Scotland Assisted Suicide Legalization Bill Narrowed, Still Targets Disabled

[Randwolf]

Under the S.A Euthanasia Bill this is fully acceptable.

Correct. As it should be.

That is what I have been attempting to demonstrate all along, the absolute abuse of these social concepts. There it is right their the expansion of who is eligible for assisted suicide.

You have failed to demonstrate any sort of "abuse". In fact, you have failed to demonstrate anything whatsoever, excepting your own ignorance, paranoia and arrogance. By the way, what exactly were you trying to express with "There it is right their the expansion of who is eligible for assisted suicide"? Is English your second language? Try to figure out the difference between "their" and "there" and get back to me.

If you or anyone else wants to kill themselves go right ahead, I dont give a Fuck. Im only concerned that with weak minded saps such as yourself who have to have a law to make it legal,

You would prefer that "weak minded saps" break the law? Is that really what you are advocating here, Brian? If it's all the same to you, what do you find so reprehensible about codifying the concept in law?

therefore acceptable to your conscience,

It is already perfectly acceptable to my conscience. What sort of nonsensical point are you so feebly attempting to make here?

we end up with a unilateral Euthanasia program.

No, we don't. Look up "non sequitor" - make sure that you are standing on a chair when you do this, I don't want the concept to go over your head.

Thanks to your gullibility with crude concepts of 'dying with dignity' we will end up eventually terminating persons who are seen as a financial burden on society.

I submit, sir, that you are the one with "crude" concepts. After all, your god told you so. How gullible can you be?

Furthermore, see above comment regarding non sequitor - don't forget your chair.

Keep your world and stop shoving your 'good intentions' down our throats.

First of all, as far as I can tell, you are currently a "party of one". (Now serving) Who represents this "our" that you refer to?

Ironically, your words are my point exactly - "stop shoving your 'good intentions' down our throats" - I have already stated that you should feel free to suffer as long and hard as you would like while dying with a horrid terminal illness. I wish you many years of experience with what you advocate. Be careful what you wish for...

 

[Brian Foley]

Correct. As it should be.

That’s what worries me.

You have failed to demonstrate any sort of "abuse".

I thought I had already crossed that.

Or Health Insurance companies will advise assisted suicide to save costs.

"California Compassionate Choices Act" (AB 374)
# AB 374 would give government health programs, managed care programs and HMOs the opportunity to approve prescriptions for suicide to cut costs.

# AB 374 Family notification is not required, only recommended. [Sec. 5282 (6) and 5286] The patient's family doesn't need to be notified until after the patient is dead.

# AB 374 Would permit doctors to help mentally ill or depressed patients commit suicide.

Vermont's Assisted Suicide Proposal AN ACT RELATING TO PATIENT CHOICE AND CONTROL AT END OF LIFE

#H. 44 would give government health programs, managed care programs and HMOs the opportunity to approve prescriptions for suicide to cut costs.

# H. 44 would permit doctors to help mentally ill or depressed patients commit suicide.

#H. 44 does not require that family members be notified when a doctor is going to help a loved one commit suicide.

#H. 44 has no provisions to track abuse or the number of deaths from assisted suicide.

You cant guarantee nothing.

Personally I think you’re an idiot, would you like actually cases of Doctor misconduct concerning Oregon’s law?

It is already perfectly acceptable to my conscience. What sort of nonsensical point are you so feebly attempting to make here?

Nothing to worry you mate.

 

[sly1]

Pain killers, besides are they in any frame of mind to actually make that decision?

I believe in respect for life, I want no part of a society that allows mass abortion on demand, Euthanasia and assisted suicides programs, stem cell research and cloning.
Yeah, anything that might hurt their budgets. Their idea of cutting costs is by killing the “undesirables” that put a strain on their social programs.

We were put here, born, we have to see it out to the end, whats 8 more days to wait for death by natural causes.

right frame of mind to make that decision???!?!? Now everyone else suddenly knows whats better for people "not in the right frame of mind" deemed right or wrong by people who are in the "right" frame of mind?

Give me a break, regardless of the individuals "frame of mind" it should be their choice and no one elses.

All of your rationals are emotional none of them efficient or logical. "we have to see it out to the end"? really...where and by what authority is that proclaimed? None other than your own sir.

If you don't want to partake in a society where people have the choice to live or die thats fine. Thats why its a choice and you can CHOOSE not to participate in those actions but only on YOUR OWN behalf.

