Make your own peaceful pill
September 23rd 2007 08:35
The following is from the Northern Territory News, Saturday 22 September 2007, page 16.
See also "Suicide pill legal, says Nitschke" (Lindsay Murdoch, SMH, 11/06/04).
Dr Death shows film on suicide
BRISBANE: Euthanasia campaigner Philip Nitschke says a visit to Queensland this weekend on the anniversary of the first legally-assisted suicide is political and not about informing people how to take their own lives.
Dr Nitschke, who has been dubbed "Dr Death", plans to visit the Sunshine Coast today to show the film, Single Shot, which has become a hit since being posted on the video internet site YouTube three weeks ago.
The screening will follow a public rally at 11am (AEST) at Maroochydore’s Cotton Tree Park, with speakers including former Northern Territory chief minister Marshall Perron and Judy Dent.
Ms Dent is the wife of Bob Dent, the 66-year-old who became the world’s first legal assisted suicide when he took his own life by lethal injection 11 years ago.
The video shows how to cook the barbiturate pentobarbital, more often known under the brand name Nembutal, in a pressurised pot on a stove top.
Nembutal was formerly widely used in small quantities as a sedative but has been banned in Australia since 1998.
But Dr Nitschke insists the film showing is a political demonstration, not a practical guide for people to make Nembutal.
"It takes you close to the edge of the legal situation about whether or not giving access to good information in any way is advising people to take a course of action," he said.
"We would be arguing that giving people an idea as to what other people have done, and giving them some guidelines as to how it was achieved, does little more than open their eyes to what’s possible and doesn’t in any way incite them to break the law."
Dr Nitschke said the film mentions sodium and urea, but omits other "critical ingredients" needed for making the drug.
Dr Nitschke is standing as an independent candidate against Immigration Minister Kevin Andrews in the forthcoming federal election in the Victorian electorate of Menzies.
It was Mr Andrews’ private members bill that overturned the Northern Territory’s Rights of the Terminally Ill Act in 1997 which had enabled the death of Mr Dent.
Three other people died legally under the law until it was overturned by the Senate. Assisting a suicide remains a crime throughout Australia.
"Single shot" by Exit International
"It is ironic, perhaps, that on the 11th anniversary of the lawful death of Bob Dent, seriously ill and elderly people are being made criminals thanks to the government's refusal to take their needs seriously," Dr Nitschke said.
"Who would have thought 11 years ago this Saturday since Bob's lawful peaceful and dignified passing, that I would be running workshops to provide answers to questions about the manufacture of barbiturates -- that that is what things have come to."
-- "Nitschke to show DIY suicide pill film", Goldcoast.com.au, Friday 21 September 2007.
Some thoughts:
-- Regarding "incitement", there's some interesting issues here about the line, if any, between speech and action -- connects to anti-Holocaust denial legislation, "offensive conduct" of Mr Chas Licciardello, Danish cartoons, whether restrictions should be placed on insulting language in parliament or elsewhere, etc.
-- I think JL Austin thought that speech was always also action, and David Macarthur said something similar of Wittgenstein's views on "description" at a recent conference. Will write more, in future, on Wittgenstein, and on Holocaust denial.
-- In an ABC interview with Nitschke (Monica Attard, Sunday 15 July 2007), he comments: "What [the law] says is, is that suicide is lawful. They then go on to say, this is the legislation, to advise, counsel or assist is in fact unlawful. It can attract the most savage of penalties. What we’re affectively [sic] saying to people is sure you can go out and kill yourself but you can’t get any advice, counselling or assistance, so that no-one can give you information. And what we try to do, what I try to do, what our organization Exit tries to do is to give people that information. The argument then revolves around whether or not the giving of good information actually constitutes advising, counseling or assisting, so does it fall under the auspices of this prohibition on the advise, counsel or assist of the suicide legislation which is currently in place... And then of course we get into the other nightmare scenario which we see happening more and more and that is when someone is so ill that they can’t affect [sic] an end themselves, they have to go to someone they love, their wife or husband or son or daughter, and say 'Will you please help me?'... Then, if they love someone, [they] do try to take steps to give that person what they want, that is, access to a peaceful death and they run right into the advising, counselling and assisting."
