hearing a lot about euthanasia/assisted death

less of suicide, when really that’s what it is.

the obliteration of the reality really does give suicide a bad reputation.

transition said:

hearing a lot about euthanasia/assisted death

less of suicide, when really that’s what it is.

the obliteration of the reality really does give suicide a bad reputation.

technically suicide is death by your own hand. in the case of the euthanasia it is death by the hand of medical intervention… not unlike the death penalty but chosen by the person in ‘the event of’ or ‘in the case of ‘.

>technically suicide is death by your own hand

doubt that of the practical world

you jump of something it’s gravity and KE, same of throwing self in front of a train

transition said:

hearing a lot about euthanasia/assisted death

less of suicide, when really that’s what it is.

the obliteration of the reality really does give suicide a bad reputation.

I’ve been hearing a lot about assisted suicide in the news lately.

https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/rendezview/i-want-to-care-for-people-not-kill-them/news-story/588d9df56ac0b6b98452c8f0d11b9cfe
It is alarming that under the proposed legislation in both Victoria and New South Wales a patient need not be suffering physical pain to be eligible for assisted suicide.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/vic-euthanasia-bill-faces-hostile-upper-house/news-story/f237145a3513d81484e17014cdecc38c
The Andrews government has been blindsided in its bid to secure parliamentary backing for the Victorian assisted-­suicide package

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/health/top-qc-questions-safety-of-victorias-assisted-suicide-bill/news-story/17fdbfe85b854b58d9c6aa2781cac6cc&memtype=anonymous
Owler’s report is nothing more than an amateurish, “utopian”, non-evidence-based, government-funded exercise in justifying the assisted suicide project.

https://www.spectator.com.au
- It is a sad reality that perfectly well older Australians are looking into their futures and finding solace in the potential of physician-assisted suicide

transition said:

>technically suicide is death by your own hand

doubt that of the practical world

you jump of something it’s gravity and KE, same of throwing self in front of a train

ok – intentionally causing ones own death

transition said:

>technically suicide is death by your own hand

doubt that of the practical world

you jump of something it’s gravity and KE, same of throwing self in front of a train

LOL, you’re joking?

>I’ve been hearing a lot about assisted suicide in the news lately.

yeah had that conversation with lady, I reckoned was being called assisted suicide also.

but, to the point, which is to just suicide, assisted or not.

thoughts outside the distortions of law, ideology, if you dare, or can.

transition said:

but, to the point, which is to just suicide, assisted or not.

Sure. I don’t think the point you are making is controversial.

call it self termination if you like, though self doesn’t necessarily mean by self only, and why should it.

suicide, self-termination as a concept (a possibility) was around before any legal thinking or laws on the subject.

I“d be interested in the vote split on this one. It won 22 – 18. The Gran is stating that four Libs supported the bill.

There are 14 Labs, 14 Libs, 5 Greens, 2 Nats, 2 shoot your dog, 1 Sex, 1 Oz conserve and 1 job.

So with 4 libs going for it, I’m assuming the 5 greenies and sexy; there’s 10 votes. Assuming that the nats, shoot your dog, Oz conserve and Jobby all voted against it then a minimum of two Labs went against the grain. I wonder who they were and whether there will be a backlash against the right wing fuckers.

dv said:

transition said:

but, to the point, which is to just suicide, assisted or not.

Sure. I don’t think the point you are making is controversial.

well, i’m trying to mundane it, so-far so good.

sibeen said:

I“d be interested in the vote split on this one. It won 22 – 18. The Gran is stating that four Libs supported the bill.

There are 14 Labs, 14 Libs, 5 Greens, 2 Nats, 2 shoot your dog, 1 Sex, 1 Oz conserve and 1 job.

So with 4 libs going for it, I’m assuming the 5 greenies and sexy; there’s 10 votes. Assuming that the nats, shoot your dog, Oz conserve and Jobby all voted against it then a minimum of two Labs went against the grain. I wonder who they were and whether there will be a backlash against the right wing fuckers.

