- Joined
- 28 May 2006
- Posts
- 9,985
- Reactions
- 2
Dink said:PS. Sensationalist comments like the one in 2020hindsights post supposedly said by Nitschke “The commonest way people over 75 die in our society is by hanging themselves” are an example on how he plays on peoples fears. I strongly reject such a statement until someone can give me evidence to the contrary.
Philip said:The evidence he is unaware of:
Australian Bureau of Statistics, Suicides: Recent Trends, Australia, cat. no. 3309.0.55.001, AGPS, Canberra, 2002
"since 1997 hanging has become the most common method of suicide for both males and females"
Rafa ,Rafa said:Is the above ABS quote based on general suicide or exclusively those over 75?
Welcome Philip,Philip said:While I understand that Dink has left the forum having given all he can - his comment referring to me deserves a response.
The evidence he is unaware of:
Australian Bureau of Statistics, Suicides: Recent Trends, Australia, cat. no. 3309.0.55.001, AGPS, Canberra, 2002
"since 1997 hanging has become the most common method of suicide for both males and females"
So, according to Dink, quoting from ABS is "sensational" and "plays on peoples fears"?
I don't think so. It would have helped if he had read my book "Killing me Softly" where the source material is provided and the explanation given. The fact that suicide by hanging has become the commonest method is a direct consequence of government policies that prevent free and open discussion on the topic. Policies that make advising or assisting a suicide a criminal offence, policies that restrict access to good information (my recent book - The Peaceful Pill Handbook was seized by customs at Brisbane airport), policies that force people to rely on hearsay and misinformation.
This damning statistic should come as no surprise
Rope is readily available, you need little pre-knowledge, and hanging works. This situation will remain until more enlightened government policies prevail.
Philip Nitschke
Bobby said:Welcome Philip,
I think your work is fantastic !
If I can help - Pmail me anytime Sir.
Regards Bob.
Fair enough Rafa,Rafa said:i am just interested to know the background of the stats...
I am sure you are aware for the old saying about statisticsOnce i have that answer, i will return to just being an observer on this thread, simply becuase i don't know enough about it to make a valuable contribution.
Thanks Julia, great summary, under the name of Plato and Latrobe Uni and all.Julia said:Here is a very rational overview of the current state of voluntary euthanasia legislation. It is presently legal in The Netherlands, Belgium and Oregon, USA.
Voluntary Euthanasia
Five Individually Necessary Conditions for Candidacy for Voluntary Euthanasia
Advocates of voluntary euthanasia contend that if a person
(a) is suffering from a terminal illness;
(b) is unlikely to benefit from the discovery of a cure for that illness during what remains of her life expectancy;
(c) is, as a direct result of the illness, either suffering intolerable pain, or only has available a life that is unacceptably burdensome (because the illness has to be treated in ways that lead to her being unacceptably dependent on others or on technological means of life support);
(d) has an enduring, voluntary and competent wish to die (or has, prior to losing the competence to do so, expressed a wish to die in the event that conditions (a)-(c) are satisfied); and
(e) is unable without assistance to commit suicide
Knobby22 said:Interesting article.
The Federal Government used the experience of the Netherlands as an argument as to why they decided against it. Obviously the Netherlands knew there was a problem (though it does not appear to be a major problem) and have given doctors lengthy prison sentences for not following protocols.
I would be greatly reassured if euthanasia was permitted, that resources were committed to enforce the law and enforce it strongly. Australians have been shown to be weak at this on other issues so the government would have to assure me that they would police the issue properly.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/euthanasia-voluntary/ ..... The motive of the person who commits an act of euthanasia is to benefit the one whose death is brought about. .......
Our concern will be with voluntary euthanasia ”” that is, with those instances of euthanasia in which a clearly competent person makes a voluntary and enduring request to be helped to die. ..
Debate about the morality and legality of voluntary euthanasia has been, for the most part, a phenomenon of the second half of the twentieth century and the beginning of the twenty first century. Certainly, the ancient Greeks and Romans did not believe that life needed to be preserved at any cost and were, in consequence, tolerant of suicide in cases where no relief could be offered to the dying or, in the case of the Stoics and Epicureans, where a person no longer cared for his life. In the sixteenth century, Thomas More, in describing a utopian community, envisaged such a community as one that would facilitate the death of those whose lives had become burdensome as a result of ‘torturing and lingering pain’. But it has only been in the last hundred years that there have been concerted efforts to make legal provision for voluntary euthanasia.