 

[Brian Foley]

All of your rationals are emotional none of them efficient or logical. "we have to see it out to the end"? really...where and by what authority is that proclaimed? None other than your own sir.

I have already stated on this thread about an individuals choice:

[Just for the record I have no problem with someone electing assisted suicide I dont blame them.]

My problem is with these laws and how they can be abused, I have already shown Asguard who rewrote South Australia's Bill:

even I can read from that Bill that for example, a newly diagnosed diabetic aged 18 years who found the idea of daily insulin injections intolerable would be eligible for legal euthanasia.

A person is hopelessly ill if the person has an injury or illness
(a) that will result, or has resulted, in serious mental impairment or permanent deprivation or consciousness; or
(b) that seriously and irreversibly impairs the person's quality of life so that life has become intolerable to that person.

There is your expansion within your Bill, you dont have to be terminal to qualify.

What is so hard to appreciate about my concern?

 

[Randwolf]

Personally I think you’re an idiot,

Personally, you don't want to know what I think of you. But that's OK, you seem to be doing a fine job of vilifying yourself... Keep up the good work, true idiocy is seldom seen in the wild. I am so glad you are here to contribute, life would be very dull without specimens such as yourself.

 

[Brian Foley]

Personally, you don't want to know what I think of you.

I would want to know you in the first place, period.

 

[Randwolf]

I would want to know you in the first place, period.

Why?

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

Brian what law allows 18 year olds suffering from diabetes to end their lives? Most people who are candidates for Euthanasia are elderly, in pain and suffering an incurable disease. Diabetes is manageable if not curable, my grandmother lived with it all her life.
The point I was trying to make was if someone is suicidal they will find the means to kill themselves whethere there is a law or not, that is a choice. If someone is terminally ill and disabled they should have the choice to end their suffering just like the terminal able bodied. Or for example if someone suffers from something awful like 'locked-in syndrome'. We all have convictions which guide our individual life but why do we have to force our personal convictions on others when it concerns their life or quality of life?

Brian: Malaysia a nation verging on Sharia law, a nation where they executepeople for possessing an ounce of weed, great example.

Regardless of what you may think of Sharia law or their anti-drug laws you were wrong in saying that suicide is not criminalized anywhere because it is. In NY you can force someone into an institution or force medication and severly curtail someones individual rights if they are deemed suicidal, so yes there are laws at work.


I can understand why you may not welcome this as a choice for yourself but why would you want to deny choice to others? You also mention stem cell and abortion? As a male you are hardly a candidate for abortion why are you concerned about others who would benefit from these choices? You don't live in the world by yourself. You ideas seem just as draconian as a Malaysian nation verging on Sharia law! Are you opinions informed by religious beliefs?

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

Brian you ask:

Can you guarantee society that this process will not be expanded in the future to include persons with mental retardation or senility who cannot make that decision?

Can you guarantee that this decision will not be left to the next of kin to decide?

Can you guarantee that the bar will not be dropped to allow assisted suicide simply by patient consent?


Well the first two questions can be answered by the Dutch, they have assisted suicide and it hasn't been extended or led to termination of the mentally retarded nor the senile. The law also isn't something that is ever left to next to kin, eutanasia is still a decision one makes with ones doctor when they are of sound mind, when they have discussed the issue with their loved ones. A family member cannot request euthanasia for a relative.

As for the last question Euthanasia is decided by the patient, or rather dependent on patient request and it should remain that way. I don't believe anyone should interfere with such a personal decision.

 

[swarm]

My problem is with these laws and how they can be abused.

Your paranoia is unfounded. The places which have assisted suicide laws do not have any increase in abuse.

 

[Brian Foley]

Why?

So I can smoke a stick of weed and crack up.

Brian what law allows 18 year olds suffering from diabetes to end their lives? Most people who are candidates for Euthanasia are elderly, in pain and suffering an incurable disease.

Read the Voluntary Euthanasia Bill from 2006 and see what steps qualifies a person to be eathanized.

Well the first two questions can be answered by the Dutch, they have assisted suicide and it hasn't been extended or led to termination of the mentally retarded nor the senile.

That is just the Dutch version, wait until this law becomes widespread and aceeptable in its implementation.

The law also isn't something that is ever left to next to kin, eutanasia is still a decision one makes with ones doctor when they are of sound mind, when they have discussed the issue with their loved ones. A family member cannot request euthanasia for a relative.

