we should legalise euthanasia

[faustus]

EDIT: video of debate here (330MB): http://mpegmedia.abc.net.au/tv/fora/IQ2euthanasia.mp4

live on SMH 6.45 pm tonight, should be good. tony abbott is an absolute shitcunt.

nitschke's banned book "the peaceful pill handbook" is quite a morbid read but interesting nonetheless.

***********

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/nitsch...3423135581.html

THEY'RE back. Tonight at the City Recital Hall in Angel Place, the 2009 season of theIntelligence Squared Australia debates kicks off with one of society's most polarising propositions: We should legalise euthanasia.

Dr Philip Nitschke, the Greens senator Bob Brown and a former federal health minister, Professor Peter Baume, will argue the proposition against another former federal health minister, Tony Abbott, the Jesuit scholar Father Frank Brennan and the palliative care specialist Dr Maria Cigolini, in front of a sell-out crowd of 1200.

And, given those numbers, those names and the issue, it is not entirely unlikely the raised level of public debate for which the inaugural series attracted praise last year might be accompanied by raised heartbeats, temperatures and not a few voices.

But that is only as it should be.

"We've been looking for topics which firstly lend themselves to people learning something new about a topic that they didn't know before," said Dr Simon Longstaff, the executive director of the debates' host - the St James Ethics Centre- who will tonight act as the moderator. "So if it's just a question of opinion, as opposed to matters of fact, or argument, they're not that interesting.

"Secondly, we ask: are there important issues in contention? And thirdly, is it something which people may already have thought they knew the answer to but are open to new information concerning it."

To better track any change of opinion as a result of the evening's arguments the audience is polled before and after the debate. Dr Longstaff imagines the most likely arguments in support of tonight's motion will involve the idea of dignity, and the idea of suffering as an evil to be avoided, and compassion.

The debate will be webcast live from 6.45pm on smh.com.au and subsequently broadcast on Radio National and ABC2. The Herald sponsors the series and the next debate "Freedom of expression must include the licence to offend" will be on March 31.

Edited February 4, 2009 by twix elbert

[JDanger]

Sounds interesting. I think there was one of these debates I wanted to go to last year, but I don't remember what the topic was. Next month's topic looks good too. Makes me wonder if they'll ever get around to the drugs issue.

[FancyPants]

1. Nietsche is forcing NOBODY to choose this path.

2. Abbott is forcing EVERYBODY to choose his.

How this can even be up for discussion is still seriously beyond my comprehension.

[Yawning Man]

1. Nietsche is forcing NOBODY to choose this path.

2. Abbott is forcing EVERYBODY to choose his.

How this can even be up for discussion is still seriously beyond my comprehension.

True. I think these out-of-date religious beliefs have to much influence over a lot of decisions being made for 'the good of the public". What a crock of shit.

Edited.

@Twix - LOL shitcunt. One of my mates always says that.

cheers

Edited February 3, 2009 by peaceful_son

[Amulte]

ARG wish i hadnt missed it, would have been most interesting. personally im all for it in reguards to people that are suffering IF they choose it. each to their own as i love to say over and over.

gotta say, that word "shitcunt" reminds me of a woman i encountered in ER. she had a hysterectomy. surgeon MUST have stitched things together wrong as white, dry and old fecal matter began passing out of her vagina some weeks later.

It's up to the parents to make the decision. It's that simple. It's stupifying how some people can blatently disregard the impact of keeping a child on a person. Particularly if that person (the parents) is young and short of money. How will they cope? By living off government benefits?

Not much of a life for a child.

wait what? are we talking about abortion or euthanasia?

euthanasia is sympathy killing right? like putting down a wounded animal due to its suffering and poor quality of life.

im positive ive got this one right, but my memory has been screwing with me lately so i could be wrong, but im like 100% positive, like the other times....

[Yawning Man]

haha holy shit. Time to edit that post. My brain works in mysterious ways.

