Assisted suicide may allow some to live longer

April 30th, 2013 at 7:03 am by David Farrar

The BBC reports:

The court has previously heard that Ms Fleming, who is not attending the three-day hearing, is confined to a wheelchair, physically helpless, lives in constant pain, cannot swallow and suffers choking sessions which wear her out.

She wants to be allowed die peacefully with dignity at home, when she chooses, in the arms of her long-term partner, Tom Curran, without him facing the threat of jail.

Brian Murray, senior counsel, told seven judges hearing the appeal in Dublin on Wednesday that his client was being denied what she seeks for fear that without an absolute ban on assisted suicide there could be more relaxed practices by doctors.

“It is our position that it is possible to design legislation that facilitates the plaintiff in a way that does not present any risk to the involuntary death of others,” he said.

Mr Murray said it may be legitimate government policy to discourage people from choosing death over life, but he argued it was not a proper basis for telling people what decision they can make about their lives.

What strikes me in cases like this, is provision for assisted suicide may allow those in this situation to live longer. If you know your partner or a doctor can assist you to end your life when your quality of life has become intolerable, you can put that day off until as long as possible.

But if you know that once you reach the point of being physically unable to do it yourself, then there is no legal way for you to end your suffering, you may commit suicide years before you otherwise would have to.

That is not just a theory. It has happened here in New Zealand. I’ve blogged on such a case before.

Just as I think the rights of someone when living should be paramount when it comes to issues such as organ donation and burial location, I think you should also have the right to decide to die, and gain assistance if necessary.

Of course there must be stringent safeguards. But the debate should be on what those safeguards should be, not on whether people should be made to suffer.

In December, Ms Fleming told a three judge division of the High Court court the ban on assisted suicide was forcing her to live against her will in a life of pain and indignity.

The former lecturer is almost completely physically incapable and would need help to take her own life.

The irony is that if she was not in such an agonising condition, should would be able to kill herself without assistance.

Tags:

80 Responses to “Assisted suicide may allow some to live longer”

  1. bringbackdemocracy (428 comments) says:

    Thin edge of the wedge.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Pete George (23,687 comments) says:

    Common sense and decency in the modern medical world.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Griff (8,203 comments) says:

    My life
    not the states or your gods

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. jims_whare (404 comments) says:

    Euthenaisa now?

    Bring back the gay marriage debate please…..

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Redbaiter (9,647 comments) says:

    “Assisted suicide may allow some to live longer”

    I think PG and Grief should be permitted to suicide as soon as they have even the slightest inkling to do so.

    Given their propensity to bore everyone else on Kiwiblog to an early death.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Andrei (2,668 comments) says:

    You are a typical BIG GOVERNMENT LEFTY Mr Farrar.

    About 80 New Zealanders die every day and we all will get our turn. And when the end comes usually it is eased by medicine to make the patient more comfortable as they depart.

    And nobody worries about whether the steps taken to ease the persons transition from this world to the next has perhaps shortened that persons life a little.

    WE DO NOT NEED GOVERNMENT EXTENDING ITS PERNICIOUS FINGERS INTO THIS AREA!!!!!

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. The Scorned (719 comments) says:

    Fuck off Godder’s…..its not your damn life to decide on.

    Arrogant control freak soul socialists….

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Pete George (23,687 comments) says:

    WE DO NOT NEED GOVERNMENT EXTENDING ITS PERNICIOUS FINGERS INTO THIS AREA!!!!!

    Correct. Government needs to provide adequate safeguards, but it should be up to individuals to decide what they want to do with their lives.

    WE DO NOT NEED RELIGION EXTENDING ITS PERNICIOUS FINGERS INTO THIS AREA!!!!!

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. peterwn (3,312 comments) says:

    Similar matter arose in UK several years ago. Wheelchair bound woman planned to go to Switzerland where euthanasia is legal but was concerned that any accompanying person could be charged with assisting suicide under UK law. If so she would go alone but would need to go earlier. She asked CPS (like our Crown Law) whether they would charge such a person but they refused a response. She went to court which ordered that the CPS had to respond. CPs consulted and drew up policy guidelines:
    http://www.cps.gov.uk/publications/prosecution/assisted_suicide_policy.html

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Redbaiter (9,647 comments) says:

    Oh Gee, there’s a self professed “libertarian” and PG saying if that if you have faith you should be barred from the democratic process.