-- Incidentally, Nitschke's book, The Peaceful Pill Handbook, is banned in Australia and elsewhere. An Amazon.com reviewer writes of it: "It is clearly written, very practical and answers questions candidly. The book is not concerned with the ethics behind the advice; clearly the authors assume that people who consult the book have already dealt with the morality of suicide. The authors repeatedly reiterate that the book is aimed at those who are critically ill. I am not critically ill, nor am I in any way impaired. However, I think such information should be available to the public and I commend the authors for their courage in providing it."
-- I suppose one of the striking things in this basically boring film is the calmness -- reasonableness even -- of the people involved.
-- It's also blackly humorous that they emphasize safety precautions.
-- Perhaps the main message is that the manufacturing process is doable.
-- Nitschke wants to say: "We're just putting the information out there, and people can do with it what they like." I'd probably endorse some version of this. But it could be argued that the presence of choice isn't innocent; among other things, such an option opens you up to being talked into killing yourself (how do we judge consent), and creates anxiety -- a pressure to think, for instance, in terms of reducing the burden on your relatives.
-- People have often claimed that more choice is not always a good thing -- there are costs involved in wading through possibilities and making a decision.
-- One of the functions of law is to "express" what a society believes in; for instance "That's a crime" can carry the meaning "That's a sin". And although people generally think about the morality-law interaction as a one-way street (the law should be reformed to be as closely in line with morality as possible), it's sometimes the case that change in law creates a change in morality (especially if you believe, as Socrates did, that a certain amount of respect is owed to the law or to the opinion of one's community).
-- "Dr Death" seems to be a common moniker. It has applied not only to Nitschke, but also to Jack Kevorkian, Jayant Patel, Josef Mengele, and the wrestler Steve Williams. Suspicions of doctors, and the striking idea of healers as harmers, probably goes way way back...
Some further info...
Religious Tolerance writes of Dent:
See also "Suicide pill legal, says Nitschke" (Lindsay Murdoch, SMH, 11/06/04).
***
Philip Nitschke
BRISBANE: Euthanasia campaigner Philip Nitschke says a visit to Queensland this weekend on the anniversary of the first legally-assisted suicide is political and not about informing people how to take their own lives.
Dr Nitschke, who has been dubbed "Dr Death", plans to visit the Sunshine Coast today to show the film, Single Shot, which has become a hit since being posted on the video internet site YouTube three weeks ago.
The screening will follow a public rally at 11am (AEST) at Maroochydore’s Cotton Tree Park, with speakers including former Northern Territory chief minister Marshall Perron and Judy Dent.
Bob Dent
The video shows how to cook the barbiturate pentobarbital, more often known under the brand name Nembutal, in a pressurised pot on a stove top.
Nembutal was formerly widely used in small quantities as a sedative but has been banned in Australia since 1998.
But Dr Nitschke insists the film showing is a political demonstration, not a practical guide for people to make Nembutal.
"It takes you close to the edge of the legal situation about whether or not giving access to good information in any way is advising people to take a course of action," he said.
"We would be arguing that giving people an idea as to what other people have done, and giving them some guidelines as to how it was achieved, does little more than open their eyes to what’s possible and doesn’t in any way incite them to break the law."
Dr Nitschke said the film mentions sodium and urea, but omits other "critical ingredients" needed for making the drug.
Dr Nitschke is standing as an independent candidate against Immigration Minister Kevin Andrews in the forthcoming federal election in the Victorian electorate of Menzies.
It was Mr Andrews’ private members bill that overturned the Northern Territory’s Rights of the Terminally Ill Act in 1997 which had enabled the death of Mr Dent.
Three other people died legally under the law until it was overturned by the Senate. Assisting a suicide remains a crime throughout Australia.
