Do you agree with euthanasia?

[Boss]

It should be legal 100%. 

[Rico1304]

40 minutes ago, Seasons said:

A lazy statement this.

 

They all struggle with the same difficulties I listed above, but little attention is given to the cases where loneliness or a lack of meaning/purpose was the primary motivation.

 

Can you add some more strange scientology references to your next response please? I enjoy googling them and reading more about your beliefs.

Is it fuck. What is lazy is not doing something because it looks a bit hard to a lay person.  There’s fucking loads of incredibly complex legislation that deals with all kinds of situations.  People are cunts, and there will be examples of relatives trying to game the system. That shouldn’t prevent the greater good of people in pain being able to decide the time of their own death, or the criminalisation of relatives trying to help them.  

 

Maybe whatever batshit crazy religion you’ve discovered (but won’t admit to) doesn’t like it, but your imaginary friend shouldn’t touch my life.  

[Bjornebye]

Im the only one to post a sensible argument since the post earlier. I hope you all die of aids. 

[Strontium]

On 14/05/2011 at 23:08, Sixtimes Dog said:

I completely agree with it, and I don't see it as remotely controversial either.

 

Still this.

 

All the alleged drawbacks are bollocks.

[Oh Buoy]

3 hours ago, Rico1304 said:

Is it fuck. What is lazy is not doing something because it looks a bit hard to a lay person.  There’s fucking loads of incredibly complex legislation that deals with all kinds of situations.  People are cunts, and there will be examples of relatives trying to game the system. That shouldn’t prevent the greater good of people in pain being able to decide the time of their own death, or the criminalisation of relatives trying to help them.  

 

Maybe whatever batshit crazy religion you’ve discovered (but won’t admit to) doesn’t like it, but your imaginary friend shouldn’t touch my life.  

"Casualties don't count because people are cunts and will always try to game the system".

 

You're right, there is a lot of legislation around this. Yet there are still prime examples where this route fails a lot of people. It's a simple discussion of the boundaries and how they're policed. Take a quick look at the Netherlands and how initially the focus was on cancer patients and that quickly applied to other categories. Even professionals are now being investigated for malpractice.

 

That's not to say it shouldn't happen before you throw a fit. It's about defining the criteria. Is it the Swiss approach or an approach like Canada?

 

Also, I'm not religious but feel free to quote some characters for my spiritual development.

[moof]

16 hours ago, Sixtimes Dog said:

 

 

All the alleged drawbacks are bollocks.

What a load of rubbish. If you would just think about it for a little while there are myriad moral questions to be raised, it’s extremely difficult to properly legislate and obviously could be open to certain kinds of abuse. 

 

I think I would like to see us plan towards it but let’s not pretend it isn’t fraught with difficulty or is anything less than an extremely sensitive, controversial subject 

[Rico1304]

17 hours ago, Seasons said:

"Casualties don't count because people are cunts and will always try to game the system".

 

You're right, there is a lot of legislation around this. Yet there are still prime examples where this route fails a lot of people. It's a simple discussion of the boundaries and how they're policed. Take a quick look at the Netherlands and how initially the focus was on cancer patients and that quickly applied to other categories. Even professionals are now being investigated for malpractice.

 

That's not to say it shouldn't happen before you throw a fit. It's about defining the criteria. Is it the Swiss approach or an approach like Canada?

 

Also, I'm not religious but feel free to quote some characters for my spiritual development.

If only I’d said that.  Currently everyone dying a horrid death or living a needlessly painful existence is a victim.  I want fewer people to suffer.  Introducing euthanasia won’t turn normal people into homicidal maniacs, there will be people exploiting the law, that’s unfortunate but not worth doing nothing.   

 

Course you're not. 

[Strontium]

3 hours ago, moof said:

What a load of rubbish. If you would just think about it for a little while there are myriad moral questions to be raised, it’s extremely difficult to properly legislate and obviously could be open to certain kinds of abuse. 

 

I think I would like to see us plan towards it but let’s not pretend it isn’t fraught with difficulty or is anything less than an extremely sensitive, controversial subject 

 

Every single freedom we enjoy is open to abuse. That's the nature of freedom.

 

I'm not about to prevent those who are in agonising, incurable pain from freely choosing to end their lives in a safe and dignified way just because there's a tiny theoretical chance that one day, someone may be coerced into it.

 

As a general rule we need to stop treating people as errant children who need to be kept in line and trust them to make decisions about their own lives, and this issue is a perfect example of that.

