Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Andrew Denton, You Hero!!
#1
He's organising a campaign to force politicians to at least discuss euthanasia laws.

http://www.gogentleaustralia.org.au/

He made a great speech tonight, hopefully it, and the points on how the legislation wil be constructed should be up on the site soon.

This is more than the usual petitions, it's a full on campaign, and I'll be signing up and donating.
Not too many causes incite me to make an effort, but this one does and has for a long time.
Denton is just the boy it needed to motivate the masses on it. 

At present politicians won't even look at it.  Scared to death of it. Even the AMA is scared of it.  That one beats me as the best of the doctors already dispense it on the quiet at their own great risk.

Polls over the last decade have produced consistent results of 75% support for euthanasia.

75% !!!  ... Compare this with the gay marriage campaign where everyone proclaims that 70%  support means there doesn't even need to be a plebiscite, the polls are enough, for Government to be forced to pass the law on a conscience vote.

But 75% isn't enough for euthanasia which would probably have to either go to referendum or have some Party place their future on the line by taking the policy to the election.

The warm and fuzzy rights for gays to play weddings is more important than a person crying in agony??  
What happened to people's brains???

Denton nailed those Roman Catholic bastards who have been blackballing, and blackmailing, to stop this for over 20 years!
It isn't politics, because they are currently high profile sitting members in Parliarment and they are in both the Liberal and the Labor Parties. 
The  common denominator is that they are Catholics.  Frothing ones.

It is the principle reason I loathe and detest Tony Abbott, not merely that he's a bumbling dill, but that he's a failed Jesuit priest who still thinks he's god's deputy bloody sheriff!

His little coven of like minded tykes are the ones eating their own Party alive at the moment out of pure spite for being tipped out of power.
But worse, they're making people suffer horrendous deaths because they get to make the call for God...  and he said nup.   How would they like a 100% steel atheist making decisions for them 'on ethical grounds'??

Not much.


The other player is Tony Burke, high roller in the Labor Party.  What a bloody minded pack of cowardly, dog in the manger, bastards.
They are 'dingoes' the lot of them!
  'Albo' Albanese is most likely in agreeance, if not in the pact, he's more catholic than the pope, but at least he had the balls to turn up for the speech, and had the grace to look concerned at the awful stories of the tough ways some have died.

Anyway, all power to Denton and I hope enough of us back him in on this one. And about time.
Reply
#2
I have mixed feelings on the euthanasia issue; possibly not for the usual reasons.

Of all the medical procedures out there, this is one well within the skill sets of the average bloke.
We actually don't need any doctors involved in this. There is no reason to have to pay for it. No sterile gloves are needed.

So, I object to the co-dependant relationship between doctor and patient.
The focus, imho, should be on eliminating the medical authority on this one.

We can figure it out without them.
Whereas, we can't figure out how to do heart surgery without them.

Euthanasia challenges an oath doctors take...so, it's difficult for them to sign off. Otoh, they aren't really needed at all.
The awkwardness of this fucks everything up.

Take capital punishment, for instance. The byzantine maze we go through to kill people is insane. We go through crazy hoops to kill the condemned in a humane manner. It's fucking hilarious! Maybe you heard about our crisis when a pharmaceutical company stopped providing one of the drugs essential to the humane, stretched out killing?

For fucks sake! A slug to the back of the head is quick; easy; effective, and ultimately humane.
If that's too violent, how about a shot of heroin, that's slightly too much? There's a reason there's so many heroin o.d.'s...it's probably the most humane way to commit suicide. It's much less messy than blowing your brains out or jumping off a bridge; knowing some poor chumps will be obligated to fetch your body, at great cost.

The Bible says "Though shalt not kill", and it's not bad advice.
It doesn't mention doing too much smack.

People that die that way get to experience some radical bliss on the way out.

Everything reasonable is illegal.
For me it was illegal not to join the military; to smoke a joint; to hitch hike;
and legal; even mandatory, to do all manner of illogical behaviors.