***
"Single shot" by Exit International
***
"It is ironic, perhaps, that on the 11th anniversary of the lawful death of Bob Dent, seriously ill and elderly people are being made criminals thanks to the government's refusal to take their needs seriously," Dr Nitschke said.
"Who would have thought 11 years ago this Saturday since Bob's lawful peaceful and dignified passing, that I would be running workshops to provide answers to questions about the manufacture of barbiturates -- that that is what things have come to."
-- "Nitschke to show DIY suicide pill film", Goldcoast.com.au, Friday 21 September 2007.
***
Some thoughts:
-- Regarding "incitement", there's some interesting issues here about the line, if any, between speech and action -- connects to anti-Holocaust denial legislation, "offensive conduct" of Mr Chas Licciardello, Danish cartoons, whether restrictions should be placed on insulting language in parliament or elsewhere, etc.
-- I think JL Austin thought that speech was always also action, and David Macarthur said something similar of Wittgenstein's views on "description" at a recent conference. Will write more, in future, on Wittgenstein, and on Holocaust denial.
-- In an ABC interview with Nitschke (Monica Attard, Sunday 15 July 2007), he comments: "What [the law] says is, is that suicide is lawful. They then go on to say, this is the legislation, to advise, counsel or assist is in fact unlawful. It can attract the most savage of penalties. What we’re affectively [sic] saying to people is sure you can go out and kill yourself but you can’t get any advice, counselling or assistance, so that no-one can give you information. And what we try to do, what I try to do, what our organization Exit tries to do is to give people that information. The argument then revolves around whether or not the giving of good information actually constitutes advising, counseling or assisting, so does it fall under the auspices of this prohibition on the advise, counsel or assist of the suicide legislation which is currently in place... And then of course we get into the other nightmare scenario which we see happening more and more and that is when someone is so ill that they can’t affect [sic] an end themselves, they have to go to someone they love, their wife or husband or son or daughter, and say 'Will you please help me?'... Then, if they love someone, [they] do try to take steps to give that person what they want, that is, access to a peaceful death and they run right into the advising, counselling and assisting."
-- Incidentally, Nitschke's book, The Peaceful Pill Handbook, is banned in Australia and elsewhere. An Amazon.com reviewer writes of it: "It is clearly written, very practical and answers questions candidly. The book is not concerned with the ethics behind the advice; clearly the authors assume that people who consult the book have already dealt with the morality of suicide. The authors repeatedly reiterate that the book is aimed at those who are critically ill. I am not critically ill, nor am I in any way impaired. However, I think such information should be available to the public and I commend the authors for their courage in providing it."
-- I suppose one of the striking things in this basically boring film is the calmness -- reasonableness even -- of the people involved.
-- It's also blackly humorous that they emphasize safety precautions.
-- Perhaps the main message is that the manufacturing process is doable.
-- Nitschke wants to say: "We're just putting the information out there, and people can do with it what they like." I'd probably endorse some version of this. But it could be argued that the presence of choice isn't innocent; among other things, such an option opens you up to being talked into killing yourself (how do we judge consent), and creates anxiety -- a pressure to think, for instance, in terms of reducing the burden on your relatives.
-- People have often claimed that more choice is not always a good thing -- there are costs involved in wading through possibilities and making a decision.
-- One of the functions of law is to "express" what a society believes in; for instance "That's a crime" can carry the meaning "That's a sin". And although people generally think about the morality-law interaction as a one-way street (the law should be reformed to be as closely in line with morality as possible), it's sometimes the case that change in law creates a change in morality (especially if you believe, as Socrates did, that a certain amount of respect is owed to the law or to the opinion of one's community).
-- "Dr Death" seems to be a common moniker. It has applied not only to Nitschke, but also to Jack Kevorkian, Jayant Patel, Josef Mengele, and the wrestler Steve Williams. Suspicions of doctors, and the striking idea of healers as harmers, probably goes way way back...
***
Some further info...