It was a conscience vote for all MPs. Eleven government MPs backed the bill, as did four Liberals, five Greens, the Reason Party’s Fiona Patten and Vote 1 Local Jobs Party MP James Purcell.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-11-22/euthanasia-victorian-parliament-passes-assisted-dying-laws/9156016

doesn’t say who though.

ChrispenEvan said:

sibeen said:

I“d be interested in the vote split on this one. It won 22 – 18. The Gran is stating that four Libs supported the bill.

There are 14 Labs, 14 Libs, 5 Greens, 2 Nats, 2 shoot your dog, 1 Sex, 1 Oz conserve and 1 job.

So with 4 libs going for it, I’m assuming the 5 greenies and sexy; there’s 10 votes. Assuming that the nats, shoot your dog, Oz conserve and Jobby all voted against it then a minimum of two Labs went against the grain. I wonder who they were and whether there will be a backlash against the right wing fuckers.

It was a conscience vote for all MPs. Eleven government MPs backed the bill, as did four Liberals, five Greens, the Reason Party’s Fiona Patten and Vote 1 Local Jobs Party MP James Purcell.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-11-22/euthanasia-victorian-parliament-passes-assisted-dying-laws/9156016

doesn’t say who though.

Thanks for that. The gran didn’t have the breakdown, and knowing them would have fucked it up if they did :)

So three Labs voted against it. Up against the wall I suppose.

It will interesting to see what happens when Andrews starts putting down Andrews.

sibeen said:

ChrispenEvan said:

sibeen said:

I“d be interested in the vote split on this one. It won 22 – 18. The Gran is stating that four Libs supported the bill.

There are 14 Labs, 14 Libs, 5 Greens, 2 Nats, 2 shoot your dog, 1 Sex, 1 Oz conserve and 1 job.

So with 4 libs going for it, I’m assuming the 5 greenies and sexy; there’s 10 votes. Assuming that the nats, shoot your dog, Oz conserve and Jobby all voted against it then a minimum of two Labs went against the grain. I wonder who they were and whether there will be a backlash against the right wing fuckers.

It was a conscience vote for all MPs. Eleven government MPs backed the bill, as did four Liberals, five Greens, the Reason Party’s Fiona Patten and Vote 1 Local Jobs Party MP James Purcell.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-11-22/euthanasia-victorian-parliament-passes-assisted-dying-laws/9156016

doesn’t say who though.

Up against the wall I suppose.

assist them in dying?

ChrispenEvan said:

sibeen said:

ChrispenEvan said:

It was a conscience vote for all MPs. Eleven government MPs backed the bill, as did four Liberals, five Greens, the Reason Party’s Fiona Patten and Vote 1 Local Jobs Party MP James Purcell.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-11-22/euthanasia-victorian-parliament-passes-assisted-dying-laws/9156016

doesn’t say who though.

Up against the wall I suppose.

assist them in dying?

Sometimes it’s the only way.

sibeen said:

ChrispenEvan said:

sibeen said:

Up against the wall I suppose.

assist them in dying?

Sometimes it’s the only way.

pick the religious nutjobs in the vic alp and they’ll be the ones.

ChrispenEvan said:

sibeen said:

ChrispenEvan said:

assist them in dying?

Sometimes it’s the only way.

pick the religious nutjobs in the vic alp and they’ll be the ones.

Fairly obvious. It also shows that being socially conservative does not necessarily = right wing nutjob.

Unless that nice Mr Keating (sob I still miss him) can be included.

sibeen said:

I“d be interested in the vote split on this one. It won 22 – 18. The Gran is stating that four Libs supported the bill.

There are 14 Labs, 14 Libs, 5 Greens, 2 Nats, 2 shoot your dog, 1 Sex, 1 Oz conserve and 1 job.