Crime is presently the world's leading economic power.

The law is so broken, why take it seriously?

Corny, but some truth in it:

Higher law.
Reply
#3
Good on Aussie.

Meanwhile, in NZ, the opposite is happening, with the filth targeting people who had attended a euthanasia support meeting.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11736288
Love is... that one person whose freshly-warm toilet seat you don't find disgusting.
Reply
#4
Stanky, jumping off a bridge is easy too but the big problem with your (and in a way still my) view on it,  is that those in the condition to need help to die aren't physically capable of accessing either a bridge or a hot shot.

I used to think about walking off the headland but I doubt I could walk that far now, pushing a wheelie walker uphill ain't easy.  
We have to take all things into account, what looks easy with a certain degree of mobility isn't, for those with none.   .  

It's about allowing access to options for those who currently have none.  It doesn't in any way preclude alternative exit strategies for those who still have some other, accessible, options.

I agree there shouldn't need to be laws covering it at all, but there has to be.
Sometimes we just have to suck up that personal freedoms come with the price tag of taking into account the impact they have on others.
Sometimes we have to negotiate, and compromise, and settle for less than perfection. 

The reason doctors are seen as a necessary conduit is because it's part of their job. 
They are our organic mechanics and as such have a degree of separation from us that family, or close friends, or even close enemies, can't maintain.

In short, it's a comfort, to both the family and to society, legalities wise. 

Helping someone loved, or even not,  to die is a hard enough thing to come to terms with for many, the extra step of having to physically do, or assist, the deed could be more than some, perhaps the majority, could cope with, or live with.  Added to that is the current spectre of being deemed a criminal for gifting the ultimate act of kindness.

 
Conceding the action, legally,  to the doctor, who is both guided and bound by the wishes of the patient, not the family, absolves them of some very painful soul searching and later unease.

Those doctors not up for it are in no way forced to follow the patient's wishes either.  And that's fair enough too.
Plenty more, especially those in the palliative field, are more than okay with it.
(I was surprised to learn that not all, or even nearly all, doctors are members of the AMA.  So why is the AMA the only one 'representing' doctors in the argument??)
  
It's a tough experience, been there, so have you, perhaps we feel differently but while I found it relatively easy to give that nod to the doctor  I kept going back to it, and judging my decision for years afterwards.

I was still convinced it was the only way to go with it.  Far preferable to dragging out the inevitable. Kinder than pandering to my own conscience and (perhaps surprisingly to some) my reluctance to  'kill'.
Logic won out, and the guilt receded, but it was there for a while.  It was stressful enough to have to make the decision, to have actually given her the increasing dosages was a huge step further that I would have found much harder to iive with.   I probably wouldn't have made it at all, jail is not a fine prospect to ponder.

Yes that's a bit shallow perhaps but it's how I was ticking, and I suspect how a lot of family members tick.

The decision is the patient's to make, the input into assisting the fruition of their wishes is not.
Just as the decisions made on personal religious grounds should never govern the rights of others to make different decisions,  nor should the decision made by the patient govern the actions of those they must rely upon to assist them.
It must be not only legal, but voluntary all round.

Doctors provide that degree of disassociation between the intent and the action that allows the family to stand back a little.  They are for the benefit of the family, as much as for the patient.  Does that make sense at all?

People aren't philosophers, they're a bag of emotions and make shotgun decisions when they're stressed.  Silly ones often that they then have to live with  regretfully .

A form of legal process is a necessary guide to keep it all tidy.
 
It's both a protection for the patient, and a comfort to the family that they are not 'terrible people' for letting grandma choose to off herself.  They can accept that it was simply her right to choose that option.  They don't have to carry the awful burden of having either 'killed' her, or to have decided to prolong her suffering.

