Nitschke v Abbott (2 Viewers)

[Trefoil]

He holds certain views based on his own religious and moral grounding. If that makes him 'irrational' then society is headed for the dog house.

You wouldn't be the first religious whackjob to claim society is doomed due to a lack of 'moral fibre'.

As for your comments about a framework, I made reference to various problems after the statement you quoted. I suggest you comment on the problems associated with the creation of a legal framework rather than making sweeping statements.

Well if you had half a brain I wouldn't need to respond to them, now would I?

First of all you start by outlining when euthanasia is legal and when it isn't instead of stupidly assuming you legalise it in all forms.

The basic case is a terminally ill patient in chronic pain. Let's assume we legalise it in no other cases. Then obviously we've already got a valid framework for legislating the legalisation of euthanasia. My god that was so fucking hard.

Hint: murder is easy to deal with because if they weren't terminally ill and didn't follow the proper procedures than it obviously wasn't euthanasia. Holy shit, what a revelation!

If you're still not convinced feel free to see how the Netherlands, Belgium and various states in America handled it's legislation.

 

[incentivation]

You wouldn't be the first religious whackjob to claim society is doomed due to a lack of 'moral fibre'.

For starters, I'm not religious. I am however against branding people irrational merely because they are.

Well if you had half a brain I wouldn't need to respond to them, now would I?

First of all you start by outlining when euthanasia is legal and when it isn't instead of stupidly assuming you legalise it in all forms.

The basic case is a terminally ill patient in chronic pain. Let's assume we legalise it in no other cases. Then obviously we've already got a valid framework for legislating the legalisation of euthanasia. My god that was so fucking hard.

Hint: murder is easy to deal with because if they weren't terminally ill and didn't follow the proper procedures than it obviously wasn't euthanasia. Holy shit, what a revelation!

If you're still not convinced feel free to see how the Netherlands, Belgium and various states in America handled it's legislation.

Reverting to personal attacks again highlights your lack of substance. It seems with most, you attack the person.

A terminally ill patient in chronic pain? How do you determine which persons fit within this classification? What of difference in medical opinion?

That also fails to address the issue of lucid thought. How can we ensure the person in question is thinking rationally at law?

How do we ensure that the pain and suffering does not override this sense of rationality?

There are so many more considerations.

It is not as simple as creating a broad classification of those who might be suitable. If only legislating was that easy.

 

[KFunk]

I just got back home from the debate. It was interesting seeing the debate take place in such a public forum. Some thoughts:

Nitschke's argument was largely rhetorical hot air. Dr Cigolini was all medicine and not enough ethics/jurisprudence. Tony Abbott was rubbish (a garble of ad hominems, straw men, and irrelevant quips against the current government, though gladly he calmed down by the end).

I think that Bob Brown and Peter Baume both put forward the important ethical side of the argument in a respectful and cogent manner - with the argument being that there exist instances in which there is a strong moral case for euthanasia (the existence of which is a prerequisite for considering formation of legislation that permits euthanasia). They used the classical emotive cases for this purpose.

However, it was not until Frank Brennan (also a fine speaker) that the issue of legislation was properly addressed. He correctly identified that both sides wished to minimise suffering and that both sides acknowledged the existence of cases where euthanasia appears sound, but that the question is then whether it is possible to legislate in such a way that we permit such cases without (1) increasing the incidence of innapropriate cases of assisted-suicide and (2) promoting a cultural change which makes it easier for people to practice innapropriate euthanasia (where this second part was largely a slippery-slope argument).

What I find interesting, especially as it was only touched on obliquely and did not receive explicit comment, is that these points on which the debate ultimately turns (when formulated in this way) seem to be amenable to empirical investigation. How we define appropriate vs innappropriate cases is a matter for ethics / value theory, but whether legislation can be formed which primarily promotes appropriate cases is an empirical question (that is, once we control for a given sense of 'appropriate').

As the affirmative side rightly pointed out, we can easily turn to certain European nations with euthanasia legislation in place in order to see how such policy may play out. Unsurprisingly they contend that examination of these cases shows that it is possible to legislate in a way that allows for a safe, dignified, assisted death.

 

[Trefoil]

Reverting to personal attacks again highlights your lack of substance. It seems with most, you attack the person.

A terminally ill patient in chronic pain? How do you determine which persons fit within this classification? What of difference in medical opinion?

That also fails to address the issue of lucid thought. How can we ensure the person in question is thinking rationally at law?

How do we ensure that the pain and suffering does not override this sense of rationality?

There are so many more considerations.

It is not as simple as creating a broad classification of those who might be suitable. If only legislating was that easy.

Sure, you could repeatedly ask me random trivial questions about euthanasia to make the problem seem insurmountable... or you could bother to read previously drafted legislation instead and empirically examine its impact (or lack thereof) on the corresponding societies.

I know which one a smart person would do.

 

[KFunk]

Also, for those interested in audience figures:

If I remember the figures right (I remember the shift but may be wrong on the starting figure for 'against):

Pre-debate: 71% For, 14% Against

Post-debate: 75% For, 19% Against


Note that there was a greater shift (amongst the undecided) towards the negative position (for math heads: estimates as to whether this is statistically significant or not??). However, the absolute vote was unequivocally in favour of the affirmative side.

 

[incentivation]

Sure, you could repeatedly ask me random trivial questions about euthanasia to make the problem seem insurmountable... or you could bother to read previously drafted legislation instead and empirically examine its impact (or lack thereof) on the corresponding societies.

I know which one a smart person would do.