    Typically Nth Korean.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. berend (1,716 comments) says:

    All these practices, abortion, homosexuality and euthanasia were standard practices before Christianity came. Clearly with the disappearance of Christianity these things come back. It’s not new, it’s so old.

    Repeat after me: killing mom and dad is liberty!

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Colville (2,300 comments) says:

    If i was left a drooling mess after a stroke I can only hope one of my Brothers would bring me a shotgun to “clean”, and not loaded with that faggoty steel shot either. Real propper lead!

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. MT_Tinman (3,259 comments) says:

    Andrei (2,046) Says:
    April 30th, 2013 at 7:58 am

    WE DO NOT NEED GOVERNMENT EXTENDING ITS PERNICIOUS FINGERS INTO THIS AREA!!!!!

    I realise that intelligent comment and common sense have no place on a blog comments page but even an idiot should comprehend that the government already has it’s “pernicious fingers” in this area, Mr Farrar is simply calling for those fingers to manipulate in a different way.

    For mine, I agree with Mr Farrar.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. The Scorned (719 comments) says:

    The matter of taking ones OWN life has nothing to do with the damn democratic process….its an individuals right and choice….fuck the mob.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. RRM (10,034 comments) says:

    My life
    not the state’s or your god’s

    Yes.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. La Grand Fromage (145 comments) says:

    Blood hell. What is DPF going to blog about if euthanasia gets legalised?

    Without being able to show his keen interest in teenage girls getting drunk, homos marrying and sick people getting killed how will he be able to establish his “down with the kids” credentials?

    [DPF: Killing unborn babies of course. That is the real “hip” credential. Then after that, bringing back Viking Funerals]

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Pete George (23,687 comments) says:

    Government should legislate appropriate safeguards. Then…

    Religious people can choose for themselves what they do with themselves.
    Non-religious people can decide for themselves what they do with themselves.

    And I’m sure there’ll be a range of choices across the religious and non-religious spectrums.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. krazykiwi (9,186 comments) says:

    *sigh* So DPF’s part of another social engineering team (or is it the same SSM gang?), but with a new script?

    When someone can guarantee that no person will feel coercion to end their life then I’ll happily debate my Christian beliefs on the sanctity of life with the resident Christian bashers. Until then…

    Coercion and Involuntary Euthanasia

    The Dutch government, concerned over accusations that the practice of euthanasia was being abused, undertook studies in 1990, 1995 and in 2001. Physicians were guaranteed anonymity and immunity for what they revealed in regard to violations of the guidelines.

    It quickly became apparent that half of Dutch doctors had no hesitation in suggesting their patients consider euthanasia, which compromised the voluntariness of the process. In addition, fifty percent of cases were not reported.

    Even more alarming was the fact that a quarter of the physicians said that they “terminated the lives of patients without an explicit request” from the patient, and another third of the physicians said that they could conceive of doing so.

    The usual response to evidence of this type is “Yes, but, but that’ll never happen here”.

    Bullshit.

    Of course it will.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. scrubone (3,105 comments) says:

    krazykiwi beat me to it.

    The slippery slope on this one is slick, and greased to heck. No caring society would touch this one in a million years.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Pete George (23,687 comments) says:

    *sigh*

    When someone can guarantee that no person will feel coercion to end their life

    No one can guarantee that now. And it can’t be guaranteed that no one will suffer as they die – that happens now, sometimes for a long time.

    When someone can guarantee that no person will feel coercion to suffer in the name of religion…

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. The Scorned (719 comments) says:

    We already have laws that make the the killing of a non-consenting rights bearing human being illegal (murder) and wrong…..just enforce those and all’s good.

    If all parties are fully consenting to the death then kindly piss off out of it and mind you own business.

    You may not like what others do with their lives and property but that’s tough…..its called freedom.

    But religo-soul socialists, like their Lefty kin folk with economics just can’t accept that…

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. krazykiwi (9,186 comments) says:

    No one can guarantee that [no person will feel coercion to end their life]

    Quite so. And it’s reprehensible as best, and illegal if supported with actions.

    Changing the law will make it both acceptable and legal.