Not everything should be seen only in the hard light of logic and rights, there's more to this one than common sense.
It's trying to legislate for emotion and that's no easy task, and we have to settle for the best we can do for all sides of the situation.
Reply
#5
Quote:Inspector Chris Bensemenn confirmed this afternoon that the checkpoint was set up close to where the meeting was being held in Lower Hutt with the purpose of "identify[ing] people attending an Exit International meeting".

"Police have a duty of care and a responsibility to the community to investigate any situation where we have reasonable grounds to suspect that persons are being assisted in the commission of suicide," he said in a written statement.
 
Jesus TA, is that NZ as in nazi now?  At least over here they're only hounding poor bloody Nitschke,  although he does tend to stick his neck out.   He's been a warrior for euthanasia but sometimes he goes a bit far and scares chooks.

I'm more than surprised at NZ being like that, thought they were the progressives down here on the butt of the planet.

I honestly thought it was pretty much okay over there, obviously I didn't look into it.  whoops.
Reply
#6
Are you spanking me?

(A little to the left, love. that's my special place.)

Yeah, I'm well aware of the emotional and practical underpinnings in this subject matter. I know the dying granny can't climb up on the bridge, nor am i in anyway promoting that avenue. Like I said,some poor chumps will be obligated to fetch that messy corpse out of the river, at fair cost and stress to all.

Let me reiterate two points I tried to make:

One, doctors; good doctors, even, simply aren't allowed, by a reasonable oath, to take part in this. Good on them. They shouldn't have to.
Two, this is one of those rare medical issues where in doctors have no particular skills. If anything, they have 'anti-skills'.
These decisions should rest firmly in the hands of family and loved ones, and the reasonable wishes of the dying relative, and their suffering.

Should we be concerned about abuses in this grey area?
Possibly. Sometimes, huge estates lie in the balance. It could get icky.

In the U.S., we already have a euthanasia system that is unofficial and seldom mentioned.
It's called "hospice".
When your dying loved one is deemed no longer 'curable' by the medical authorities, you are afforded assistance via medicare or similar, to take care of granny at home. One of the things provided is copious amounts of legal morphine.
When death occurs, no questions are asked; no autopsies are done.

Morphine isn't heroin. Heroin is a synthesized version that is more potent, only in the way it crosses the brain blood barrier...but heroin metabolizes as the legal morphine in the brain. When people o.d. on smack, they are actually o.d.ing on morphine.
It's a stupid technicality.

Hospice essentially makes it legal and easy to kill your suffering loved ones with drugs.
We all know about this; it's a bit of a 'wink-wink', unspoken fact of life and death.
It happens all the time.

It's euthanasia. And reasonable. Legal. Decent.

Why drag doctors into the details?
Their role is good enough in determining when someone is beyond cure, and able to shift to palliative care...at which time, they can legally prescribe all the morphine anyone could hope for. Or need.

Dr. Kavorkian is redundant within the hospice model. It sensationalizes something that needn't be any one's business.

This is like trying to solve a non-existing problem, with too much fanfare and drama...unless your nation doesn't have a hospice program.
Hospice makes it legal for the family to kill gramps, when the time comes.

I'm witness to this, many times. And it is very decent and kind. And legal. It's just not something we like to talk about.
Did I witness murder? Have I taken part in murder?

Fuck no. Murder is an act with murderous intent.
The hospice system is a loving wink; all the hospice nurses I've ever met (lots) were completely aware of the underlying dynamic and the empowerment it provides to both family and victim of this sanctioned euthanasia.
I use the word victim with a splash of irony.
I've never witnessed a family deciding to kill gramps before he was begging them to do it.
At that juncture, it's pretty damn easy to do, technologically speaking.

No needles needed. Oral drops. Drifting away.
Gone. Tears. Bonding. Call the coroner.

We have euthanasia here. We just don't call it that. It lets doctors out of an awkward situation where their skills are totally not needed.
Reply
#7
Thank christ no one reads this shit. I feel like I just ratted out one of the best things in America.
Hospice care enables euthanasia.
But it puts it firmly in the hands of the family or caretaker.