Religious Tolerance writes of Dent:
| Bob Dent, 66, was the first person to take advantage of the new law. He had moved to the Northern Territory as a Church of England (Episcopal, Anglican) missionary. He became disillusioned with politics within the church and left his calling to become a building estimator. He was diagnosed with cancer in 1991, and converted to Buddhism shortly afterwards. He wrote a letter saying "If you disagree with voluntary euthanasia, then don't use it, but please do not deny the right to me." He said that no religious group should "demand that I behave according to their rules and endure unnecessary intractable pain until some doctor in his omniscience decides that I have had enough and increases the morphine until I die." In the presence of his wife and doctor, he initiated the process that gave him a lethal drug injection [on 22 September 1996]. |
The ABC interview says this about Dent: --
| MONICA ATTARD: Now you assisted in those four deaths, did you not, in the Northern Territory?
PHILIP NITSCHKE: Yeah, the laws said I could’ve come along and sat there and given them, each of those four people who used the law, a lethal injection. As it was, I connected them to the little machine that I built and they pressed the button and the machine itself delivered the lethal drugs. But I had to first of all set the machine up and then I had to be in the room, so in that sense, it wouldn’t have happened unless I was able to be there. Having got the law passed it was then up to me to make it work and the only four people to use it were four of my patients. MONICA ATTARD: So how did that moment affect you? PHILIP NITSCHKE: Ah, it was very difficult. You wouldn’t forget it. They were four extremely difficult days, the days leading up to the day when the person had chosen [to] make use of the option which they had now obtained, were difficult, stressful days. I couldn’t sleep, worried about things. People said “Oh well, you were worried because of the fact that you’re breaking some fundamental law.” But it was nothing like that. The worry that came was from the responsibility, the worry that something might go wrong. You were by yourself. You knew that when you went to that person’s room, the expectation was pretty crippling. There was a… you knew you had to be able to go there and by the time you left, that person had to have had a peaceful death. And the fact that you’re by yourself with no-one, it would’ve been better if I had been accompanied by someone, I think. And each of those times my overwhelming feeling when the, when everything went well, if you like, we were able to talk about things; to connect the machine up; the machine worked; the person died, usually in three of the four cases, held by the people that loved them and they died peacefully and to see them achieve what they wanted and relief on the faces of those that loved them, to be present. My overwhelming feeling was one of gratitude that everything had gone well. MONICA ATTARD: So when you say that there’s a great burden because you’re the only one there, you’re the only medico there, were you frightened? PHILIP NITSCHKE: I don’t know whether I was fearful so much as anxious. Anxiety about the fact that something might go wrong. The very first time with Bob Dent, he said “Come around on Sunday. I’ve decided Sunday is the day to die. I want to die about two o’clock.” He said, “Can you come around for lunch beforehand?” And I remember feeling very chilled at the time and that was about Wednesday when he told me. I didn’t do much sleeping from that time. I went around there around midday. Couldn’t eat my food and everything. You tried to talk about didn’t seem to make much sense. You run every sentence you’re about to say past yourself and you edit it and you decide it’s not worth saying. Everything has some future component and so you just don’t say it. These are very, very difficult times. I can only imagine that it’s obviously is something like what people go through leading up to an execution and it’s very, very hard going. The fact that he wanted it makes it…there are still aspects of it that do make you feel like it’s one of the grim situations. And I found myself covered in sweat. My shirt was drenched in sweat and I didn’t know why and my mouth was so dry I couldn’t eat my sandwich. Now I understand all those things. This is the anxiety associated with it. MONICA ATTARD: In those moments, when you were sitting there, having lunch with somebody who was about to die, did that give you pause to question whether, in fact, morally you were doing the right thing? PHILIP NITSCHKE: I had plenty of opportunity to question it and I did question it. Having said that I questioned it, I was never in any doubt. Those periods didn’t make me feel any more doubtful. The fact that I was having such a hard time of it didn’t really make me question the concept. I had worked hard for him to have this option. I knew that I would want this option and that’s why I was involved in it in the first place. So I was annoyed that the medical profession had set out to try and undermine the law to try and wreck it. They made it quite clear, the Australian Medical Association did, that they would do everything they could to make sure this law never functioned. And yet I knew full well that if I was in the position that Bob Dent or any of the other four were in, that I would want this choice. I may not want to take it but I would want to know that that option was there. |
***
-- The image of Bob Dent came from this website.