So with 4 libs going for it, I’m assuming the 5 greenies and sexy; there’s 10 votes. Assuming that the nats, shoot your dog, Oz conserve and Jobby all voted against it then a minimum of two Labs went against the grain. I wonder who they were and whether there will be a backlash against the right wing fuckers.

SDA backed deputy premier Merlino was a no.

I’m torn on this as I am on abortion. I can see good arguments both ways.

Dad died at home of lung cancer.
My sister, a nurse, called the doctor 3 times that night to give him a shot of morphine.
No pump packs back then.
Just before dawn on that terrible night the doctor gave him the last shot and I’m pretty sure it was a lethal one.
His last words were “I’m just so tired” and he went back to sleep and died shortly after.
I’m pretty sure that the medical profession conducted euthanasia like that back then.
It didn’t need codifying.

anyway the subtlety was in giving suicide a bad reputation

most self-terminations are not of the sort being legislated for.

the question is _what is the effect of accommodating that ^ above on the other suicides(perceptions of).

I mean an unassisted suicide (that not medicalized) might seem less honest.

sibeen said:

ChrispenEvan said:

sibeen said:

Sometimes it’s the only way.

pick the religious nutjobs in the vic alp and they’ll be the ones.

Fairly obvious. It also shows that being socially conservative does not necessarily = right wing nutjob.

Unless that nice Mr Keating (sob I still miss him) can be included.

yeah, why i didn’t write RWNJ, though tempted.

Peak Warming Man said:

I’m torn on this as I am on abortion. I can see good arguments both ways.

Dad died at home of lung cancer.
My sister, a nurse, called the doctor 3 times that night to give him a shot of morphine.
No pump packs back then.
Just before dawn on that terrible night the doctor gave him the last shot and I’m pretty sure it was a lethal one.
His last words were “I’m just so tired” and he went back to sleep and died shortly after.
I’m pretty sure that the medical profession conducted euthanasia like that back then.
It didn’t need codifying.

Problem being, it put the doctor in a precarious position, both legally and of his conscience.

PermeateFree said:

Peak Warming Man said:

I’m torn on this as I am on abortion. I can see good arguments both ways.

Dad died at home of lung cancer.
My sister, a nurse, called the doctor 3 times that night to give him a shot of morphine.
No pump packs back then.
Just before dawn on that terrible night the doctor gave him the last shot and I’m pretty sure it was a lethal one.
His last words were “I’m just so tired” and he went back to sleep and died shortly after.
I’m pretty sure that the medical profession conducted euthanasia like that back then.
It didn’t need codifying.

Problem being, it put the doctor in a precarious position, both legally and of his conscience.

first: do no harm… it’s the first rule!

PermeateFree said:

Peak Warming Man said:

I’m torn on this as I am on abortion. I can see good arguments both ways.

Dad died at home of lung cancer.
My sister, a nurse, called the doctor 3 times that night to give him a shot of morphine.
No pump packs back then.
Just before dawn on that terrible night the doctor gave him the last shot and I’m pretty sure it was a lethal one.
His last words were “I’m just so tired” and he went back to sleep and died shortly after.
I’m pretty sure that the medical profession conducted euthanasia like that back then.
It didn’t need codifying.

Problem being, it put the doctor in a precarious position, both legally and of his conscience.

Mum died in an elite hospital of lung cancer/bone cancer. Every single bit of her hurt. She didn’t really want to die but she couldn’t live with the pain.

The nursing staff told her, and us, that the next injection was probably going to be her last.

And it was.

Arts said:

PermeateFree said:

Peak Warming Man said:

I’m torn on this as I am on abortion. I can see good arguments both ways.

Dad died at home of lung cancer.
My sister, a nurse, called the doctor 3 times that night to give him a shot of morphine.
No pump packs back then.
Just before dawn on that terrible night the doctor gave him the last shot and I’m pretty sure it was a lethal one.
His last words were “I’m just so tired” and he went back to sleep and died shortly after.
I’m pretty sure that the medical profession conducted euthanasia like that back then.
It didn’t need codifying.