American doctors are notoriously stingy with pain meds...not so when they give up on someone.
In fact, a minor issue in this is that various junkies that have connections with the family of the hospice patient, will hone in on it, to score drugs. Not a big moral dilemma...they're going to seek those meds regardless...shouldn't be a major concern.

The minor icky details of something need to be compared to the overwhelming alternative ickiness.

I've watched a lot of people die. People I loved. People I didn't know. It beats going to war, imho.
(Also got to see lots of people being born. That's not for everyone.)
Reply
#8
(10-27-2016, 06:15 PM)stanky Wrote:  Are you spanking me?

(A little to the left, love. that's my special place.)

Sorry, that better??  Not spanking, just used to 'persuading' the anti people that there are other ways of seeing things and so trying to tread the compromise road.

Yeah, I'm well aware of the emotional and practical underpinnings in this subject matter. I know the dying granny can't climb up on the bridge, nor am i in anyway promoting that avenue. Like I said,some poor chumps will be obligated to fetch that messy corpse out of the river, at fair cost and stress to all.

And that goes to the point I was trying to make.  There are others involved in those decisions, collateral damage as it were. 

 The incidences of double suicides because the carer is wedged between compassion and criminal justice for instance. That's bigger damage than cleaning up the mess.

That shouldn't happen and wouldn't if the law was passed.  But to get it passed compromises must be made.  It can't be done on the stance of pure rights and reason,  some tinsel will have to be part of the deal.  Better that than nothing.

It's a highly emotive issue to most people, it can't be reduced to an ethical equation.  Our psyches don't work that way on a deeply personal level.
An overarching rule/law needs to be there to hang our harder decisions on.  To 'absolve' us a little.


Let me reiterate two points I tried to make:

One, doctors; good doctors, even, simply aren't allowed, by a reasonable oath, to take part in this. Good on them. They shouldn't have to.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippocratic_Oath#Original_oath

   (scroll down past the Greek original, unless you're better educated than moi.)

The Hippocratic Oath has been updated more often than the Enc. Brittanica. It's been altered to reflect the changing values of   societies over the decades.
Too many doctors seem to be sticking with the original version, the 'religiously based' version.

Strange that subsequent versions left out the bit about sharing their earnings with their brother physicians, but not the bit about gods and such.   mmmmm.   Seems to be an oath not all that 100% ethical after all.

Check out how the wording has changed, interesting.  It's more a suggestion than an oath. 
It can be changed, again,  or different ones can be taken by doctors of different persuasions.  
Shouldn't be a problem.
Considering the amount of malpractice insurance they pay for, and the vast hordes of hovering drooling lawyers waiting to sue them I can't see how the oath is necessary at all.  The legal eagles seem to have all the bases covered.
.
"Do no harm" isn't even in there.  It's been added in public discussion because it's glib and catchy.
It's like that quote from Casablanca, "play it again Sam" that was never there at all. 

The linchpin word that has carried through is judgement.  "In my judgement."  That's a big enough loophole for the honour bound to squeeze through surely?

Two, this is one of those rare medical issues where in doctors have no particular skills. If anything, they have 'anti-skills'.

Not so.  It's not about their skills, it's about their emotional input into the decision making.
  They do have the better skills at judging the timing and the dosage and need to apply it at all.  

Not all those who have signed the forms choose to take the final step.  It's up to someone a little more removed than close family to judge if those wishes are still paramount over the failure of the patient to have taken the final step before losing their competence to any longer have a say.  

They do have the skills to adjudicate on the physical condition and pain level tolerances of their patient better than a close relative would. 
They are, or should be able to, suspend that burden of emotional attachment from the judgement. 
They have the skills to be detached from alternate motivation reasoning the historical hangups that pervade family decisions. 
They are skilled at viewing the human condition as a mechanic views a car.   If they have reservations about their judgement then they can call in someone more detached.   Although hopefully not psychopathically detached.  ... it's not an easy line to walk is it??