| 97 |
| Vote |
Add To: 
subscribe to this blog
Comment by Damo
(BTW I prefer your old name it seemed much more personal. Yet you have your reason for changing it)
This was a long post so it took a while to digest and so forgive me if I cannot address all issues.
I will however make a suggestion from another viewpoint. That of a legal psychopath.
Is it possible for someone to be a psychopathic killer and remain legal and even respected withing his own community? How would achieve such a goal if your desire is to kill as many people as you can and not be touched by the law?
One way would be to fight for a legal position to give the power over life and death.
'Dear patient I am so glad that you are suffering and depressed so instead of providing you with expensive care, here is a cheap little albeit deadly pill. Now hurry up I get paid by the hour and we need that bed."
Cynical I know but no less cynical than some of Good Doctor's answers.
Then we look at from the viewpoint of a suicide cult, is this a way lof making another Jones Town without anyone noticing.
The charismatic leader offers death as the solution all human problems.
What may seem like a simple case of someones definition of liberty may have deeped and more primal roots.
Just trying to add my confussion to this subject.
Comment by Nonymous
Philosophy Blog
Main reaction to your comment is this: the Northern Territory legislation, before it was repealed, required there to be certain prerequisites for assisted suicides. For instance, the patient had to have a terminal illness with no chance of a cure, the patient had to be experiencing considerable suffering, the patient had to be not depressed, had to be informed of all relevant medical facts, and so on. All this was then confirmed by a second medical practitioner with psychological qualifications who was in no way related to the first. The results got reported to a coroner afterward. And there were provisions for reporting to the Attorney-General and to Parliament.
Now, it's a judgment call as to whether such a system had sufficient safety guards against abuse. Other countries (Belgium, The Netherlands, etc) have different criteria to meet.
But if there were enough hoops to jump through, would you agree that the system had been sufficiently secured against abuse? Say, the patient had to get the approval of twelve doctors, and been expressing the same desire for ten years, etc. Or would you argue that no system of safeguards could be strong enough?
Three more thoughts...
1. Don't know how common murder-loving medically-qualified psychopaths are. (And, incidentally, not all "psychopaths", at least as that term is psychologically used, get a kick out of or go out of their way to harm people. So the population of such people is even smaller than one might imagine.)
2. If there are any such psychopaths, they can already operate under the law. Doctors already actively and passively euthanase patients (via increasing morphine dosage, or putting patients on "nursing care only"). Whereas a doctor who was prepared to assist suicide would be operating under much more scrutiny and in much greater public view.
3. The idea that Nitschke is sadistic or is doing all of this for some sort of buzz... Surely you'd need something stronger (beyond the mere suggestion) to support the claim?
In fairness to Dr Death, he'd be within his rights to feel defamed and to take great offense on reading your comment.
What if he's exactly what he presents himself to be? -- deeply humanitarian, with profound sympathies for people, who has campaigned tirelessly, for years, against all sorts of odds and disappointments, for a cause that a lesser person would simply have walked away from?
Comment by Damo
Just a minor point. No where in my reply have I ever mentioned Dr Death was a psychopath. I have been involved in public situations for along time and I do know my legal limits. Only you put the two directly in the same context.
The suggestion I made was just a theory and a senario that people can choose to believe or not. Despite doctor having access to killing by various method there one caught in England having killed upto 200 elderly patients.
To assume that one person is motivated by purely compassionate grounds indicates that those who oppose his methods are not compassionate enough.
It is an accusation by implication. Why is his definition of compassion the correct one?
