pinkozcat
Full Member
Remember - pillage first, THEN burn.
Posts: 233
|
Post by pinkozcat on Feb 19, 2007 22:57:11 GMT -5
As I get older and watch my demented mother seemingly unable to die I have decided that I do not want to go down that path. I would like to be able to choose when I die and be allowed to have it happen painlessly. There used to be an internet site (which I can no longer find) which gave a variety of methods of topping oneself ... but except for jumping headfirst from at least the sixth floor of a building, there was always a rider - "put a plastic bag over your head". I am claustrophobic and that is enough to put me off for starters and working in psychiatry for so many years I have seen too many botched suicide attempts to make most available methods attractive. Why is it that we are expected to put our pets out of pain (and can be prosecuted if we don't) but we can't do the same for ourselves. When life is no longer fun for me I would like to put my affairs in order, prepare my family and slip out quietly with no fuss and no pain. At the moment my only option is to travel to Swizerland accompanies by a doctor and a heap of paperwork.  |
|
|
|
Post by RobertGraves on Feb 20, 2007 13:30:00 GMT -5
The two issues that prevent legislation seem to be religious and bureaucratic. The firts is obvious but the second makes reformers baulk too. How will it be administered and is it open to abuse (eg elderly relative knocked-off for the money etc.).
I agree with you Pinkozcat. However, can not imagine change in this area in our times. I'm 38, maybe I will live to see something else but I doubt that too.
|
|
|
|
Post by Wyndham on Feb 20, 2007 19:41:09 GMT -5
I don't really know what to think about this issue. I've never been exactly in Pink's position, but have been pretty close (elderly grandparents). I'm with Pink in thinking that if it were all up with me, and I was about to become a burden on my family that I'd do an eskimo, and take a walk on an ice flow.
On the other hand, I do have to confess that I fear all things containing the concept 'euthenasia' or 'eugenics'. The Human Race has been down this road before and we aren't smart enough or mature enough to avoid really fricking the think up. Why do I think that if we permitted 'voluntary euthanasia' (i.e. I can't go on) there would soon be nothing very voluntary about it (i.e. you shouldn't go on).
We have a similar ethical/legal/medical issue here right now. The college of physicians and surgeons wants mandatory in-vitro testing so that parents can be advised if the fetus will produce a defective child so that the pregnancy can be terminated. They are thinking of Downs syndrome etc. Now, here's the thing: if you do this, how long will it be before preganancies are being terminated for no very good reason at all; and how much longer before they are terminated for all the wrong reasons? If I were a betting man, I expect that this one would blow up on us immediately: the biggest category of abortive 'defectives' would be female babies, terminated because they were female and for no other good reason.
Just human nature to screw up, no?
|
|
pinkozcat
Full Member
Remember - pillage first, THEN burn.
Posts: 233
|
Post by pinkozcat on Feb 20, 2007 20:58:57 GMT -5
I would never advocate involuntary euthanasia; I would no more suggest it for my demented mother than I would shave off my eyebrows ... but I would like to be able to make my own choices about my own end if I am capable of doing so.
I think that politicians are afraid to legislate despite the fact that an overwhelming percentage of the Australian population would like to be able to choose for themselves.
"Voluntary" and "choose for themselves" are the key words here.
|
|
|
|
Post by Wyndham on Feb 20, 2007 21:30:27 GMT -5
Oh Pink! I'm fine with you making choices. I'm not comfortable with mankind on mass deciding anything much more difficult than what day of the week it is.
|
|
|
|
Post by RobertGraves on Feb 24, 2007 21:36:04 GMT -5
Last Update: Sunday, February 25, 2007. 12:49pm (AEDT)
Classification board defends euthanasia book ban
The Classification Review Board (CRB) has defended its decision to ban a book on euthanasia saying it was not rejected on moral grounds but because it was encouraging readers to do illegal things.
The book called The Peaceful Pill Handbook has been banned by the board after complaints from the Federal Attorney-General Philip Ruddock and the New South Wales Right to Life Association.
One of the authors of the book, Dr Phillip Nitschke says he is disappointed by the decision and claims the board has caved into political and religious pressure.
But CRB co-convenor, Maureen Shelley, says it was rejected because the book instructs people on how to make and import barbiturates, as well as how to conceal a death from the coroner.
"There's no question, certainly in regards to the review board of any caving in to pressure of the right to life groups," she said.
"To commit suicide is not unlawful, to even to instruct someone in a book is not necessarily unlawful.
"But to instruct them in ways which are unlawful which breach other legislation is not permissible."
ABC Just in
|
|
pinkozcat
Full Member
Remember - pillage first, THEN burn.
Posts: 233
|
Post by pinkozcat on Feb 26, 2007 21:14:13 GMT -5
After I heard the news item I tried to look, online, for the book but the links were being deleted almost as I watched. Interesting ... So I went to the "Exit" page (used to be the Voluntary Euthanasia site but has morphed into something more politically correct). I could download an application for membership but they wanted a donation with a hint that the average annual donation was $100 ... and for $1,000 I could get ... would you believe ... a life membership!  |
|
|
|
Post by RobertGraves on Feb 27, 2007 14:08:37 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by RobertGraves on Mar 26, 2007 14:14:35 GMT -5
Last Update: Monday, March 26, 2007. 4:33pm (AEST)
Books burnt at anniversary of NT euthanasia banning
A protest and book burning has been staged in Canberra to mark the 10th anniversary of the Northern Territory's laws permitting voluntary euthanasia being overturned by a conscience vote in federal Parliament.
Angelika Minner is one of more than 200 people in Canberra today advocating the right to choose death.
She fears her aggressive breast cancer could return.
If it does, it would be terminal.
"I only did go through chemotherapy because I thought 'Okay, it saves my life' but if it's a terminal cancer I most probably won't go through it again considering that I only have a year to live," she said.
One month ago, a handbook comparing methods of euthanasia was banned by the Classification Review Board.
Co-author Phillip Nitschke is burning the books outside Old Parliament House.
" don't like burning, you know, 200 copies of my book but that's that's what we're having to do we feel."
Copies of the handbook are freely available overseas.
|
|