These decisions should rest firmly in the hands of family and loved ones, and the reasonable wishes of the dying relative, and their suffering.

No,  sorry I don't agree with that.  The wishes of the dying must be paramount certainly, but not their family.

You must have seen families that you wouldn't trust to be making decisions like that?  It tears some families to shreds and into lifelong vendettas. 
Awful stuff happens for what the the participants think is the best of reasons simply because they have different opinions on what's best for Granny.  ... and worse, for her soul.

As things stand now, yes the family must have the say in it in hospital situations, as doctors are at dire risk when deciding to pull the plug based on their own judgement.  The laws pertaining to legal euthanasia would change that paradigm.  The pre-existing expressed and signed for wish to expire with dignity would over ride the hysterics and stress of the family.

People forget that this only applies to those who have signed up for it, not to every poor bugger who didn't bother, or have time,  to sign the forms.  They seem to think it's mandatory for everyone dying.  It isn't by a very long way.


Should we be concerned about abuses in this grey area?
Possibly. Sometimes, huge estates lie in the balance. It could get icky.

Icky behaviour can't be legislated against in any aspect of society.  The laws against murder haven't even stopped that happening over 'huge estates', it's a trivial argument.

The grey areas exist in all manner of human interaction, we shouldn't let them interfere with the chance for enabling a better set of laws to be implemented.  Most of the grey is religiously, rather than ethically or morally based anyway.


In the U.S., we already have a euthanasia system that is unofficial and seldom mentioned.
It's called "hospice".
When your dying loved one is deemed no longer 'curable' by the medical authorities, you are afforded assistance via medicare or similar, to take care of granny at home. One of the things provided is copious amounts of legal morphine.
When death occurs, no questions are asked; no autopsies are done.

Same applies here.
But. ... see below

Morphine isn't heroin. Heroin is a synthesized version that is more potent, only in the way it crosses the brain blood barrier...but heroin metabolizes as the legal morphine in the brain. When people o.d. on smack, they are actually o.d.ing on morphine.
It's a stupid technicality.

Hospice essentially makes it legal and easy to kill your suffering loved ones with drugs.
We all know about this; it's a bit of a 'wink-wink', unspoken fact of life and death.
It happens all the time.

Some don't want to have to wait until they are in that extremity of condition before taking stage left. 
Very few still able to stagger to the toilet unassisted and not yet in writhing pain  have ever been admitted to a hospice, although they know full well that it is coming for them. They wish to exit with some degree of dignity intact.
That option should be afforded them.

So should the option of wishing to remove themselves as a burden on a loved family.  That isn't as  horrible as is portrayed at all.  It's a gift of relief from stress from the dying to the living.  Why is that so 'awful'? 
It may be the last and only gift the dying have to bestow, nobody has the right to prevent them doing that.

The reason for wanting to die 'early' is nobody's business but the patient's.  Even the insane, or deluded, have made the decision that they want to go so why not let them?  We can't stop then walking off bridges!

Their mental state would not over ride the evidence that they are terminal and bound to suffer greatly.  Just because they're scared, or believe Jesus is calling them shouldn't abrogate their right to make the decision at all.  
But that's just my not so humble opinion, until I'm argued out of it anyway.

 
Why should they not go when they choose to?  Why must they suffer first before being deemed eligible for the long goodnight in the gentle arms of Morpheus?? 
The unofficial rules as practiced in hospices is not enough to cover the needs of all. 


It's euthanasia. And reasonable. Legal. Decent.

Why drag doctors into the details?
Their role is good enough in determining when someone is beyond cure, and able to shift to palliative care...at which time, they can legally prescribe all the morphine anyone could hope for. Or need.

Ummm.  did you read that article TA posted?  Perhaps America isn't quite as uptight about it as some here are.