Problem being, it put the doctor in a precarious position, both legally and of his conscience.

first: do no harm… it’s the first rule!

Not an expert on this, obviously, but my understanding is that Doctors have been allowed to provide analgesia to control pain for a long time, and their legal position and conscience have always been clear. But as I say, not an expert.

Rule 303 said:

Arts said:

PermeateFree said:

Problem being, it put the doctor in a precarious position, both legally and of his conscience.

first: do no harm… it’s the first rule!

Not an expert on this, obviously, but my understanding is that Doctors have been allowed to provide analgesia to control pain for a long time, and their legal position and conscience have always been clear. But as I say, not an expert.

>>Crucially, an even clearer ­majority of AMA members said if voluntary euthanasia were made legal at the state and territory level, doctors should be involved in helping terminally ill people die rather than dig in on principle and boycott the process.

Reflecting this, the AMA has altered its position to say: “If governments decide that laws should be changed to allow for the practice of euthanasia and/or physician-assisted suicide, the medical profession must be involved in the development of relevant legislation, regulations and guidelines.”<<

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/health/most-doctors-would-help-terminally-ill-die-ama/news-story/82a3d43d1c8742230a406e8ebe0cedb9

PermeateFree said:

Rule 303 said:

Arts said:

first: do no harm… it’s the first rule!

Not an expert on this, obviously, but my understanding is that Doctors have been allowed to provide analgesia to control pain for a long time, and their legal position and conscience have always been clear. But as I say, not an expert.

>>Crucially, an even clearer ­majority of AMA members said if voluntary euthanasia were made legal at the state and territory level, doctors should be involved in helping terminally ill people die rather than dig in on principle and boycott the process.

Reflecting this, the AMA has altered its position to say: “If governments decide that laws should be changed to allow for the practice of euthanasia and/or physician-assisted suicide, the medical profession must be involved in the development of relevant legislation, regulations and guidelines.”<<

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/health/most-doctors-would-help-terminally-ill-die-ama/news-story/82a3d43d1c8742230a406e8ebe0cedb9

>>There have been no criminal prosecutions of doctors in Australia in relation to their administration of pain relieving drugs that have hastened death.(33) There has been no judicial clarification, therefore, of the legal position in Australia. In the absence of such clarification it may not be safe to assume that the legal ‘exception’ articulated in the English case law is part of the criminal law of Australia. It has been suggested that, under a strict interpretation of the relevant Australian homicide laws, a doctor actually may not be immune from liability for murder, in respect of the death of a patient resulting from the administration of pain killing drugs, simply because the situation can be characterised as one where the doctor did not intend to cause the death. Rather, the doctor may be potentially liable for murder if the doctor administered the drugs in the knowledge that the patient might die as a result and if the drugs did in fact hasten the patient’s death.(34)<<

https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/RP9697/97rp4#magic_tag_7

PermeateFree said:

>>There have been no criminal prosecutions of doctors in Australia in relation to their administration of pain relieving drugs that have hastened death.(33) There has been no judicial clarification, therefore, of the legal position in Australia. In the absence of such clarification it may not be safe to assume that the legal ‘exception’ articulated in the English case law is part of the criminal law of Australia. It has been suggested that, under a strict interpretation of the relevant Australian homicide laws, a doctor actually may not be immune from liability for murder, in respect of the death of a patient resulting from the administration of pain killing drugs, simply because the situation can be characterised as one where the doctor did not intend to cause the death. Rather, the doctor may be potentially liable for murder if the doctor administered the drugs in the knowledge that the patient might die as a result and if the drugs did in fact hasten the patient’s death.(34)<<

https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/RP9697/97rp4#magic_tag_7

It’s speculative opinion, born, I suspect, of an abundance of caution. Their willingness to continue the practice suggests Doctors are no so concerned.