Sorry

[faustus]

my connection is throttled so i'll have to watch it later.

generally i agree with nitschke, because on paper i think people should be able to do whatever they want.

but consider the case of depression. should we allow euthanasia for depression? anyone who's been severely depressed knows that depression is like a black hole, you can't see any happiness beyond it, and because of that you'd be compelled to commit suicide. when you come out of your depression, you're like hey, i can't believe that i thought i'd never get out of it. should we help people kill themselves if there's nothing physically wrong with them, no terminal illness, but because they're depressed? and if not, why? IMHO it's hypocrisy to say that physical pain justifies mercy killing, but mental pain doesn't.

and who are we to tell the depressed person, no, we can't help them kill themselves because they haven't exhausted all their options. the same thing can be said for the terminally ill patient who hasn't tried every therapy, but is so exhausted that they've given up.

as far as i'm aware, nitschke supports euthanasia for whatever the reason. i usually like seeing things as black and white but this is a grey area that makes me think twice. then you've got an issue of adolescents wanting to kill themselves, or people with a serious physical illness + depression.

[Amulte]

but consider the case of depression. should we allow euthanasia for depression? anyone who's been severely depressed knows that depression is like a black hole, you can't see any happiness beyond it, and because of that you'd be compelled to commit suicide. when you come out of your depression, you're like hey, i can't believe that i thought i'd never get out of it. should we help people kill themselves if there's nothing physically wrong with them, no terminal illness, but because they're depressed? and if not, why? IMHO it's hypocrisy to say that physical pain justifies mercy killing, but mental pain doesn't.

and who are we to tell the depressed person, no, we can't help them kill themselves because they haven't exhausted all their options. the same thing can be said for the terminally ill patient who hasn't tried every therapy, but is so exhausted that they've given up.

as far as i'm aware, nitschke supports euthanasia for whatever the reason. i usually like seeing things as black and white but this is a grey area that makes me think twice. then you've got an issue of adolescents wanting to kill themselves, or people with a serious physical illness + depression.

fuck no. and i am speaking as someone who does suffer sever depression. its been about 15 years with no end in sight, but maybe im lucky to be manic. if it wasnt for the ups i dont think i could justify tolerating the downs. but one NEVER remembers that in the depressive state....

i say this because moods change. just got to give it time. might appear to take a while but your mood will change. if you experience depression then you MUST have experienced some sort of happiness in life. you cannot have one without the other but in the depressive state there generally is no other. from this i see that perception is warped by the emotion. (IMO what our mind considers reality is only 1/10th reality and 9/10th's perception, so if ones perception is squewd by emotion like depression then their perceived reality of that moment in time will be inaccurate when one considers the time spent in a depressive state against the average life expectancy in this country[race considering]).

personally i have exausted all my options. the things i have found that work only work in part. i have made ALL the essential lifestyle changes to better my mental health. but i still believe i should not have the right to be able to die if i choose to unless i have a terminal illness. some could say with my mental diagnoses that my quality of life could be lesser than the standard joe blow (i like to call them muggles). but i disagree, i have the ability of bi-polarity. it is a blessed curse. the yin and yang of mental illness.

now im aware that it was depression that was mention, not manic depression or things of the like. but depression is catagorised as a temporary state of emotion. by definition it WILL pass, i wish i could find the reference im thinking of for this....

anyway, i think ive made my point. tho the individual suffering may think its their only option that fact of the matter is that they consider that to be the only option out of an altered perception. which IMO is acting rashly.

[faustus]

ok, so you're arguing that depression shouldn't count as a justification for euthanasia. but who are we to decide what is and isn't acceptable when it has to do with someone else and their life? in some ways that's exactly what tony abbott is doing -- you've just relaxed the criteria a little.

so depression is off the table:

what about a 10 year old kid with a terminal illness?

what if you've got a 20% chance to live? or you you've got cancer but don't want to have chemo because it'll decrease the quality of your life?

if you shouldn't kill someone whose perceptions are warped (re depression) then what if they're terminally ill and in chronic physical pain, and they're not thinking straight.

or someone with a terminal illness + depression, who without the depression might not want to kill themselves?

or someone who is happy but old? (old age is terminal too) -- about 10 years ago there was a case of a healthy and happy old woman who had decided that she wanted to kill herself because she didn't want to be an invalid in the future.

don't mind me, i just think for a simple idea things get very complicated very quickly.