Also, the attitude to handing out drugs like candy is not a thing here.  Far more draconion restrictions on medications than in the US.  You buy stuff over the counter that you need prescriptions to procure here.  We're not even allowed to advertise on media any drug that requires a prescription.  They get a mention in a current affairs type show, but are not advertised, at all.   So big difference in that ease of access to the 'right' drugs.

Big difference in the judicial attention to it too.  Many people are found technically not guilty by sympathetic juries, but not too many doctors get away with it.
The fact that some people who's motives were obviously nothing more than sheer mercy are charged at all proves that the law takes it all pretty seriously.  

Your argument pertains only to those in hospice care really,  it leaves out the vast majority of those who are still bound to end up there but don't want to go.  It ignores those who will never even get there as they will kill themselves in far more messy ways before they reach that stage.   All this law would do is tidy up their exit strategies and perhaps spare their family the trauma of finding them with their heads blown off in the barn or swinging from the rafters of it. 

I don't really see how you can disconnect doctors from the palliative care system, they were pretty well embedded from what I could see.


Dr. Kavorkian is redundant within the hospice model. It sensationalizes something that needn't be any one's business.

This is like trying to solve a non-existing problem, with too much fanfare and drama...unless your nation doesn't have a hospice program.
Hospice makes it legal for the family to kill gramps, when the time comes.

How come Americans can afford to put Granny into hospice care but can't afford to get little Jimmy's crooked foot fixed?   Is something different to what we're told about the American health system??

I'm witness to this, many times. And it is very decent and kind. And legal. It's just not something we like to talk about.
Did I witness murder? Have I taken part in murder?

Fuck no. Murder is an act with murderous intent.
The hospice system is a loving wink; all the hospice nurses I've ever met (lots) were completely aware of the underlying dynamic and the empowerment it provides to both family and victim of this sanctioned euthanasia.
I use the word victim with a splash of irony.
I've never witnessed a family deciding to kill gramps before he was begging them to do it.
At that juncture, it's pretty damn easy to do, technologically speaking.

No needles needed. Oral drops. Drifting  away.
Gone. Tears. Bonding. Call the coroner.

Again, nowhere near that easy here.  'Oral drops' ??  .. drifting away.  We wish.
 e.g. Nembutal is utterly and strictly banned entirely from the Country.  They don't muck around with this.  They're a very hard nut to crack on it.

We have euthanasia here. We just don't call it that. It lets doctors out of an awkward situation where their skills are totally not needed.

Again, same here, but you've confined the whole issue to the hospice situation.  It's wider ranging than that.
But even in  a hospice there are family disagreements about when and if to pull plugs as it were.
Are American families more homogenously opinioned that Australians ones??  Agreement would be rarer than contention from what I've heard and experienced.

There's also another elephant in the room.  Many hospices are run by religious orders.  Obviously the Catholic ones are not going to be offering any easy exits.  But the Protestant ones don't always either.
Christ help you if you can't get into a Public Hospice when you need one! 

Most personal experiences pertaining to unofficial euthanasia have been home based, and in aged care hostels, not hospice based.  
The worst stories I've heard of hard endings have come from those who had relatives die in Catholic hospices.  People here would rather run under a train than go into one of their 'charnel houses.'

Doing it at home entails are far more delicate dance with the right doctor than in hospital/hospice situations.

I had to transfer Mum from our usual doctor when things were starting to look nasty for her as he was vehemently anti euthanasia.  (So was she for that matter but it wasn't really a matter of euthanasia, but pain relief,  he wouldn't even prescribe suitable levels to let her get some sleep!)  Then I 'detached' from him too and we both joined the 'family' doctor on the other side of town.

Finding the right doctor wasn't hard as there was family history with him, he had 'seen off' my Uncle, and some good family friends in dire need of relief with no ructions so he trusted the family, and we trusted him.
 