    You might think that’s ok.

    I don’t.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. kowtow (8,784 comments) says:

    The progressive train just keeps rolling relentlessly along.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. Nigel Kearney (1,051 comments) says:

    Assuming appropriate safeguards, I have no problem with it. Assuming hotels on Mars and cheap flights, I would like to take a trip. The whole point is whether appropriate safeguards exist.

    You will have scum that badger their parents to sign a form so they can inherit sooner. It will be a small minority of cases but will happen. The government is going to have to decide whether consent is genuine and informed. I also think there is a fair chance that when the time comes, some people will have changed their mind and won’t want to do it. All of this possibly after the person is no longer able to communicate effectively. It won’t be easy.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. RRM (10,034 comments) says:

    I don’t think I could do the shotgun in the mouth trick. I would undoubtedly fuck it up somehow, blow my cheek off but live.

    If I had time to plan my own exit, it would be one to remember… probably involving a rusty old Hiace packed to the brim with fertilizer bomb recipe, and driven to a secluded location for detonation. Hopefully a mate would video the fireball from a safe distance and put it on youtube. The final act of RRM on earth – he made a bigger BOOM than you could. I’d like that :-D

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. scrubone (3,105 comments) says:

    I’d recommend this book:
    http://www.amazon.com/Deadly-Compassion-Death-Humphry-Euthanasia/dp/0688122213

    Derek Humphry founded the Hemlock Society with his wife. But when his wife got breast cancer, he decided that compassion wasn’t really his thing and dumped her, and forced her out of the society. Since the society was her insurance provider, she came close to losing her healthcare. Nice guy eh?

    In the end, his treatment of her lead her to take up a friendship with someone on the other side of the debate, since all the “caring” pro-euthanasia people had turned on her. Eventually she was driven to suicide and revealed in her suicide note that her husband had actually murdered his previous wife, rather than giving her the “caring exit” he had always claimed in public.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Dennis Horne (2,403 comments) says:

    @RRM. Don’t waste yourself, BOOMER. I’ll give you a target… ;)

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Pete George (23,687 comments) says:

    Case study:

    Someone had long said that they didn’t want to linger in agony or to be seen without dignity.

    Then they got cancer.

    When the end was inevitable they seriously considered suicide, talked about it. The discomfort and pain increased (drugs helped but lagged the discomfort) and they could no longer eat. They were wasting away.

    Then they became incapacitated. They stopped drinking. They were asleep/unconcious most of the time, only rousing when the pain came back, waiting for another dose of catchup drugs. They were unrecognisable.

    They were in exactly the situation they had talked about dreading and had been determined to avoid.

    This situation is common, and it can last for days, weeks. Some people linger for months, years in discomfort and pain.

    If they had been able to choose a time to go they MAY have done so, or the may have changed their mind and hung on for as longs as they could.

    But when it came to the crunch they were unable to do anything about it.

    If they had been able to have someone assist them to die, what would have been lost? A few days, weeks of life. A few more conversations, always about the mundane present or the past, there is not future to talk about. A few visitors may not have seen them near death. But the dying person would have gained nothing tangible.

    We force people like this to die in discomfort and indignity in case someone may change their mind at the last minute, or in case the occasional case of coercion may arise. Or it is against the belief of others.

    And all this does is extend the inevitable. Sometimes horribly. For what?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. Pete George (23,687 comments) says:

    And an irony – we know that many many people knowingly shorten their lives by leading risky lifestyles. We can eat or drink or smoke our way to a premature grave but at the end aren’t allowed to pop a pill to shorten it slightly more.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. Kimble (4,443 comments) says:

    You will have scum that badger their parents to sign a form so they can inherit sooner.

    But the counter-factual is that the invalided parents are then reliant on that same ‘scum’.

    What’s left for ‘scum’ to do but starve the parents, deprive them of medical care, and turn off their heating, all to hasten the ‘natural’ course of events and get the money sooner?

    What about the scum that likes seeing their parents suffer, so is prolonging their pain and torment? Psychopaths like that exist, so we MUST allow euthanasia?

    Nigel, this is just like the gay marriage ‘debate’ in that a decent chunk of anti side just objects to the ‘ickyness’ of the pro side. Similar issue exists for an organ ‘market’. But the abhorrence of the anti’s side is not justification for making other people suffer.