Provisions for consent are made for next of kin under these 2 laws.
"California Compassionate Choices Act" (AB 374)

Vermont's Assisted Suicide Proposal AN ACT RELATING TO PATIENT CHOICE AND CONTROL AT END OF LIFE

Your paranoia is unfounded. The places which have assisted suicide laws do not have any increase in abuse.

Not any increase in abuse is that because most places are dropping euthanasia bills after their adoption.

 

[Asguard]

wow brian, you really are on a crusade. You grab a whole heep of different bills and stick them together and think you know whats what. Well im a little tired of your idocy. So lets just see what the bill REALLY says shall we (and rember this bill still hasnt been past and is still subject to ammendments when it does go through the parliment)


South Australia
Voluntary Euthanasia Bill 2006
A BILL FOR
An Act to provide for the administration of medical procedures to assist the death of a limited number of patients who are in the terminal phase of a terminal illness, who are suffering unbearable pain and who have expressed a desire for the procedures subject to appropriate safeguards; and for other purposes.

3—Objects
The objects of this Act are—
(a) to give a limited number of competent adults who are in the terminal phase of a terminal illness and who are suffering unbearable pain the right to make informed choices about the time and manner of their death;

4—Interpretation

terminal illness has the same meaning as in the Consent to Medical Treatment and Palliative Care Act 1995;

terminal phase of a terminal illness has the same meaning as in the Consent to Medical Treatment and Palliative Care Act 1995;

http://www.legislation.sa.gov.au/LZ...D IN HA/VOLUNTARY EUTHANASIA BILL 2007.UN.RTF



CONSENT TO MEDICAL TREATMENT AND PALLIATIVE CARE ACT 1995

CONSENT TO MEDICAL TREATMENT AND PALLIATIVE CARE ACT 1995 - SECT 4
4—Interpretation


"terminal illness" means an illness or condition that is likely to result in death;


"terminal phase" of a terminal illness means the phase of the illness reached when there is no real prospect of recovery or remission of symptoms (on either a permanent or temporary basis).

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/sa/consol_act/ctmtapca1995420/

 

[Asguard]

oh and to end once and for all your crap about insurance being the driving force:

17—Insurance

(1) An insurer is not entitled to refuse to make a payment that is payable under a life insurance policy on death of the insured on the ground that the death resulted from the administration of voluntary euthanasia.

(2) A person is not obliged to disclose a request for voluntary euthanasia to an insurer, and an insurer must not ask a person to disclose whether the person has made a request for voluntary euthanasia.

Maximum penalty: $10 000.

(3) This section applies despite an agreement between a person and an insurer to the contrary.

 

[Randwolf]

So I can smoke a stick of weed and crack up.

Read the Voluntary Euthanasia Bill from 2006 and see what steps qualifies a person to be eathanized.

That is just the Dutch version, wait until this law becomes widespread and aceeptable in its implementation.

Provisions for consent are made for next of kin under these 2 laws.
"California Compassionate Choices Act" (AB 374)

Vermont's Assisted Suicide Proposal AN ACT RELATING TO PATIENT CHOICE AND CONTROL AT END OF LIFE

Not any increase in abuse is that because most places are dropping euthanasia bills after their adoption.

Your interpretation of the issues and attempts at logic really remind me of discussions I have with my third grade nephew - off point, nonsensical, whimsical, and totally useless. Oh, did I mention "totally useless"? Anyway, carry on with your nonsensical attempts at rationality... Give the rest of us even more ammunition.

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

Sorry Brian I don't share your fears or concerns. As far as the law is concerned, laws reflect the will of the people, local culture and society's values. The majority of posters, as well as myself, are in favor of this law. Perhaps you should be content no one wants to take away your right to live with pain and suffering and die a natural death, the same way I am just glad you don't get a vote in what happens in the course of my life.

 

[Brian Foley]

You grab a whole heep of different bills and stick them together and think you know whats what.

Im in a personal debate on that post with Lucysnow, who brought up Malaysia and Holland, what has my answer to her have to do with you.

oh and to end once and for all your crap about insurance being the driving force:

Oh and to just jot your memory I gave you an answer to that on page 4:

(2) A person is not obliged to disclose a request for voluntary euthanasia to an insurer, and an insurer must not ask a person to disclose whether the person has made a request for voluntary euthanasia.

Doesnt that clause open the way for a thrid party ie: the Doctor to inform the insurance company?

Isnt that a legal loophole?

Seems you possess an inability to further your debate on, you pick up and leave as soon as I answer you.