When she could take no more, and was no longer cognitive for more than a few seconds and then only to cry in pain,  he raised an eyebrow, and I gave a nod and he upped her dosage,  and her exit, was a far kinder one than she was having without that help.

Was that murder?  Technically perhaps as no forms were signed, and she expressed no wish to die, but mentally she was already gone, her organs had shut down, and only the pain remained for her.  Nobody deserves that.

On reflection the knowledge that I had left her to end in that unthinkably cruel condition would have given me far more guilt to live with than having assented to end her suffering a little early.  So I'm good with it.

Reply
#9
me too, love.

Arguing with you on a matter of this level of sensitivity feels like a honor in some ways.

I sense that we are well qualified for the debate.

Too bad my opinions are not hard and fast..and our nation's policies differ...but I have been an active participant in many such dramas. Too many, really.

Imagine how this works in a war zone?
Where people don't have these options of privilege?

It would be so embarrassing and humiliating if any of them were reading this.

While we debate the fine esoteric points of euthanasia, a shit load of kids just died from bombs...and, though it is never spoken of, war injuries are often so bad that euthanasia is instituted on the spot, where they lay dying.

Part of me resents the lack of soul in this debate.
Like, "fuck off, us". get a grip on reality. This is a very obscure bit of fine tuning we debate, in a world of horrendous atrocities.

There's something unsettling about that. We can debate and discuss the issue and fine points of legal euthanasia while we bomb the shit out of people that will never have the luxury of needing to have this debate.

hence, it feels petty and arrogant to me, in lieu of the bigger picture.
It's such a non-issue, in terms of global issues, that it's embarrassing to discuss...or, at least it should be.

Part of me wants to yell "snap out of it!" This is a non issue and a non problem. let's focus on real stuff and shake loose of our extraordinary importance, and that of dying granny.

That we even encounter anyone in this difficult spot, is testament to a life of privilege. Why are they even still alive? Would they be if they were living in Mexico, much less Aleppo?

It is only because of vast privilege; earned thru aggression and violence, that we can even host such a frivolous debate.

Imagine how our primitive ancestors dealt with this? or even our less primitive ancestors?
This is an issue of cosmic irrelevance. It poses no technological issues. No medical issues...
It's an issue of pointless political flavor.

It has nothing to do with how we treat our dying...it's completely about how we deal with our political systems.
Yet, it's loaded with emotional baggage.

for fuck's sake!

In the U.S., we are constantly engaged in the process of killing people. It's why we have such a huge 'defense' budget.
yet, we've decided to make a fine point of euthanasia and abortion.

how creepy is that?
Reply
#10
I agree entirely that arguing the minutae of what if's is trivial in comparison to the bigger picture but we are speaking of it as a legal issue.  To legislate rules for governing emotional issues has to be stuffed with trivialities and technicallities.

I agree there shouldn't even be the requirement for legislation at all, but should and is are different critters.
There has to be a law that separates this type of 'abetting' from the laws governing the abetting of a murder.

The devil is in the detail, and as Denton pointed out in his speech, the antis are exceedingly adept at throwing out red herring details and trivialities to derail any movement toward even considering a public debate.  

They plan and collect their little red herrings in advance.  They're ready to go in an instant and they throw a very diverse range of herrings.
They try largely to avoid the the religious connotations, they're very cunning, they use 'ethical' herrings instead to prevent the secular side from getting a grip on them.  
All of this petty point making about Granny is of course naff compared to your example of snap decisions made in the field.  But it's Granny that is going to engage the attention of the media, professional and social.  It's easier for peoople to envision, it's more 'comfortable' somehow so that is what they will bite on.  

The further removed the argument gets from their own sphere of personal interest the less chance you will have of firing them up enough to actually force any change.

Humans are frail and petty creatures, we can't change that, so we must accommodate it, and fight it on that level.
However trivial.  They're not going to get any smarter or philosophical any time soon.

Technical trivialities are unfortunately the home ground of the antis, but it's the only ground there is right now.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)