Sometimes I think religion is sadistic.

[_Quantumwave]

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2007/01/26/1169788692086.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.

Hi Ray--Greetings from the frozen wasteland of the MOcorridor to the the beautiful summerland of OZ!

I couldn't believe it when I read the following:

It forced Dr Nitschke to move his organisation's website and switchboard to New Zealand after making it a crime to use the telephone or the internet to transmit information about methods of suicide.

What is up with that?

Seems like a direct infringment of freedom of speech, but then I am not familiar at all with Ozzie law.

I had the sad experience of having the family dog euthanized when she was 18 with all the usual problems. It took us a long time to recover, but we knew it was best, and if people can have that kind of compassion for a little pet, what does that say about a society that will not allow the same treatment for our human loved ones?

Reminds me of a quote:

Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities. -Voltaire

After watching the Australian open at Melbourne, and seeing the gorgeous scenery provided by the Victoria tourism promoters, I'm ready to move!

[_Ray A]

[Hi Ray--Greetings from the frozen wasteland of the MOcorridor to the the beautiful summerland of OZ!

I couldn't believe it when I read the following:

It forced Dr Nitschke to move his organisation's website and switchboard to New Zealand after making it a crime to use the telephone or the internet to transmit information about methods of suicide.

What is up with that?

Seems like a direct infringment of freedom of speech, but then I am not familiar at all with Ozzie law.

QM, what's up is that we have a very strange concept of democracy. I thought democracy was goverment of the people, by the people, and for the people. Apparently politicians like to put on the blinkers and impose their morality on people when it suits them. But this issue isn't big enough to override bread and butter issues, which is why there isn't much complaint. In the meantime, we hear of people killing themselves or loved ones in order to end suffering. Most of them are acquitted or never even brought to trial, because this goes on in hospitals everyday. Just before my ex-wife died of cancer the medicos said, privately, "when it gets too bad we will 'help the process'". My children were begging them to end it, and even getting angry. This stinks! I know this is very personal, but the religious bigots have no concept of this and expect us to abide by THEIR morality, and suffer for it.

Reminds me of a quote:

Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities. -Voltaire

You are 100% right.

After watching the Australian open at Melbourne, and seeing the gorgeous scenery provided by the Victoria tourism promoters, I'm ready to move!

Nearly everyone says that. When you make it Down Under we must meet up for a chat.

[_jayneedoe]

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?

I've heard this isn't really true, but wasn't successful in locating proof. I did find the following, however, and thought it amusing:

According to the Bible, it's better to kill yourself (or have someone assist your suicide) than to be killed by a woman.

"And a certain woman cast a piece of a millstone upon Abimelech's head, and all to brake his skull. Then he called hastily unto the young man his armourbearer, and said unto him, Draw thy sword, and slay me, that men say not of me, A women slew him. And his young man thrust him through, and he died." -- Judges 9:52-53

Jaynee

[_Bryan Inks]

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?

I've heard this isn't really true, but wasn't successful in locating proof. I did find the following, however, and thought it amusing:

According to the Bible, it's better to kill yourself (or have someone assist your suicide) than to be killed by a woman.

"And a certain woman cast a piece of a millstone upon Abimelech's head, and all to brake his skull. Then he called hastily unto the young man his armourbearer, and said unto him, Draw thy sword, and slay me, that men say not of me, A women slew him. And his young man thrust him through, and he died." -- Judges 9:52-53

Jaynee

A quick google search for the words, "Suicide illegal" turned up several interesting items.

It seems that even I am not immune to the hyperbole inherent in our current society.

While suicide and attempted suicide are in many places illegal (and in several states is a felony) there appears to be no punishment listed in the law.

[_guy sajer]

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, I'm guessing that a good deal of resistence to the "right to die" has to do with fear of a slippery slope. Once society determines that certain "quality of life" states are worthy of assisted suicide, one gets ensared in a thicket of difficulties trying to define where the line is to be drawn, and it opens up the door both to wider interpretation and to less savory sorts who would take advantage of this for selfish purposes (e.g., a "do-gooder" nurses aid who unlitaterally determines that compassion requires him to "help" so-and-so die). It opens up a huge can of worms with non-trivial potential to cause unwanted and highly undesirable downstream reactions.

I sympathize with this line of reasoning. I am not opposed, per se, to assisted suicide, but I do worry about the slippery slope and I do worry about the ramifications of society trying to determine whose live is worth living and whose is not.

[_Ray A]

I sympathize with this line of reasoning. I am not opposed, per se, to assisted suicide, but I do worry about the slippery slope and I do worry about the ramifications of society trying to determine whose live is worth living and whose is not.

Guy, I am conscious of the slippery slope too. The Northern Territory's "Rights of the Terminally Ill" act had a long line of preventative measures, so that abuse was nearly impossible. As in all things, mistakes will be made. One lady was diagnosed with cancer and chose to end her life. Afterwards it was discovered that she did not have cancer - wrong diagnosis, and wrong choice of action, but she made the decision without compulsion. Nitschke admitted this was a blunder, and set back the cause of VE, but the Bill was watertight, and I saw no way abuse could be committed. The slippery slope will only occur when legislative vigilance loosens, and I think that people suffering ought to have that choice. I would most certainly want it, because I see no virtue in wasting away while being drugged up 24/7 like my ex-wife was for months. She was skin and bone and a total mess. What my chip is about is that all my children asked was that she be "let go" hours earlier, instead of having to watch her choke on her own saliva. Is this humane, for Christ's sake!! The bastards let her suffer because of the LAW, and her children had to watch this hour by hour. My understanding is that her husband was about to assault the medics. This, I'm afraid, is one instance when the law is a perfect ass!! May they suffer the same fate, but you can bet your royal ass that until all politicians experience this there will be no change in the law.