Your interpretation of the issues and attempts at logic really remind me of discussions I have with my third grade nephew - off point, nonsensical, whimsical, and totally useless. Oh, did I mention "totally useless"? Anyway, carry on with your nonsensical attempts at rationality... Give the rest of us even more ammunition.

You know your a Wanker, honestly, Im not being smart either.

Sorry Brian I don't share your fears or concerns. As far as the law is concerned, laws reflect the will of the people, local culture and society's values. The majority of posters, as well as myself, are in favor of this law. Perhaps you should be content no one wants to take away your right to live with pain and suffering and die a natural death, the same way I am just glad you don't get a vote in what happens in the course of my life.

Sorry Brian I don't share your fears or concerns.

I know thats why Im frightened.

As far as the law is concerned, laws reflect the will of the people, local culture and society's values. The majority of posters, as well as myself, are in favor of this law.

If that is the case then why cannot it not go to democratic vote in whatever nation these bills appear in?

the same way I am just glad you don't get a vote in what happens in the course of my life.

Unfortunately your consent to this law, which has never had a vote, is allowing this practice to intrude on me and others fears. There was no vote in 1920 concerning Eugenics just consemnt from the 'medical and scientific' community, within in 20 years whole populations were being gassed at Aushwitz. Enjoy your World.

 

[Asguard]

what a surprise, you ignore the evidence against you. the bill is quite cleare, it doesnt MATTER if they know or not, the STILL can't denie the claim or they will be forced to pay AND be fined another 10,000 on top. i not only posted the relivent section but hilighted section 17 part 1 (the relivent portion that you seem unable to read) as well. course you dont WANT to see that your argument is a load of bullshit do you.

 

[Brian Foley]

what a surprise, you ignore the evidence against you. the bill is quite cleare, it doesnt MATTER if they know or not, the STILL can't denie the claim or they will be forced to pay AND be fined another 10,000 on top. i not only posted the relivent section but hilighted section 17 part 1 (the relivent portion that you seem unable to read) as well. course you dont WANT to see that your argument is a load of bullshit do you.

What are you talking about, there is no coherency with you, we are discussing a legal loophole. If an Insurance company wishes to challenge a payout it can! Its as simple as that, that is the Law. All that Bill says is 'An insurer is not entitled to refuse', how fucking plain do you want it!!! Nothing in that Bill prevents a challenge from an Insurance company.

Hold it mate on this Insurance slant, Ill just refresh from page 2 what I wrote:

THATS why multiple MEDICAL opinions are needed, to make sure the pt has all the facts about there illness. the shrink consult shouldn't even be in the bill.

Your unwittingly playing the health INSURANCE companies card here. Health INSURANCE companies, already make life and death decisions by denying patients expensive therapies or not qualifying them for medications and procedures, etc.

The thing no one talks about is the impact health INSURANCE companies can have with this law. What happens when a patient wants to keep living, to keep fighting, but it's cheaper to have a medically assisted death then to continue taking prescription medication and getting treatments. I don't like the potential that the insurance companies now have to basically give someone a death sentence by refusing to continue care even if someone wants it.

Got it!!!

 

[Asguard]

has your brain leaked out of your ears?
what the fuck are you TALKING ABOUT, they have no grounds to apeal because the law PREVENTS them from refusing a claim on the basis that someone accessed vollentry euthanasia (even if there pollicy disagrees)

now if you want to talk about health insurance
you honestly think the health insurance companies CARE?
seriously?
The majority of people in that bracket are in the PUBLIC system not the private system. Not to mention that they WANT the money they get from people even in this bracket.

Lets look at what actually gets paid by health insurance:

Meds? Nope, majority have a health care card and even when they dont the PBS pays for meds
Aged care? Nope, federal goverment and the inderviduals themselves pay for aged care
Doctors? Nope, fed gov pays doctors through medicare
hospitals? POSSABLY but the majority of these cases end up in PUBLIC hospitals because thats where the greatest level of care is available. Not to mention that these people are dying and they tend not to access hospital care in these cases anyway.

Oh and lastly we are talking about IMMINATE death, ie with in a week or so. Not exactly going to save a company alot of money there

 

[Brian Foley]

The majority of people in that bracket are in the PUBLIC system not the private system. Not to mention that they WANT the money they get from people even in this bracket.

Lets look at what actually gets paid by health insurance:

Would you follow this thread I am discussing with several other posters from different parts of the Globe. I am dealing with Dutch and American examples as well okay not just South Australia, this whole thread is not hinged on an unpassed Bill from South Australia.