    And just like the gay marriage debate, the outcome of this one is inevitable. Lets recognise what that delay really means, and stop wasting everyone’s time.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. scrubone (3,105 comments) says:

    And all this does is extend the inevitable. Sometimes horribly. For what?

    Because experience in other jurisdictions shows that relaxing the laws creates massive issues with people being forced.

    This is not about someone living a few days longer and then dying in pain. It’s about people who could have lived years longer had the law protected their life.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. Griff (8,203 comments) says:

    Progressivs seek freedom retardist seek control
    fuck of retards
    get a life and stop trying to make us obay your imaginary friend

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. scrubone (3,105 comments) says:

    Griff, there’s half a dozen comments like yours, but zero giving “because God says” as a reason.

    Please stop with the straw man.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. Kimble (4,443 comments) says:

    This is not about someone living a few days longer and then dying in pain.

    I am sure your brave willingness to ignore them is a great comfort to the suffering.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. scrubone (3,105 comments) says:
    This is not about someone living a few days longer and then dying in pain.

    I am sure your brave willingness to ignore them is a great comfort to the suffering.

    By that measure, you should be commended for your willingness to kill people who have years to live.

    But in reality, palliative care is seriously underdeveloped in Holland since it’s easier and cheaper to just knock someone off. Here, it gives the dying a number of options to ease their passing.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Harriet (5,145 comments) says:

    How many times do I have to say this on Kiwiblog?:

    Euthanasia is not about anyones’ personal ‘right to die’.

    It is about doctors[and those who assist] having the right to decide ‘who dies and when’.

    Doctors -or anyone else- will not be allowed to kill ANYONE who does not meet the legal criteria – otherwise it will still be a criminal offence!

    Therefor – it is doctors[or those who assist] who will say ‘who dies and when’.

    The great wall of silence will be built around euthanasia like the NZ Health Dept did with abortion. Once built, the vague criteria that euthanasia policy will no doubt be – will be extended upon by so-called ‘health professionals’. The same as they did with abortion law. Liberal judges will also ‘extend’ the ‘meaning of the law’ around euthanasia in court cases involving assisted suicide.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. Dennis Horne (2,403 comments) says:

    @Pete George. Well said. It needs to be discussed. You will be familiar with the Liverpool Pathway:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liverpool_Care_Pathway_for_the_Dying_Patient

    But there are cases of prolonged intractable pain. Sometimes a doctor will sort it.

    The problem with legitimate or loving euthanasia is courage and timing. Mum is confused and suffering; no present, no future. Shall we do it today? Aw, let’s wait until tomorrow.

    @Kimble. Agree, it’s inevitable. (Homosexual marriage is an oxymoron.)

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. Lee01 (2,171 comments) says:

    My Father had a serious internal rupture of his stomach that nearly killed him. He was told that ge would likely only live a few months and that his quality of life would be minimal.

    He ended up recovering enough to live for six more years, play his beloved golf, and see two new grandchildren in the family, not to mention the extra years we got with him.

    The desire of Liberals to kill off the elderly us just another example of the truth that Liberalism, in ALL it’s forms, right and left, is a cancer in the body of the West.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. Dennis Horne (2,403 comments) says:

    @Lee01. Was euthanasia proposed? No.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. Griff (8,203 comments) says:

    So its just a random chance that the same old godwhacks are against this as were against gay marrage
    don’t be such a crap artist
    You whackjobs base your standpoint on the sayings of ignorant goatherders
    any claims to morality died in the church once the masses became educated
    hence the reliance on the same old slippery slope argument
    its all you whackjobs have now we will not accept god says

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. Robo (25 comments) says:

    We are talking about death here – its not nice, you suffer, nothing is going to make it all fluffy bunnies. Some face it bravely, most are just tired and resigned, some are cowards. Who knows?
    For those near death I think things work OK now, at least in the cities. If things get too rough the good doctor can administer mother morphine in sufficient dose to dull the pain, without regard to its effect on breathing. Death follows quickly and peacefully.
    My concern with legalising euthanasia is that it will take the decision out of the hands of the patient, family and doctor, and put it in the hands of a panel, which will need to be convinced to give its ‘permission”. Stuff that. Hands up those who have had good experiences from dealing with bureaucratic panels?
    I’m also worried about pressure on the inconvenient. No official ‘safeguards’ are worth a damn if they get in the way of human nature – compare what NZ was told about abortion certification and what actually happens. When inheritance money is at stake ungrateful children will pressure elderly parents to accept the needle – no doubt about it.
    I’m sorry about the fate of those locked in useless painful bodies who want to die but cannot kill themselves. I suspect there are really very very few in that category. It isn’t hard to amass sufficient sleeping pills for example. But I don’t think the suffering of those few should drive a change which will harm the many.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. The Scorned (719 comments) says:

    At the end of the day its the individuals choice…and the right to make that choice for themselves that matters….all these other what ifs etc are irrelevant to that fact.

    So Fred Jones of Shitsville did X and ended up Y….that’s his issue and I don’t give a fuck….not my business. My concern is MY life…..

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. ChardonnayGuy (1,217 comments) says:

    However, the fact remains that only the Netherlands, Belgium and Luxembourg have thus far wholly decriminalised voluntary euthanasia, while Switzerland and US states of Oregon, Washington state and Montana are the only ones with physician assisted suicide. At some point, Canadians will soon decide whether or not their Charter of Rights and Freedoms does extend to allowing assisted suicide. That said, many disability rights groups are opposed to the decriminalisation of voluntary euthanasia or physician assisted suicide. They are not mere puppets of religious social conservatism and some have legitimate concerns about disability discrimination within heathcare provision and health insurance.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. Chuck Bird (4,928 comments) says:

    We can trust the wise MPs to make sure no one is coerced requesting assisted suicide -Yeah Right!!!

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. krazykiwi (9,186 comments) says:

    I am sure your brave willingness to ignore them is a great comfort to the suffering.

    No one is questioning that notion that death can be unpleasant, although modern medicine and palliative care have made a huge improvement in the quality of end of life for most in the developed world.

    The issue for me is the creation of unseen harm in the form of widespread, subtle suggestion that the lives of those happily living are, in fact, a burden on family, on society.

    With an ageing population, and burgeoning costs of state funded healthcare it is an absolutely certainty that citizens will feel pressure to end it all.

    When the state authorises itself to end the lives of it’s citizens, the message to the elderly with be subtle, but clear: You are a burden. Do the descent thing. For everyone’s benefit.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. Harriet (5,145 comments) says:

    Lee01#

    That’s not thee first time that’s happened. It’s common.

    When euthanasia is made legal – people who are diagnosed with having ‘only’ 12 months to live – are then very vunerable to ‘mental suffering’ and can then choose euthanasia to ‘ease the mental pain’.

    And that’s what I mean when I say it is all about the ‘rights of doctors to say who dies and when’.

    The ‘patients’ rights – is really just giving the nod for doctors to exercise their ‘rights’.

    And it is the doctors rights where the real arguement is – the patient is just the emotional arguement being put up by Maryanne Street! :cool:

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. Lee01 (2,171 comments) says:

    And it’s just random chance that the same brainwashed Liberal whackjobs who want to murder defenseless children also want to murder defenceless elderly people.

    Why are Liberals so desperate to kill off those who cannot defend themselves?

    Does it give them some kind of sick pleasure?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. MT_Tinman (3,259 comments) says:

    I speak only for myself.

    When I become useless to anyone (at the moment I am a good bad example so just hang in there) I seriously hope someone will put me down.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. SGA (1,144 comments) says:

    My Father had a serious internal rupture of his stomach that nearly killed him. He was told that ge would likely only live a few months and that his quality of life would be minimal. He ended up recovering enough to live for six more years, play his beloved golf, and see two new grandchildren in the family, not to mention the extra years we got with him.

    On the other hand…
    My best friend’s cancer metatised to the brain. Most scary and upsetting was the likelihood that even with treatment the next months would see continued loss of independence, cognitive functioning (including langauage), and dignity (for want of a better word). As it turned out, there were complications and my friend died quite suddenly. While I regret missing some extra weeks of reasonable quality time, I take some solace that the my friend’s worst fears didn’t occur.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. Pete George (23,687 comments) says:

    I’ve seen the Liverpool Pathway in action. It is as good as it could be – within current law. But it was far from perfect.

