DiscussMormonism.com

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2007/01/ ... 92086.html

My name is Dr John Elliott and I'm about to die, with my head held high

And make no mistake, it is the churches who influence government to enact laws which make people suffer in ways that they would not allow animals to suffer. I find this totally bizzare.

And do you think we really live in a democracy?

But the latest case comes in hard times for euthanasia campaigners. Despite opinion polls consistently showing that about 70 per cent of Australians support euthanasia, the Howard Government has fiercely opposed any change to the law.

From the day it led the 1997 vote in Federal Parliament to overturn the Northern Territory right-to-die legislation, the Government has gone after Dr Nitschke with particular intensity.

The question I'm asking here is this: If I'm in terrible pain, and I want to end my life, who has the right to tell me I "must" live? To appease their morality? You would foist your morality upon me? Do I have a choice? I must suffer like even animals are not allowed to suffer?

Anti-euthanasia advocates - please explain your reasoning.

Ray A wrote:The question I'm asking here is this: If I'm in terrible pain, and I want to end my life, who has the right to tell me I "must" live? To appease their morality? You would foist your morality upon me? Do I have a choice? I must suffer like even animals are not allowed to suffer?

Anti-euthanasia advocates - please explain your reasoning.

I'm not really pro or con but I do support a person's right to make their own choice on this matter. It seems contradictory to the idea of free will in a democracy.

I think the euthanasia debate is a product of the flipside of the "right to life" argument, abortion. It seems "life" and living are more important than the people doing the living. Protection of "life" I guess means some loss of freedom. I wouldn't discount the religious factor and the stigma around suicide either. Involuntary euthanasia also has a rather bad history.

I do think it would be a slippery slope if it was not carefully regulated. A doctor may perform many "services" to his patients and one day decide that someone else who is suffering (in a coma or vegetative state or whatever) but can't make the decision themself needs to be "put down". If it was legalized it would have to be carefully regulated with strict controls so that there is no grey area for a sympathetic doctor to act upon.

Bond...James Bond wrote:I do think it would be a slippery slope if it was not carefully regulated. A doctor may perform many "services" to his patients and one day decide that someone else who is suffering (in a coma or vegetative state or whatever) but can't make the decision themself needs to be "put down". If it was legalized it would have to be carefully regulated with strict controls so that there is no grey area for a sympathetic doctor to act upon.

And that is what I would like to see, carefully regulated VE. This was achieved in the Northern Territory Euthanasia Bill, which was over-turned by the Federal Government. The important issue at stake here is CHOICE. If I determine I no longer want to live, why do the bureaucratic dictators have any say??? WHAT are they preserving? Law? The law that says that a person in horrific suffering cannot chose to end their life? WHY? For someone else's morality? "You offend us because you choose to die and end suffering?" Oh, sorry, I must suffer for YOUR sense of morality!

I just talked to a friend of mine who considers himself "spiritual", and he's against VE. Very religious and a believer in the "virgin birth" and all things Catholic. Anything startling here? Connect the dots? Why is it that these "religious" and "spiritual" types are so against VE? Humans are above animals - we can think? Big deal. Because we can think we should suffer more? Makes sense, bro. Entirely rational. No wonder Dawkins is making more and more sense to me.

A quote from one of my favorite ministers:

"What does God expect of me?" Many people ask themselves that question, and the answer has a lot to do with how you view your relationship with God. I'll never forget what a woman at one of my conferences shared with me. She said God told her that religion is man's idea of God's expectations, and I think that's a very good definition.

-Joyce Meyer

I'm sick of folks telling other people what to do based on their view of how they think God wants them to live their life. Get your own sh*t in order, goodness!

How are you helping someone whose quality of life is so reduced that they want to die by telling them that they either need to live or face hell?

I think this is a manifestation of intrusive religions that simply want to control every significant decision in a person's life. I am struggling right now keeping a moderate view of religion in general. I try to remind myself of how much good religion can do - it really does help organize people to do good. Ray, you're not from the US so may not have been fully aware of this, but after our government failed so miserably after Hurricane Katrina destroyed New Orleans, it was small religious groups that intervened and helped as much as they could. I have to remind myself of things like that, otherwise I begin to focus too much on the unnecessary intrusiveness and sometimes seeming cruelty of religion. Make no mistake, forcing someone who is destined to die slowly and painfully to stay alive for no reason other than appeasing some God who is a control freak is cruel. We don't even treat animals that way.

beastie wrote: Ray, you're not from the US so may not have been fully aware of this, but after our government failed so miserably after Hurricane Katrina destroyed New Orleans, it was small religious groups that intervened and helped as much as they could. I have to remind myself of things like that, otherwise I begin to focus too much on the unnecessary intrusiveness and sometimes seeming cruelty of religion. Make no mistake, forcing someone who is destined to die slowly and painfully to stay alive for no reason other than appeasing some God who is a control freak is cruel. We don't even treat animals that way.

It's a mixed bag. Religion can bring out the best and worst in people, just like alcohol can make some people violent, and others happy. The Rev. Bill Crews, a Uniting Church minister, holds free lunches everyday for poor people in Sydney's inner west, it's called the Loaves and Fishes Restaurant, and he's the most undogmatic minister, often criticised by his more orthodox peers. Bill Crews worked with prostitutes, drug addicts, and the homeless for over 30 years, never judging them, only helping them materially, or if they sought counsel. He is a "liberal", but I wonder why it's the liberals who seem to have more charity?

Think of the LDS stand against VE too. It's okay to kill Laban to get the plates, but it's not okay to allow someone to end a life of excruciating pain.

I find it interesting the connections between the anti-euthanasia movement has a lot in common with the anti-abortion movement.

In both cases, you have someone else who is not allowing you control of your life (or desire to end).

In both cases, it is no one else's damn business what you as long as you are not infringing on the rights of others (specifically, their right to life).

Say I'm 35 years old and dying of terminal cancer. My doctor gives me 3 years in a progressively downhill experience and I don't want to have that happen. The psychological issues from having my family watch me deteriorate into a gibbering, mindless, pain-wrecked shell of the man they knew. . . I wouldn't want them to experience that.

Is there a chance that the doctor is wrong? Yeah. But if he is right, I should be able make the decision. Personally, I'd much rather end it early, while my family has the mental image of me as I am.

As a slight side-track but still partially on topic: Did you know that in several of the States, committing suicide (successfully) is a Felony punishable by death?