[Pureblood]

Let the cunts die, I say.  I'll kill them myself for a small retainer.  

[General Dryness]

2 minutes ago, TK421 said:

Let the cunts die, I say.  I'll kill them myself for a small retainer.  

Fucking hell, you are just like Champ. 

[Pureblood]

1 minute ago, General Dryness said:

Fucking hell, you are just like Champ. 

They'd get cookies.  Last meal 'n all that. 

[General Dryness]

7 minutes ago, TK421 said:

They'd get cookies.  Last meal 'n all that. 

I've never heard it called that before.

[moof]

1 hour ago, Sixtimes Dog said:

 

Every single freedom we enjoy is open to abuse. That's the nature of freedom.

 

I'm not about to prevent those who are in agonising, incurable pain from freely choosing to end their lives in a safe and dignified way just because there's a tiny theoretical chance that one day, someone may be coerced into it.

 

As a general rule we need to stop treating people as errant children who need to be kept in line and trust them to make decisions about their own lives, and this issue is a perfect example of that.

Oh, you’re doing your captain freedom persona today. 

 

You said it was completely uncontroversial, that any “alleged drawbacks” are bollocks. That is a load of nonsense and you know it. 

[Strontium]

46 minutes ago, moof said:

Oh, you’re doing your captain freedom persona today. 

 

You said it was completely uncontroversial, that any “alleged drawbacks” are bollocks. That is a load of nonsense and you know it. 

 

Cut it out with the persona crap. People's freedom underpins everything I believe in.

I personally don't consider the issue controversial. If you believe as I do that a sovereign individual should be able to do just about anything they like to their own body, then it's exceedingly straightforward.

 

And the alleged drawbacks are a load of bollocks.

[Bjornebye]

20 minutes ago, Sixtimes Dog said:

 

Cut it out with the persona crap. People's freedom underpins everything I believe in.

I personally don't consider the issue controversial. If you believe as I do that a sovereign individual should be able to do just about anything they like to their own body, then it's exceedingly straightforward.

 

And the alleged drawbacks are a load of bollocks.

We should all be assisting this cunt in killing himself

 

 

 

[Oh Buoy]

7 hours ago, Rico1304 said:

If only I’d said that.  Currently everyone dying a horrid death or living a needlessly painful existence is a victim.  I want fewer people to suffer.  Introducing euthanasia won’t turn normal people into homicidal maniacs, there will be people exploiting the law, that’s unfortunate but not worth doing nothing.   

 

Course you're not. 

The problem you're missing here is the argument isn't about whether it should or shouldn't be an option for those with in the latter stages of a terminal or agonising illness (obviously following assess full options first). It's about the who the system works for and who could access it in both positive and negative components.

 

If you want to rehash some emotive buzzwords in to that spotlight heres an example. A mother of two young daughters is in agonising pain, she wants to end her life because its unbearable. Her husband oushes the argument that that's how she'd like to go. That it's what's best and it's how she would have wanted.

 

She ends her life. Her husband then benefits financially and her kids later find out she was a victim of domestic violence. The law says she was entitled to make that decision and on the surface she seemed of sound mind, full capacity and no history of DV. Her kids have just lost their mother because Rico's Law says that having the right to that decision is more important than policing the boundaries and governance.

 

Now let me feel that tension build up in those gimpy fingers of yours.

 

6 hours ago, Sixtimes Dog said:

 

Every single freedom we enjoy is open to abuse. That's the nature of freedom.

 

I'm not about to prevent those who are in agonising, incurable pain from freely choosing to end their lives in a safe and dignified way just because there's a tiny theoretical chance that one day, someone may be coerced into it.

 

As a general rule we need to stop treating people as errant children who need to be kept in line and trust them to make decisions about their own lives, and this issue is a perfect example of that.

Nobody is treating anyone like children. We're discussing laws and governance. I'm yet to see a child fully understand the complexity of this discussion.

[Rico1304]

9 minutes ago, Seasons said:

The problem you're missing here is the argument isn't about whether it should or shouldn't be an option for those with in the latter stages of a terminal or agonising illness (obviously following assess full options first). It's about the who the system works for and who could access it in both positive and negative components.

 

If you want to rehash some emotive buzzwords in to that spotlight heres an example. A mother of two young daughters is in agonising pain, she wants to end her life because its unbearable. Her husband oushes the argument that that's how she'd like to go. That it's what's best and it's how she would have wanted.