The situation is that Dr Nietzche has a platform that deals with life and death. He is promoting the death side of the two absolutes. Hence we have a right to question his motivations for doing so because the consequences are bigger than one mans ambitions.
A quick look at pre war Germany Eugenics morphing into manditory Euthenasia is just one sample of what could occur.
Comment by Nonymous
Philosophy Blog
This is true. You didn't assert it. But you're suggesting a theory, right? (Is that fair to say?)
And would it be reasonable for Nitschke to take offence at such a suggestion (even if it's theory, speculation-level, and not an assertion as such)?
Reminds me a little of the recent Virgin mobile case. Virgin is merely suggesting that the pictured girl is a dorky pen-friend who deserves dumping. Is is reasonable for her to take offence at such a suggestion?
If I stand up in a church and say, "This is just a theory, and you can make up your own minds, but I think the priest is a child-abuser", would it be reasonable for the priest to take offence?
When I wrote "In fairness to Dr Death, he'd be within his rights to feel defamed and to take great offense on reading your comment", that wasn't supposed to be a legal opinion, but a matter of how it would be reasonable for him to react.
Just to make my own position clear:
Firstly, I'm generally morally fine with people being insulted. After all, when I wrote "In fairness to Dr Death, he'd be within his rights", the use of the name "Dr Death" is in itself insulting.
Secondly, I do think Dr Death might take offence on reading your remarks (and I'm skeptical you disagree with me) -- but this doesn't mean I'm claiming you shouldn't have made them.
I'm generally crazily in favour of liberties -- hence previous posts on fucking in public, and the right of people to believe in rape, etc. And I tend to side with Mill that opposition in the marketplace of ideas is a healthy thing, and that if there is no opposition, then some should be manufactured.
So of course I agree with you that Dr Death's proposed legal change (like any proposed legal change) should have all that can be said against it said against it.
Don't know if this properly addresses your point, and don't know if you're saying that I'm making such assumptions or accusations, but: --
Firstly, do I assume that Dr Death is compassionate? I wrote "What if he's exactly what he presents himself to be?". So it's a hypothetical, not an assumption.
Secondly, is it true that assuming one person is compassionate means assuming, asserting, implying that their opponents must be inhumane? Is there any logical contradiction in two opposing parties both being compassionate? If I assert of someone, "He's male", does that mean his opponent must be female? Or if I say "He's strong", does that mean his opponent must be weak?
Thirdly, I don't think there's really any issue of "correct definition of compassion" here, because I don't think anyone has asserted a definition, least of all Dr Death. And I don't think I was asserting any definition either -- I wrote "What if he's... deeply humanitarian, with profound sympathies for people". I left it open what "deeply humanitarian" and "with profound sympathies" mean, and I left it open whether or not it was fair to apply such descriptions to him.
Comment by Damo
I will go through this from my viewpoint one step at a time so that the ambiguities are cleared up.
This obviously a subject that draws a lot of emotions so I feel that clarity of what I was trying to say should be without question.
If Dr Nietsche was or was not to take an offence over anything I have writen would be a matter for Dr Nietsche and not 2 Bloggers.
My senario was general and not specific to one individual so no offence can be taken by one individual let alone proven. Therefore any offence is imagined.
Your example about you publically theorizing about an individual priest has some logic differences. One it is individual (you specify it is 'this' priest not 'some' priests) The other problem is that without supporting evidence it is just worthless gossip. You can't rely upon the one in all in rule here. The other logical difference is that you are not questioning the fact that the priests normal activities constitue anything bad. Just his alleged activities. The question of his motives for being a priest was never even asked.
Trivia Point:
An Anti duck hunter protester alleged that hunter shoot ducks for some kind of sexual high. Late eighties I think maybe early nineties. He let the offence fall where it should and because it was a theory it could be dismissed as one.
Trivia Point over...
Next let me look at whether the Good Doctor is the kind of person that has ever given offence. Here is one of his quotes:
I could go on collecting his quotes and who he blames for his book being banned and his methods outlawed but they all seem to make the same point. Someone shafted me.