Until quite recently, there had been no success in obtaining such legal provision (though assisted suicide has been legally tolerated in Switzerland for many years). However, in the 1970s and 80s a series of court cases in The Netherlands culminated in an agreement between the legal and medical authorities to ensure that no physician would be prosecuted for assisting a patient to die as long as certain guidelines were strictly adhered to (see Griffiths, et al. 1998) In brief, the guidelines were established to permit physicians to practise voluntary euthanasia in those instances in which a competent patient had made a voluntary and informed decision to die, the patient's suffering was unbearable, there was no way of making that suffering bearable that was acceptable to the patient, and the physician's judgements as to diagnosis and prognosis were confirmed after consultation with another physician.
In the 1990s, the first legislative approval for voluntary euthanasia was achieved with the passage of a bill in the parliament of Australia's Northern Territory to enable physicians to practise voluntary euthanasia. Subsequent to the Act's proclamation in 1996, it faced a series of legal challenges from opponents of voluntary euthanasia. In 1997 the challenges culminated in the Australian National Parliament overturning the legislation when it prohibited Australian Territories (the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory) from enacting legislation to permit euthanasia.
In Oregon in the United States, legislation was introduced in 1997 to permit physician-assisted suicide after a second referendum clearly endorsed the proposed legislation. .........Netherlands... Belgium
4. (some) Objections to the Moral Permissibility of Voluntary Euthanasia
....
Objection 2
A second, related objection to permitting the legalization of voluntary euthanasia argues that we can never have sufficient evidence to be justified in believing that a dying person's request to be helped to die is competent, enduring and genuinely voluntary.
.......... If someone discusses the issue with others on different occasions, or reflects on the issue over an extended period, and does not waver in her conviction, her wish to die surely must be counted as enduring.
......it is possible for a person to indicate, in advance of losing the capacity to give competent, enduring and voluntary consent, how she would wish to be treated should she become terminally ill and suffer intolerable pain or loss of control over her life. ‘Living wills’ or ‘advance declarations’ are legally useful instruments for giving voice to people's wishes while they are capable of giving competent, enduring and voluntary consent, including to their wanting help to die. As long as they are easily revocable in the event of a change of mind (just as ordinary wills are), they should be respected as evidence of a well thought out conviction. It should be noted, though, that any request for voluntary euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide will not at present be able lawfully to be implemented outside of The Netherlands, Belgium and Oregon.
..........
Suppose that the moral case for legalizing voluntary euthanasia does come to be judged as stronger than the case against ............. Many doctors in The Netherlands and, to judge from available survey evidence, in other Western countries as well, see the practice of voluntary euthanasia as not only compatible with their professional commitments but also with their conception of the best medical care for the dying. That being so, they should not be prohibited by law from lending their professional assistance to those competent, terminally ill persons for whom no cure is possible and who wish for an easy death.
2020hindsight said:It is worthy of note that a Will (and/or driver's license) to the effect that you
(a) would like to donate organs in the event of an accident
(b) would like your life terminated in the event of certain preconditions
(c) would like your pet cat given to your niece etcetc
will only help to sort out these matters SHOULD you suddenly go gar-gar.
(sorry if this comes across as a gruesome topic - but hek - we are in a philosophical debate here, where people will argue that because you become demented, then your reasoning cannot be relied upon - HENCE!! only if you went into print when you were compos-mentis, do they take any notice of your written requests !! imho, Treat is as something to state in your will !!
(Plato would have downed several bottles of red just "exploring the topic")
..dying wish was that the Federal Government would re-examine its decision 10 years ago to overturn the Northern Territory's right-to-die legislation.Euthanasia advocate Dr Philip Nitschke says the family of a terminally-ill Sydney doctor who took his own life in Switzerland hope his death will prompt discussion in Australia about euthanasia laws.
John Elliott, 79, from the Sydney suburb of Rose Bay, died on Thursday at a euthanasia clinic in Zurich with his wife by his side. His trip there was organised by Exit International, the group run by Dr Nitschke. Dr Nitschke was with Dr Elliott during his final moments.
He says Dr Elliott's dying wish was that the Federal Government would re-examine its decision 10 years ago to overturn the Northern Territory's right-to-die legislation. "It does make politicians think when there is a large public debate generated around the actions of courageous people like John Elliott and one would hope, and I'm sure John had hoped that, and we all do, that his death won't be in vain," he said.
Dr Nitschke says the doctor should have had the right to end his life in Australia. "He should be able to get that drug and should have been able to take it in his own home in Rose Bay, rather than have to travel halfway around [the world] in what was an extremely difficult trip for a person as sick as he was - just to get access to that peaceful drug which would allow him to end his suffering at the time of his choosing," he said.
In a recording given to the Sydney Morning Herald, Dr Elliot's wife, Angelika, tearfully reads a final statement written by her husband. "I am sharing my story to help our politicians understand why people be allowed control and responsibility in dying, just like they do in living - my life is my choice, goodbye," the statement read.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?