 

She ends her life. Her husband then benefits financially and her kids later find out she was a victim of domestic violence. The law says she was entitled to make that decision and on the surface she seemed of sound mind, full capacity and no history of DV. Her kids have just lost their mother because Rico's Law says that having the right to that decision is more important than policing the boundaries and governance.

 

Now let me feel that tension build up in those gimpy fingers of yours.

 

Nobody is treating anyone like children. We're discussing laws and governance. I'm yet to see a child fully understand the complexity of this discussion.

Gosh, it’s a fucking good job this woman couldn’t kill herself without an assisted dying law isn’t it?  I mean victims of DV never do that do they? 

 

The situation you describe will undoubtedly happen.  But how many times?  1 in 20,000 or 1 in 1m? How about making it easier for DV victims to get out rather than using them to extend suffering? 

[Rico1304]

If these scenarios were so commonplace in other countries it must be easy to find them quote them.  

 

I like Rico’s law though.  There’s deffo going to some Xenu clause in there. Better watch out.  

[Oh Buoy]

2 hours ago, Rico1304 said:

Gosh, it’s a fucking good job this woman couldn’t kill herself without an assisted dying law isn’t it?  I mean victims of DV never do that do they? 

 

The situation you describe will undoubtedly happen.  But how many times?  1 in 20,000 or 1 in 1m? How about making it easier for DV victims to get out rather than using them to extend suffering? 

Statistics don't matter because casualties shouldn't hinder the majority. Who cares about her if the other lot got their wish. Gotta break a few eggs to make an omelette.

 

[Rico1304]

25 minutes ago, Seasons said:

Statistics don't matter because casualties shouldn't hinder the majority. Who cares about her if the other lot got their wish. Gotta break a few eggs to make an omelette.

 

That’s a ‘no’ then. 

[Oh Buoy]

2 hours ago, Rico1304 said:

That’s a ‘no’ then. 

A no to what? The DV question? Do I need to answer that?

[Jose Jones]

There's a Voluntary Assisted Dying law that's just come into force a couple of months ago down here in Victoria.

One of the small benefits of the Commonwealth system is that occasionally state governments are not so politically inert/corrupt as the federal politicians and so can sometimes get things done that are difficult or challenging.

 

Here's the basics:

 

Voluntary assisted dying is only for people who are suffering from an incurable, advanced and progressive disease, illness or medical condition, who are experiencing intolerable suffering. The condition must be assessed by two medical practitioners to be expected to cause death within six months. 

 

There is an exception for a person suffering from a neurodegenerative condition, where instead the condition must be expected to cause death within 12 months.

 

Voluntary assisted dying will only be available to Victorians who are over the age of 18 who have lived in Victoria for at least 12 months, and who have decision-making capacity. To be eligible for voluntary assisted dying they must be experiencing suffering that cannot be relieved in a manner the person considers tolerable.

 

Mental illness or disability alone are not grounds for access to voluntary assisted dying, but people who meet all other criteria, and who have a disability or mental illness, will not be denied access to voluntary assisted dying.

 

Only the person wanting to access voluntary assisted dying may initiate discussions with health practitioners about voluntary assisted dying. 

 

A family member or carer can’t request voluntary assisted dying on somebody else’s behalf. This is to ensure that the request is completely voluntary and without coercion, and that the decision is the person’s own. 

 

If a person wants to request access to voluntary assisted dying, they will need to be assessed by a suitably qualified doctor who will determine if the person is eligible. If the person is eligible, the process is repeated with a second doctor who will need to conduct another assessment. The doctors will make sure the person is making a fully informed decision and is aware of the available palliative care options. 

 

If the person wishes to proceed, they will need to make a written declaration that is witnessed by two independent individuals, confirming that they are making an informed, voluntary and enduring decision to access voluntary assisted dying. 

 

On receiving a final request, the doctor will apply for a permit to prescribe a medication that the person may use to end their life at a time of their choosing. The person must administer the medication themselves, unless they are physically unable to do so, in which case their doctor may assist.

 

No health practitioner or healthcare provider will be obliged to participate in voluntary assisted dying.

 

[Rico1304]

Seems perfectly reasonable.  It’ll probably be tweaked with experience over the years but a great start.  

[Oh Buoy]

2 hours ago, Rico1304 said:

Seems perfectly reasonable.  It’ll probably be tweaked with experience over the years but a great start.  

Amazing.

[Numero Veinticinco]

I'm still where I was years ago when this thread was first made. It's your body, you should - under the right circumstances - have access to dignified ways of ending their life. You can argue about the details and the circumstances and the surrounding framework, but I don't see a credible argument against it being available in any circumstance.