(If I really wanted to insult the Good Doctor I would tell the truth. His picture looks like he was dressed by stoned pixies.)
Now for the question of compassion, (which is a word that gets as misused as love and courage).
Compassion Logic
The Good Doctor argues from the point of view that killing a suffering patient is a compassionate act. His opponents argue that it is not killing the same suffering patient is compassionate act. The two cannot be logically correct at the same time. One has to be either compassionate or more compassionate than the other. Moral high ground and all that stuff etc.The loser in the battle of logic is the less compassionate or incompassionate. There is no win-win in logical absolutes.
(I could use a ven diagram to display the logic but the answer would be the same.)
Next I can look at the question of the modern promoters of euthenasia and I have every right to ask tough questions even if they offend the listener as you previously agreed.
Comment by Miswanderlust
Killer Beats
Ramble On
Hipnotherapy
I will have to ponder this and come back at a later date with a response. You and Damo make great points. I do some end of life work with clients who have terminal illnesses. Thank you for the thought provoking post.
Mis
Comment by laver
Comment by Anonymous
\
Comment by Nonymous
Philosophy Blog
I don't have much to say in response to this, but I just want to clarify that what this post is about is suicide, rather than murder per se.
And if you think that suicide is always stupid, well... Is it fair to ask you why you say that? Do you think there could be no situations in which it's reasonable to want to kill yourself?
Dear laver,
Depends what you mean by key issue.
If you mean, the main contentious issue raised by this whole subject matter, I think you're right.
But, from memory, I suspect it wasn't the key issue I was writing about -- I probably didn't raise the question, and focused instead on issues like the difference between speech and act.
Dear Damo,
Will leave alone the various issues to do with whether it would be reasonable for Dr Death to take offence, how much of a parallel the priest example is, etc.
Just in response to the compassion and contradiction issue, and whether calling one person compassionate entails the allegation that their opponent lacks compassion...
Firstly, I understand by "compassionate person" something like "person with the capacity for empathy and sympathy". -- Is that how you use the word?
Secondly, consider this example.
Person A believes in an absolute prohibition against ending life, and this prohibition includes assisting suicides. Whereas person B does not hold this belief.
Now, if you accept my definition of compassion above, why should there be any contradiction in this scenario in both persons being compassionate? Isn't it possible that both parties have equal capacity to empathize and sympathize with suffering while still disagreeing over the rightfulness of euthanasia? The disagreement between pro and anti, in this scenario, would not turn on the recognition of pain, but on a belief that one of the parties holds and the other lacks.
And if you accept that there is no contradiction, in this scenario, in both parties being compassionate, then why do you believe that asserting that one person is compassionate entails the claim that their opponent is not?
To me, the issue is somewhat like "intelligent". High Court judges disagree all the time, but I think they're all pretty smart. The disagreement in judgment doesn't arise through lack of intelligence, but through variance in belief. Calling one person intelligent doesn't mean calling their opponent stupid.
Comment by Nonymous
Philosophy Blog
Nurses can "end a life"
LONDON: Nurses in Britain will be able to decide that a dying patient should not be resuscitated, under controversial new guidelines.
Previously, only GPs and consultants could decide whether to continue efforts to save a life. But the British Medical Association will now allow "suitably experienced nurses" to make this crucial decision.
Patients’ groups criticised the move, calling it "another nail in the coffin" for patients' safety and would condemn many to an "early death sentence".
Comment by Nonymous
Philosophy Blog
Docs admit aiding patients to die
More than a third of Australian doctors asked to help a patient die admit to administering lethal drugs, a study shows.
While the profession is sharply divided over whether voluntary euthanasia should be legalised, most doctors accept they have helped quicken death of patients in some way.
The study, to be published in the Journal of Medical Ethics, found 76 per cent of doctors had withdrawn or withheld life-sustaining treatment when asked. At a patient’s request, 35 per cent had given drugs with the intention of hastening death.