    The last week was mostly awful. I was there when my mother died, the final look in her eyes was haunting – but others missed that fraught occasion because they were away demanding the nurses do more to relieve extreme discomfort.

    I’ve seen a more comfortable death when the rules have been bent with morphine use.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. Pete George (23,687 comments) says:

    Euthanasia is not about anyones’ personal ‘right to die’.

    It is about doctors[and those who assist] having the right to decide ‘who dies and when’.

    That is totally wrong, it is not up to a doctor to decide when other people die. It is up to a doctor to serve the needs of their patient, not to decide for others, nor to play god.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. Harriet (5,145 comments) says:

    A terminal patient is just giving doctors the right to follow the laws of euthanasia!

    SOOOOOOOooooooooooo WTF are the laws going to be?

    THAT is the arguement! :cool:

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. Lee01 (2,171 comments) says:

    Harriet,

    Spot on.

    A year ago a close friend died of cancer. When she was diagnosed she was told she had six months at most and would have no quality of life.

    She lived for another four years and spent the time getting a university degree and enjoying her family and friends.

    Euthanasia relies on the discernment of these same doctors.

    No thanks.

    There is nothing rational about euthanasia.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. Nukuleka (348 comments) says:

    So all with be fine with euthanasia as long as there are ‘stringent safeguards’ to prevent any abuse of the law- just like those ‘stringent safeguards’ currently in law to protect the rights of unborn children, no doubt. And when it’s obvious that those ‘stringent safeguards’ in place to prevent abuse of the elderly and infirm are being ignored by the medical profession there will be the predictable calls for those laws to be repealed too. Unborn children have no rights. Old people and the infirm will have no rights either. Onward the march to the truly civilised society!

    Kill the unborn, kill old people, kill sick people- why stop there- let’s have a go at those with Down’s Syndrome or the mentally disabled; life’s cheap. Let’s follow India or China and practise female foeticide so that mothers can have their male baby of choice. A society that is happy to end the lives of its most vulnerable and play emotively upon weakness and old age and illness has simply lost the plot.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. Lee01 (2,171 comments) says:

    SGA,

    Fair enough. My point however is that I do not trust either the medical profession or our politicians to get any law reform right.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. Harriet (5,145 comments) says:

    Nukuleka #

    Welcome. Stick around. :cool:

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. Dennis Horne (2,403 comments) says:

    @Robo. Well said. But we may actually be creating a problem by keeping people alive “hydroponically” in institutions. This is where real discussion centres, in my opinion.

    @Pete. True. Morphine. There is no moral question, or legal challenge in the UK.

    @Lee01. It depends on how you define euthanasia. Should a doctor be able to give a dose of morphine to relieve pain when she knows it will likely finish the patient? In reality, your views are too black and white: look up (psychology) splitting.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. hmmokrightitis (1,595 comments) says:

    Griff:
    “Progressivs seek freedom retardist seek control
    fuck of retards
    get a life and stop trying to make us obay your imaginary friend”

    Im so glad we have informed, intelligent, reasoned and erudite debate…

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. Lee01 (2,171 comments) says:

    “Progressives seek freedom”

    Rubbish.

    Progressives seek to impose cultural Marxism on the West.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. scrubone (3,105 comments) says:

    So its just a random chance that the same old godwhacks are against this as were against gay marrage
    don’t be such a crap artist
    You whackjobs base your standpoint on the sayings of ignorant goatherders
    any claims to morality died in the church once the masses became educated
    hence the reliance on the same old slippery slope argument
    its all you whackjobs have now we will not accept god says

    I think the fact that your abuse-laced comment slips into the same fault that I was talking about in the first place speaks volumes.

    To repeat: I’m not asking you (a non-believer) to accept what I say god says, and no one here has. The case against is airtight based on real-world experience alone.

    Also, (and I think I’ve covered this before) your “ignorant goatherders” comment is ironic since Jesus was a carpenter and his disciples were mainly fishermen, with one tax collector. If it’s Moses you’re refering to, he was raised in the royal palace of one of the great powers of the day (Egypt) so would probably have counted as one of the educated elite.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. Lee01 (2,171 comments) says:

    Dennis,

    I don’t think my view is black and white. I recognize that there is a valid concern for those who are in such terrible pain and suffering from a terminal illness that they might want to choose not to continue living.