Or a smart person would stop jumping around relevant issues/

As for the Dutch Legislation, it cites the following issues for consideration:

Due care requirements
The due care criteria which must be met in order to obtain exemption from criminal liability require that the attending physician:

• be satisfied that the patient has made a voluntary and well considered request
• be satisfied that the patient's suffering is unbearable, and that there is no prospect of improvement
• has informed the patient about his or her situation and prospects
• has come to the conclusion, together with the patient, that there is no reasonable alternative in the light of the patient's situation
• has consulted at least one other physician, who must have seen the patient and given a written opinion on the due care criteria referred to above, and
• has terminated the patient's life or provided assistance with suicide with due medical care and attention.

Some of the points I made were already within the legislation as criteria which absolve criminal liability. Some are not.

What makes a physician an expert in determining whether the person is of sound mind?

What is a 'reasonable alternative'? What body oversees the process to ensure all avenues are exhausted? Is there an oversight mechanism, or is it merely an after the fact assessment?

If the suffering is unbearable is there not another way in which the pain can be nullified?

There are so many issues.

Many would have an emotional attachment to the issue of dignified death. Assisted suicide should not be taken lightly, and the very fact that discussion is occurring is a positive. Morally and legally, I am against the concept. However, if general consensus amongst the community is in support of the idea, then it is imperative that the process of drawing up adequate legislation must be done in an open and considered way. All questions need to be asked, and answers addressed in some capacity within the legislative provisions or regulations.

 

[KFunk]

What makes a physician an expert in determining whether the person is of sound mind?

The fact that they frequently have to assess cognitive function in their line of work (and there is the element of self interest: if a doctor wishes to avoid beign sued they need to be able to recognise when denial of consent is issued from a state of sound mind).

The prevalence of delirium (of some degree) amongst individuals 65 and over who are admitted to hospital is in the order or 30%. This amounts to a huge number of patients. Any doctor involved in aged care, palliative care or intensive care (and likely adult internal medicine, surgery, emergency too) are likely to have a great deal of experience relating to delirium (which includes being able to ask and answer: might their state be better explained by dementia, depression or mania?). Granted, some physicians who deal with such cases will nonetheless remain poor at assessing 'soundness of mind', but I do think that physicians should receive at least some credit in this arena.

You could always tighten the sitution so that assessments are made by neuropsychiatrists, psychogeriatricians, behavioral neurologists, clinical psychologists or similar. In these cases the individuals should be bona fide experts.

 

[rasengan90]

Am I the only one who imagined a zombie Nietzsche debating Tony Abbot?

 

[Graney]

Nitschke should have got Australian of the year, those times he was a finalist.

 

[Trefoil]

Am I the only one who imagined a zombie Nietzsche debating Tony Abbot?

First thing I thought of.

The zombie won, btw.

 

[Graney]

Legalisation presents far too many complexities.

How do we develop the measures of assessment for euthanasia qualification?

How can a person lacks lucid thought, and is driven by emotion, make a rational decision such as the taking of their life?

How do we prevent murder?

I agree with Abbott on the question of suicide. It sends the completely wrong message to the rest of society.

I'm probably being a bit alarmist.

I do see the reasoning for legalisation and do acknowledge it isn't a black or white issue. I just think it creates a legal and moral dilemma.

If there's one thing I strongly believe, it's that an individual should have the absolute right to end their life at any time, for any reason, under any circumstances.

Euthanasia is the most extreme and bleeding obvious case where this should be available, but safe, legal and accessible suicide should always be available.

My body, my life, my game. I give the big finger to those who would presume to judge my state of mind, or that such things should even matter, those who would make absolute statements that "X is unfit enough they deserve the freedom to die, but Y is healthy enough by my subjective, relative valuation system that I impose upon them that they must live".

Not all suffering is physical, not all suffering is transitory, even if it is transitory, screw it, it's my life and mine alone, get your filthy mitts off.

 

[A High Way Man]

If there's one thing I strongly believe, it's that an individual should have the absolute right to end their life at any time, for any reason, under any circumstances.

Euthanasia is the most extreme and bleeding obvious case where this should be available, but safe, legal and accessible suicide should always be available.

My body, my life, my game. I give the big finger to those who would presume to judge my state of mind, or that such things should even matter, those who would make absolute statements that "X is unfit enough they deserve the freedom to die, but Y is healthy enough by my subjective, relative valuation system that I impose upon them that they must live".

Not all suffering is physical, not all suffering is transitory, even if it is transitory, screw it, it's my life and mine alone, get your filthy mitts off.

this cold-blooded libertarianism forgets all the hard work of your ancestors, and humanity in general, to get us to this place. u can't take your toys and go home. It's never right. I mostly agree with euthanasia supporters though.

 

[tommykins]

I didn't choose to be born, cocksucker.

the amount of times ive said this to mum when she goes 'why did i give you birth if it were to not help me out in the home/support me' (asian thing)

btw wtf is ur av?

 

[Graney]

this cold-blooded libertarianism forgets all the hard work of your ancestors, and humanity in general, to get us to this place. u can't take your toys and go home. It's never right. I mostly agree with euthanasia supporters though.

It's think it's really selfish for others to expect me to exist for their benefit, if I'm the one suffering.

Fuck if we're going to look at the whole "greater good above all", if people shouldn't kill themselves because of their potential benefit to society, could we perhaps justify slaughtering those who are constant unrepentant fuckwit drains on society, who are ruining the whole thing for the rest of us?

 

[katie tully]

Euthanasia a false answer to suffering - Pope | Breaking News | News.com.au

Man takes on Italy, Vatican in daughter's euthanasia case | World News | News.com.au

 

[CIV1501]

we would all be abos/islams