[Torsten]

I think for the time being the cut off point should be 'terminal' or 'incurable with very crappy quality of life'. If someone has had clinical depression for 30 years and can't be fixed, then why do we force that person to stay alive? Surely that debilitating emotional pain is no less than someone with 30 years of debilitating physical pain. But I agree that the limits of availability are certainly contentious and need to be discussed.

What I can't grasp is why we still make terminally ill people suffer. It's cruel. It's inhuman. It scares me shitless. I would like to know that if I am ever in that horrible situation that I am in constant agonising pain, that I can determine when *I* have had enough. Or worse even if I have to watch a loved one go through that. I think to make criminals of mercy killers is disgusting.

[Amulte]

thats a shitcunt load to think about.

my whole argument was an oxymoron. i mean i can see both side quite well. personally tho i find that later something changes to make me thankful i didnt act on that impulse. and really thats where i drew my opinion from, was my own personal experience and self reflection over this topic since i discovered the undeniable truth behind such mental illness as others and my own.

it is hopeless, your future is either learning to deal with it as best possible, or give in and accept the pharmaceutical sedation. one wishes it would go away or there was a magic cure but really the only 'cure' is death. death ends suffering.

but life isnt all suffering and moods change. i believe in each to their own so maybe instead of removing the right to decide as my opinion appeared to reflect, society just put precautionary measures in place. for example when one seeks a divorce it is compulsory to attend state paid counselling (depending on state), when one seeks euthanasia one goes through state paid psychoanalysis. thing is most who consider the idea have already tried and failed countless programs. i myself recently failed the very experimental, severely outdated, and ethically wrong DBT.

but ive got to remember im looking at this from a way to personal level, so my arguments are warped by emotion in a way. ive been lucky in learning to accept and how to deal, others arnt so lucky.

what about a 10 year old kid with a terminal illness?

the parents concent

if you shouldn't kill someone whose perceptions are warped (re depression) then what if they're terminally ill and in chronic physical pain, and they're not thinking straight.

the suggested psychoanalysis maybe, ofcourse in conjunction with medical/surgical data.

all others i say each to their own.

or someone who is happy but old? (old age is terminal too) -- about 10 years ago there was a case of a healthy and happy old woman who had decided that she wanted to kill herself because she didn't want to be an invalid in the future.

this one reminds me too much of the movie "Logan's Run". but each to their own. i do believe if you want to die you have the right to, but personally im glad its not that easy as i am one who tends to act rashly at the worst of times.

think im too emotionally involved in the subject matter. its one ive been thinking about of over a decade.

Edited February 3, 2009 by Amulte

[chilli]

What I can't grasp is why we still make terminally ill people suffer.

Because they need to suffer to get into heaven, obviously!

Doctors routinely euthanize terminally ill patients who are suffering, in the form of larger and larger doses of morphine.

So look on the bright side, fiends... if you ever are in that situation you will basically get as much morphine as you ever wanted, plus addiction will be moot.

[Amulte]

Because they need to suffer to get into heaven, obviously!

ROFLMAO!!!

Doctors routinely euthanize terminally ill patients who are suffering, in the form of larger and larger doses of morphine.

that is a very valid point, ive known 6 people that this has happened to, and we thanked the doctors as we were informed that they were giving extra morphine to "help them sleep". some of the time the patient is unaware but in either case the doctors are thanked for their compassion. it is an odd state of affairs.

[Torsten]

I don't like opiates and I don't want to die as a drug addict. I want to pick my own time and place. Not after weeks or months of pain that the doctors claim to be managing.

And seriously folks, do we really need to hang onto every human that doesn't want to be here and has a valid reason for wanting to depart? It's just religious hogwash. Once we move beyond that there is no reason to not allow euthanasia under certain controls. And yes, I am for strict controls for young and unstable people. The point is that most people who seek euthanasia are NOT young and unstable. It is only those that oppose it who constantly drag up the great dangers this supposedly has for the community. In practical terms there are very few such grey area cases as can be seen in countries where euthanasia is legal.