    My concern is that I do not trust politicians, doctors, or human nature.

    Plus, I trust no idea that is enthusiastically supported by Liberals, as Liberalism is a form of moral and mental retardation.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. Ryan Sproull (7,286 comments) says:

    Plus, I trust no idea that is enthusiastically supported by Liberals, as Liberalism is a form of moral and mental retardation.

    I’m a Liberal, and I enthusiastically support you continuing to comment on Kiwiblog.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. Lee01 (2,171 comments) says:

    I might support a law change allowing assisted suicide in rare and extreme cases, IF it was framed in such a way that it would be difficult to impossible to abuse.

    But not while our current Parliament is dominated by Liberals.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. Kimble (4,443 comments) says:

    By that measure, you should be commended for your willingness to kill people who have years to live.

    Except I never said that I was willing to kill people who had years to live. Whereas you did say that the issue is not the suffering of people.

    I didn’t have to put words in your mouth to make my point, so maybe you should have a cup of tea and really think about why you had to.

    The ban against euthanasia is heartless and cruel, and your dismissal of the suffering we are looking to alleviate as irrelevant paints you as the same.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. scrubone (3,105 comments) says:

    I didn’t have to put words in your mouth to make my point, so maybe you should have a cup of tea and really think about why you had to.

    The ban against euthanasia is heartless and cruel, and your dismissal of the suffering we are looking to alleviate as irrelevant paints you as the same.

    Where did I say it was irrelevant? I said no such thing. So please don’t lecture me about putting words in the mouths of others.

    I in no way dismiss the suffering of others. That is a misreading of my comment. I merely point out that that suffering can be alleviated, and is grossly outweighed by the abuse that slackening the law inevitably leads to – abuses that you have not addressed.

    If you falsely accuse me of dismissing the suffering of others, I feel it’s only right to point out you are supporting the murder that comes from the slackening this law. Why are you so concerned about suffering, but not about murder?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. scrubone (3,105 comments) says:

    What strikes me in cases like this, is provision for assisted suicide may allow those in this situation to live longer. If you know your partner or a doctor can assist you to end your life when your quality of life has become intolerable, you can put that day off until as long as possible….
    That is not just a theory. It has happened here in New Zealand. I’ve blogged on such a case before.

    There is no need for theories on either side. We know what happens when the law is changed.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. Griff (8,203 comments) says:

    Actually it happens now all a law change will do Is give protection to the health professionals

    and mosses lived for 500years parted the red sea and was given the ten commandments by god
    lol crap artist no1

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. Harriet (5,145 comments) says:

    “…..Actually it happens now all a law change will do Is give protection to the health professionals…”

    And that’s exactly what Maryanne Street is actually proposing – the broadest laws avaliable for people to have themselves killed.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. Chuck Bird (4,928 comments) says:

    I might support a law change allowing assisted suicide in rare and extreme cases, IF it was framed in such a way that it would be difficult to impossible to abuse.

    @Lee01

    Would you support such a law change if it had to pass a second hurdle of a voter’s veto before it could become law?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. Kimble (4,443 comments) says:

    scrubone – 11:50am

    Where did I say it was irrelevant? I said no such thing.

    You did. At 9:52am to be precise.

    scrubone – 9:52am

    This is not about someone living a few days longer and then dying in pain.

    http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/irrelevant
    adjective; 1. not relevant; not applicable or pertinent:

    If something is not about another thing, then that other thing is irrelevant.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. Dennis Horne (2,403 comments) says:

    My parents lived in their own home. I cared for my old mother to the end (90); my brother our father (98). Before Mum, drugged stupid to control “paranoia”, lost her sense of humour and sat in a corner counting aloud to try to keep herself sane, she said to me one day as I wiped her bum: “What a bloody nuisance I turned out to be.” Mercifully she had a massive heart attack and died. I was numb for months.

    At his end, my father totally lost interest in living, embarrassed by incontinence, he hung on. We were pleased to see him go.

    I don’t think I’ve got the guts to finish myself off. I just hope I’m lucky. My children love me and I don’t want them to end up hating me.