Rule 303 said:

PermeateFree said:

>>There have been no criminal prosecutions of doctors in Australia in relation to their administration of pain relieving drugs that have hastened death.(33) There has been no judicial clarification, therefore, of the legal position in Australia. In the absence of such clarification it may not be safe to assume that the legal ‘exception’ articulated in the English case law is part of the criminal law of Australia. It has been suggested that, under a strict interpretation of the relevant Australian homicide laws, a doctor actually may not be immune from liability for murder, in respect of the death of a patient resulting from the administration of pain killing drugs, simply because the situation can be characterised as one where the doctor did not intend to cause the death. Rather, the doctor may be potentially liable for murder if the doctor administered the drugs in the knowledge that the patient might die as a result and if the drugs did in fact hasten the patient’s death.(34)<<

https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/RP9697/97rp4#magic_tag_7

It’s speculative opinion, born, I suspect, of an abundance of caution. Their willingness to continue the practice suggests Doctors are no so concerned.

The doctors needs to be very careful on what he says and to whom. The possibility of legal action is very real as it was with those doctors that openly practiced abortion.

PermeateFree said:

Rule 303 said:

It’s speculative opinion, born, I suspect, of an abundance of caution. Their willingness to continue the practice suggests Doctors are no so concerned.

The doctors needs to be very careful on what he says and to whom. The possibility of legal action is very real as it was with those doctors that openly practiced abortion.

I have been part of a few of these – The Doctors involved really didn’t seem like they were worried about the legal implications; only the patient’s wellbeing. If they were taking a personal risk in doing so then I am deeply grateful to them.

Rule 303 said:

PermeateFree said:

Rule 303 said:

It’s speculative opinion, born, I suspect, of an abundance of caution. Their willingness to continue the practice suggests Doctors are no so concerned.

The doctors needs to be very careful on what he says and to whom. The possibility of legal action is very real as it was with those doctors that openly practiced abortion.

I have been part of a few of these – The Doctors involved really didn’t seem like they were worried about the legal implications; only the patient’s wellbeing. If they were taking a personal risk in doing so then I am deeply grateful to them.

There have been frank discussions with doctors on Radio National and they all agree that it is a sword of Damocles over them, which they would much prefer it were removed

Rule 303 said:

Arts said:

PermeateFree said:

Problem being, it put the doctor in a precarious position, both legally and of his conscience.

first: do no harm… it’s the first rule!

Not an expert on this, obviously, but my understanding is that Doctors have been allowed to provide analgesia to control pain for a long time, and their legal position and conscience have always been clear. But as I say, not an expert.

as in life, the range is varied and wide when it comes to practice

ChrispenEvan said:

transition said:

>technically suicide is death by your own hand

doubt that of the practical world

you jump of something it’s gravity and KE, same of throwing self in front of a train

LOL, you’re joking?

I was certainly drawing attention to assisted, that you could say any number of things assisted, and in the examples given it would be true.

transition said:

dv said:

transition said:

but, to the point, which is to just suicide, assisted or not.

Sure. I don’t think the point you are making is controversial.

well, i’m trying to mundane it, so-far so good.

Thumbs up emoji

dv said:

transition said:

dv said:

Sure. I don’t think the point you are making is controversial.

well, i’m trying to mundane it, so-far so good.

Thumbs up emoji

In Australia it is easy. You simply drive to FNQ and go swimming behind the atchung! signs.

Just because we can keep people alive doesn’t necessarily mean we should, choosing you own method of death when their is no hope of getting better isn’t something we should deny people. People should be allowed to die with dignity if such a thing exists. We euthanize our pets and we love them no less (or often more) than people, we could keep them alive but with a reduced quality of life probably in pain. Perhaps its our own selfishness that wants someone to live as long as possible even if they themselves want to die to be free of pain and misery.