[MindExpansion]

I am in two minds about this, BUT we already have a system for deeming people's competence to make medical decisions.

The only issue is that many of the people who seek euthanasia are elderly, often demented, and as such would fail to be deemed medically competent. And then the decision goes to next of kin or their appointed (can't remember the term, damn hangover) decision maker (heheh). Then we face the issue that often the next of kins goals and ideas on the issue may be different to the goals of the person in question. It's a tough one, but there is CERTAINLY no reason why medically competent people shouldn't be able to choose to end their life in a peaceful way, for whatever fucking reason they want!!

Also the fact that doctor's may already do it does not mean the situation shouldn't be evaluated because every time they do they risk their livelihood, career, and freedom. That in itself is unacceptable when they should be being thanked, and also I find it highly unlikely that any doctor would purposefully OD a person who had not at some staged expressed the want to end their life.

Peace

[faustus]

video of debate here (330MB): http://mpegmedia.abc.net.au/tv/fora/IQ2euthanasia.mp4

audio is here: http://mpegmedia.abc.net.au/tv/fora/IQ2euthanasia.mp3

[Amulte]

thnx twix

[blog]

I think nitschke is a creepy profiteer of death and sorrow. The way when you go to his website, you get a couple of sample pages to read, and then some advertising spiel about why you should give him $75 US dollars (AU dollars don't make the grade) to download some web version of the book Why on earth is he charging dying people for it. Some sort of donation might be fair enough but to hard sell it with FREE TOUR PAGES just like a porn site is really tacky stuff...

However, that video that was released for his site of the woman who made a plea for a euthanasia drug because of her fears of a terrifying humiliating death (choking on her own faeces) and then her dying a terrifying humiliating death just as she feared was a brilliant pro-euthanasia video which may not have been seen without nitschke & his pay per view website. And due to his organisation it was also all over the media launching many a debate. So for that, he certainly did well.

 

Edited February 4, 2009 by blog

[Torsten]

I think nitschke is a creepy profiteer of death and sorrow.

I initially had that impression too, but you have to consider what he does and the risks he takes. There is not a lot of money in the pro euthanasia lobby. I am sure a dedicated, motivated and innovative doctor like Nitschke could easily be raking in 5 figure sums at his age and expertise level if he was in any other medical field. But instead he fights for a cause that most of us don't bother thinking about until we need it. I think the expectation for people to risk their freedom and their career and get nothing in return is unsustainable. So unless he gets some rich benefactor to finance him I think we just have to put up with a little bit of a commercial side to his 'merchandise'.

The way when you go to his website, you get a couple of sample pages to read, and then some advertising spiel about why you should give him $75 US dollars (AU dollars don't make the grade) to download some web version of the book Why on earth is he charging dying people for it. Some sort of donation might be fair enough but to hard sell it with FREE TOUR PAGES just like a porn site is really tacky stuff...

So, would it be better if it didn't have free tour pages? That's what you are essentially saying.

Personally I prefer to have a look at the quality of a book's content ebfore buying it and I can usually tell from a couple of pages if it is aimed at morons or if I am going to learn something.

As for charging for it, most people who download it aren't dying yet. And those who are indeed dying are for the most part no poorer than anyone else. Other docs charge for EVERY treatment, pharmacies charge for medicines, every other doc/nutritionist/dietquack/etc charges for their books and pamphlets, so why are you holding a different yardstick to Dr Nitschke? Just because he is fighting for a cause he has to do it for free?

As for US$, this is probably because the book was banned in australia and hence can't be sold here, nor can the funds be received here. Most international check out systems use US$, so no surprise there.

I think the suggestion of donation, especially if this was in the form of bequests, is a lot more creepy than charging for a legitimate product. Also, don't forget that Nitschke got the book printed and then it was banned by the australian government. So he isn't even out to make a profit, but is just trying to recoup his losses.

Nitschke is fighting an unpleasant fight for a human right all of us should have and which is being denied to us by our governments. I doubt he makes a lot of friends or any money in the process, but in my eyes he is a hero.

I suggest people check out the website soon and download the book, cos I am sure this is one site that is on the government's censorship list.