The NT president of the Australian Medical Association, Peter Beaumont, said the issue was intensely difficult for doctors.
"The important thing to note is that every doctor will handle it differently," he said.
"It’s not something you could say there’s any standard way of dealing with."
Dr Beaumont said legislation on the issue had the potential to make conditions for doctors more difficult.
"No matter how you write laws in relation to these matters, they often interfere with an important professional relationship between the doctor the patient and the patient’s family or guardian," he said.
Sixty per cent of doctors said they had refused to hasten a death, as it is illegal, even though nearly all agreed requests could be reasonable under some circumstances.
Most doctors confirmed they had been asked to help a patient die and 43 per cent had been requested to administer lethal drugs which most believed could be a reasonable request in certain situations.
There was also significant disagreement about the definition of what actually constitutes euthanasia.
The study involved 854 Victorian doctors and was undertaken by researchers from Wollongong and Melbourne.
Comment by Jesus is the way.
Comment by Jesus is the way???
Now lets see" I like to see this nutty person only have to experience some of the suffering i have seen and witnessed whiles nursing. I'd say your salvation in Jesus to be your pain killer will not work for you. You will suffer just the same. But! Then again. It is silly statements like that that certainly do not reflect the majority of People who support the right to die in dignity. Some 80% i may add. I guess the 80% majority would have to burn in Hell too? Just imagine how much room you would have in Heaven>> just for yourself.
I know where i would take my ride to. Yep! With the other 80%. Good on you Mr. Nitshky for standing up for human rights. I WOULD LIKE TO DECIDE HOW I WILL END MY LIFE BEFORE I SUFFER TOO MUCH.
Ahmen!!
Comment by PeacefulDeath
Moron, if you really believe there is a Jesus, you would leave things for Jesus to decide. You wouldn't be deciding on his behalf. Obviously you don't believe in Jesus yourself, but pretend to. That makes you a hypocrite as well as a moron.
Comment by role darl
Comment by Anonymous
suppose one gets involved in a horrible car/train accident that would leave one without various limbs, or something stabs you in the eye, rips half of your face off
not exactly your best day. the kind of sick stuff you see on ync. only this time, it's happening to YOU.
only a life of disability, regret and misery awaits.
at least now you have a choice.
Comment by Anonymous
better hope the body goes in shock mode and you still have hands to get the pill out, or if not call somebody to give you the 'painkiller'
Comment by Anonymous
Comment by islam is solution for suicide
Comment by Anonymous
Comment by sharkbait
some people should get a life before they dictate what others should do with there life.
just because you go to church, does not give you the authority to dictate your will, and yes it is your will as if god was real he could tell the world what his or her views are.
some of the death's i have seen, have left christian crying and cowaring in the corner throwing their gut out, but these have been accidents.
the truth about deaths by cancers is when the pain is too great the doctors turn up the morphine to the point where they are out of pain... but the person OD's as a byproduct.
YES all you bible bashing knobjockeys assisted suicide happens every day in australia and there is nothing you can do about it...
As for the elderly in nursing homes, given no stimula to brain or body, they are made to stay in bed where they waste away.
A fact is that when a elderly person goes to bed they never get up again and they die before their time.
some hostels encourage this as it frees up beds for more paying persons (admin fees, etc...) where they make more money
I have never seen any so called christian take on this system, But i do know of many employees being sacked for saying this is wrong and trying to do something about it.
As the christan groups are so large the politions bow to their wills as it keeps them in goverment where the can be payed for nothing.
A frail old person is a target in todays society
between the rapes, robbery, scams, and change, where all their friends have died, their young families dont want to know them, etc...
all they can afford is to stay at home in a dark freezing house etc...
And you want to dictate your will that they cant die and be at peace, pain free, without fear etc...
who made you all god, every person has a right to choose, in the bible it is called free will and god is not against that, they will just be sent to HELL so why should christans care about that, it means less sinners in heaven. LOL
what a total joke