[_guy sajer]

I sympathize with this line of reasoning. I am not opposed, per se, to assisted suicide, but I do worry about the slippery slope and I do worry about the ramifications of society trying to determine whose live is worth living and whose is not.

Guy, I am conscious of the slippery slope too. The Northern Territory's "Rights of the Terminally Ill" act had a long line of preventative measures, so that abuse was nearly impossible. As in all things, mistakes will be made. One lady was diagnosed with cancer and chose to end her life. Afterwards it was discovered that she did not have cancer - wrong diagnosis, and wrong choice of action, but she made the decision without compulsion. Nitschke admitted this was a blunder, and set back the cause of VE, but the Bill was watertight, and I saw no way abuse could be committed. The slippery slope will only occur when legislative vigilance loosens, and I think that people suffering ought to have that choice. I would most certainly want it, because I see no virtue in wasting away while being drugged up 24/7 like my ex-wife was for months. She was skin and bone and a total mess. What my chip is about is that all my children asked was that she be "let go" hours earlier, instead of having to watch her choke on her own saliva. Is this humane, for Christ's sake!! The bastards let her suffer because of the LAW, and her children had to watch this hour by hour. My understanding is that her husband was about to assault the medics. This, I'm afraid, is one instance when the law is a perfect ass!! May they suffer the same fate, but you can bet your royal ass that until all politicians experience this there will be no change in the law.

Ray, I cannot dispute your sentiments. Though I have never experienced this, I can imagine how and why you'd feel this way. There is probably an answer for this, though it must be crafted carefully, and it requires an acknowledgement up front that people will abuse it and others will make mistakes. Thus it is for any law or rule.

I admit, though, that I think it's a fine line between someone who ends suffering out of compassion and someone who ends it, ostensibly out of compassion, but for other reasons. For example, I think Dr. Kevorkian in the US was, and is, a sick bastard who enjoyed killing people but who cloaked his mental derangment with compassion for the suffering.

It's a tough issue, but I agree in principal that there ought to be a way for loved ones to end needless suffering, particularly if this reflects the expressed, reasoned will of the sufferer.

[_Ray A]

For example, I think Dr. Kevorkian in the US was, and is, a sick bastard who enjoyed killing people but who cloaked his mental derangment with compassion for the suffering.

I agree with that assessment. Kevorkian was a maniacal publicity-seeker. The VE cause can do without nuts like him. His extreme over-reactions, however, may have been spurred by the consuming religiosity of most Americans, who seem to think that atheists come from another planet. Nitschke has 70% of the population on his side, and in 1998 was nominated as "Humanist of the Year", which, to some religious people is like being nominated "neighbourhood kitten-killer of the year". What I don't understand about the "religious mob" is that they are perfectly fine with Samuel cutting King Agag into a hundred pieces with a sword, because Saul spared his life, after bludgeoning and killing all the women and children (yea, they're fine with that too) but sparing Agag. So Samuel finished the job:

And Samuel said, As thy sword hath made women childless, so shall thy mother be childless among women. And Samuel hewed Agag in pieces before the LORD in Gilgal.

Agad wasn't terminally ill, he was just on the wrong side.

You'd think that with such a light-hearted attitude to death there would be some mercy for the terminally ill. Nope. Women and children must meet death to appease "wrongs" against "His Holiness", but if anyone is suffering, who has not committed a crime against "Israel", that suffering is "just". It is "pleasing to God". This God seems like some kind of foul-smelling tyrant. A true bastard. The Old Testament God has less mercy than a King Cobra about to strike. And this is the God the believers revere!!! This is why religion seems sadistic to me in some ways.


Yea, verily, The Lord can order chopping off Laban's head, and hew Agag in pieces, after the slaughter of women and children, and heaven forbid, animals too. So in effect the Lord can wipe out a whole nation, and this is fine with the believers. Bloodshed and infanticide is the order of the day, no worries, mate! But if a suffering person wants relief from that suffering - this is WRONG! Maybe if there was a recital for the terminally Ill, something like "I hate Israel", they would be put out of their misery faster than having to deal with governments intent on saving life to preserve the "honour" of a "Christian nation". "We do not believe in killing, except for apostates and blasphemers".

Makes perfect sense, right?

I'm really trying to understand why innocents can be put to death so whimsically, in the prime of life, yet "the believers" feel that ending a life in suffering is wrong. Anyone care to enlighten me?

I'm 100% convinced that it is the churches behind government influence to ban VE. Yet these are the same people who don't blink an eye at the killing of women and children in the Bible.

Terminally Ill: You are a sinner if you end your life.
Unbeliever: Ending your life will be best for the planet and the future of humanity.