    I’ll bet many pontificating place their parents in an institution. Probably at taxpayer expense.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. mandk (1,020 comments) says:

    Harriet @ 10.00 am:

    You nailed it. Thank you.

    What we are really talking about here is geronticide, not suicide. “Euthansia” is just a despicable euphemism.

    It’s difficult to understand how some commenters here cannot grasp that if “euthansia” (i.e. geronticide) were to become legal, pressure would immediately be applied to old people to consent to being killed. The pressure will come from greedy offspring who fear that their inheritance will be spent on mum’s residential care, or from offspring who find dad messy and inconvenient, or from overstretched or lazy doctors.

    I know I have said this before, but it will be similar to the pressure to abort (i.e. baby-kill) that is now applied to women who are discovered to be carrying a pre-born baby with Down’s Syndrome or some other genetic abnormality. Instead of being cared for and supported, they are made to feel selfish.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. Pete George (23,687 comments) says:

    Harriet: “And that’s exactly what Maryanne Street is actually proposing – the broadest laws avaliable for people to have themselves killed.”

    And that’s exactly bullshit. You totally misrepresent the aims of the bill.

    Maryan Street is well ware of legitimate concerns and is doing what she can to address them in her bill – with a lot of consultation.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. scrubone (3,105 comments) says:

    Kimble, you’re dancing on the head of a pin and in both the earlier and latest comment, ignoring the substantive issue – that the real reason people oppose euthanasia is not because the like seeing people suffer, but because they don’t want the innocent to die.

    That was, is, and remains my point.

    You can claim until you’re blue in the fact that I dismissed the suffering of the dying. I do not – in fact, quite the opposite, it is your position that undermines palliative care in real life.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. Kimble (4,443 comments) says:

    the real reason people oppose euthanasia is not because the like seeing people suffer

    I didn’t say you liked it, only that you ignored it as irrelevant, and that made you appear heartless and cruel.

    For those of us on the compassionate side of the debate, alleviating suffering IS the issue, and the potential for any future arrangement to be abused is an issue to be dealt with, but not one that should permanently keep other people suffering.

    but because they don’t want the innocent to die.

    But the innocent WILL die. They are dying now. What you must have meant to say was that you don’t want to see people die who actually wanted to live. Nobody does. That’s why we want to have rules in place to prevent it.

    If you want to argue that it is impossible to come up with rules to properly govern euthanasia, or that they can never be applied or enforced correctly, then you need to turn up with much more than anecdotal evidence. You need to explain why no rules can ever work.

    it is your position that undermines palliative care in real life.

    And there you go again, putting words in my mouth. I quoted you directly to back up my assertion. Can you do the same?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. Dazzaman (1,146 comments) says:

    Farrar, just another demented socialist social activist….you read it here!

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. Steve (North Shore) (4,591 comments) says:

    I am not bothering to read the above because I know the comments will be from God Botherers pushing their own barrow of shit.
    When it is time for me to leave I want to remember those around me. I don’t want to be asking ‘where is my car’ and be told ‘you sold it 5 years ago’
    I dont want to be kept alive if I have a disease that will be long term.These desisions need to be made long before you ever get to that stage.
    There will always be those who want a Political football and they are not worth a tin of shit

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. wat dabney (3,811 comments) says:

    What we are really talking about here is geronticide, not suicide. “Euthansia” is just a despicable euphemism.

    The discussion is about euthanasia.

    The strong impression is that those who try to claim it is about something else are just dissembling.

    Perhaps they could put those suspicions to rest by prefixing their posts with “I fully support a person’s right to take their own life, but…”

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  79. mandk (1,020 comments) says:

    Wat Dabney,
    Sadly, you are quite wrong.
    The liberals seem to have a strong desire to kill:

    mandk (125) Says:
    April 20th, 2013 at 2:13 pm
    Hey David
    Homosexual marriage was last week’s liberal cause.
    I thought you had moved on to making killing pre-born babies easier.
    [DPF: Nope euthanasia next. Killing babies is too easy. Killing old people much more challenging to get thorugh]

    DPF could not have put it more clearly.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  80. UpandComer (537 comments) says:

    David please, please don’t adopt euthansia as your next gay marriage issue.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote