promote the consideration of voluntary euthanasia in this new parliament.

And even if all that happens in the short term is that the territories may make legislation which cannot be wiped out by the Feds, that opens the door for the same sort of legislation that allowed euthanasia briefly a bit more than a decade ago in the Northern Territory.

Julia Gillard's atheism is a plus on this issue, just as the devout religious objections spouted by the Opposition will never change. A conscience vote makes sense: I doubt every member of the Opposition shares the ultra conservative views of e.g. Tony Abbott and Kevin Andrews.

 

[gordon2007]

Apparently in SA they're trying to bring this subject up again too. I'm a very firm believer in it.

 

[Julia]

In this article on the subject, there's a reference to Jim Wallace, who represents the Australian Christian Lobby. This man is more conservative and closed to debate than all the Christians in the Liberal Party combined.

I can't understand how he gets so much media attention with such little challenge.

A stand-up fight between him and Bob Brown would be fascinating.

http://www.smh.com.au/national/pm-o...nl&emcmp=Punch&emchn=Newsletter&emlist=Member

 

[gordon2007]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/09/20/3016641.htm?site=news

The above is the article about south australia.

 

[Ruby]

There was a very good article on this subject in the AFR on Saturday. Anyone who has any moral doubt about its "rightness" would do well to read it, as it was written from a very compassionate and humane viewpoint (not that I think there is any other viewpoint!) and gave some touching examples.

There is a global conference being held in Melbourne this week on the right to die. It starts on Wednesday and it will be open to the public on Friday. It will feature leaders from 46 organisations in 27 countries working internationally to legalise physician-assisted dying.

I am afraid I have no more information than that and cannot provide a link to a web site. (The article is on the AFR site, but you need to be a subscriber.) This was all gleaned from the newspaper.

 

[Julia]

Thanks Ruby. The "Weekend Australian" also carried a similar (maybe the same?) article. It's good to see discussion happening.

 

[Julia]

The following is not a reference to voluntary euthanasia, but rather to completing Advance Health Directive which I think in some States are known as Living Wills.

Please read this letter from an Emergency Department specialist. It may not at this stage apply to you, but it may be something you need to discuss with another family member.

It's one of the most realistic, yet touching, pleas I've ever read.

http://www.couriermail.com.au/lifes...il_nl&emcmp=CM&emchn=Newsletter&emlist=Member

 

[Ruby]

Julia, I thought it was a wonderful letter. I read only part of it yesterday and have just read it again. It is a subject I have tried to raise with my old and frail mother, but sadly, she refuses to discuss it. I know she reads the newspaper from front to back, so I might try and bring up the subject again.

Ruby

 

[Julia]

Ruby, could you perhaps print off a copy of the letter and give it to your mother to read, or would that be too 'in your face' for her?

Presumably she just refuses to discuss her mortality at all?
Very difficult for you.
What will you do eventually if medical staff ask you whether she wants life-sustaining treatment or not when she's approaching dying?

 

[explod]

What will you do eventually if medical staff ask you whether she wants life-sustaining treatment or not when she's approaching dying?

Throw it back to the staff, family Doctor preferably, and ask "What can we do?" As long as pain is kept at bay you have to let nature take its course. It is very unfortunate that that can string out a long time. However if put like that to the Doctor (perhaps staff is the better word here) it usually wont.

 

[Ruby]

Presumably she just refuses to discuss her mortality at all?
Very difficult for you.
What will you do eventually if medical staff ask you whether she wants life-sustaining treatment or not when she's approaching dying?

Yes - it's a no go area. She refuses to discuss anything personal. If I am ever given the choice I will say 'yes' to pain relief only and 'no' to life sustaining treatment

As long as pain is kept at bay you have to let nature take its course. It is very unfortunate that that can string out a long time.

The situation has not arisen, but I would rather ask for increased pain relief at the possible expense of a longer life. Nature is not taking its course if life is being prolonged by drugs or other technology.

Thank you both for your messages.

Ruby

 

[Knobby22]

Yes - it's a no go area. She refuses to discuss anything personal. If I am ever given the choice I will say 'yes' to pain relief only and 'no' to life sustaining treatment


Ruby

Maybe she knows that...and doesn't agree.
This is what I worry about with Euthanasia, it should be the person who is dyings choice.

 

[explod]

Maybe she knows that...and doesn't agree.
This is what I worry about with Euthanasia, it should be the person who is dyings choice.

It is to be hoped that the legislation if it comes will be clear on that point. It must be the free will of the person seeking to die.

The situation has not arisen, but I would rather ask for increased pain relief at the possible expense of a longer life. Nature is not taking its course if life is being prolonged by drugs or other technology.

Spot on.

 

[Ruby]

Maybe she knows that...and doesn't agree.
This is what I worry about with Euthanasia, it should be the person who is dyings choice.

I agree with voluntary euthanasia, and would like to be able to choose to die with dignity when the time comes. This will be my choice for me, and does not mean I would seek to impose my views on any other person. I agree with you totally Knobby, that it should be the choice of the person who is dying.

However, voluntary euthanasia is not the same as witholding invasive treatment which would prolong a life which no longer has any quality. If someone I loved was not able to make a choice, and was suffering, and I had the choice of making a decision (eg Power of Attorney), I would choose to give that person relief from pain rather than extend his or her life.

 

[Julia]

Maybe she knows that...and doesn't agree.
This is what I worry about with Euthanasia, it should be the person who is dyings choice.

Agreed absolutely, Knobby. But what about the situation as with Ruby's mother where she refuses to make her wishes clear?
Did you read the letter from the emergency physician? Unless a patient has prior to losing the capacity to make his/her wishes clear put in writing (Advance Health Directive) whether they want life sustaining treatment or not, doctors feel obliged to administer this extremely expensive and ultimately pointless treatment. What is the point of this if the patient is absolutely not going to recover? Isn't it way better to just offer pain relief and sedation until death?

The concern I have with voluntary euthanasia is the very real possibility of greedy children wanting mum or dad out of the way so they can acquire their inheritance. Old people, losing confidence and physical capacity, easily become vulnerable to manipulation and suggestions that they should end their lives. We'd have to hope such cases are few.

And legislation would have to cover this, ensuring the patient is interviewed by two or more doctors prior to any end of life decision. Perhaps the family members should also be interviewed?

.

However, voluntary euthanasia is not the same as witholding invasive treatment which would prolong a life which no longer has any quality.

Exactly. And that's the entire point of the letter from the emergency physician. Can there be any possible reason for instituting life sustaining treatment in a person who is clearly dying anyway, when those resources could be better used in, say, a young person who will recover?