Should A Woman Be Allowed to hold the office of President of the USA?

[webfact]

Australia's Victoria state closer to legalising assisted death

 

SYDNEY (Reuters) - Australia's second-largest state on Wednesday took another step towards adopting a law allowing voluntary assisted dying for terminally ill patients.

 

Any resident of Victoria state over 18, with a terminal illness and with less than six months to live can request a lethal dose of medication under the new legislation.

 

Assisted dying will remain illegal in Australia's other five states.

 

In a vote in Victoria's upper house, 22 of 40 senators supported the legislation.

 

The legislation required amendments to pass the upper house, including halving the time frame for eligible patients to access the scheme, reduced from 12 months to live to six months to live.

 

The amendments must be approved by the lower house before becoming law. The legislation is not expected to be opposed.

 

There will be exemptions for sufferers of conditions such as motor neurone disease and multiple sclerosis, who can request a lethal dose of medication even if they have been given up to a year to live.

 

Many countries have legalised euthanasia, including Canada, the Netherlands, Switzerland, and some states in the United States.

But Australia's federal government has opposed legalising euthanasia even though the remote Northern Territory, which does not hold Australian statehood, became the first jurisdiction in the world to do so in 1995.

 

The federal government enacted its own legislation to override the Northern Territory law in 1997 under rules allowed by the constitution. State law, however, can not be overridden.

 

(Reporting by James Regan; Editing by Robert Birsel)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2017-11-22

[InMyShadow]

This is great news. hopefully other states will follow

No need for sick Ozzies to face the terrifying leap from a condo roof top

[thaibeachlovers]

It's an abomination that a group of self entitled people sitting in a big room can deny people their right to leave this life without risking the consequences of suicide gone wrong.

It's going to happen anyway, once the cost of keeping all us oldies alive is bankrupting the country we exist in.

[Cats4ever]

This will be through in a few days and is scheduled to commence in about 18 months.

A few religos tried to delay the bill by rattling on all night, powered by their beliefs.

They need to realise that it is an option, not compulsory; they don't have to take part.

[White Christmas13]

The legislation has passed in the upper house today

[Odysseus123]

Yes-very good news,indeed.

[simple1]

It's a shame for such an important matter that once passed in VIC, not available for all Australians in the States and Territories; a huge waste of taxpayers funds & political energy to replicate the process for legislation across multiple jurisdictions. 

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

Not being a particularly religious soul, I've never understood the reasons why some folks/groups seem to feel the need to enforce their own beliefs on how others choose to live or end their lives, especially when that decision may well be merciful to the person involved, and unlikely to cause harm to anyone else.

 

My mother lived with degenerative MS for the last 20 years of her life, and it was not a pleasant thing for her or anyone remotely involved. I don't think she, being more religious than me, would have ever chosen to end her own life if the easy opportunity existed. But if I found myself in her situation, I'd certainly be giving it some serious consideration at some point.

 

If people want to end their lives in a safe, controlled manner, they should be free to do so, and the state shouldn't be getting in the way. The last thing this world needs is a larger population of suffering, sick, helpless people -- especially those who don't wish to remain in that difficult state.

 

 

[Jonnapat]

This should be allowed worldwide to stop all the suffering and humiliation of terminally ill people 

Who would want to carry on living for a few more days or weeks when they could have their suffering stopped

I know what choice I would make despite all the fuss there would be from so called evangelical Christians 

[ELVIS123456]

This is why not for the person.

http://dailysignal.com/2015/05/18/assisted-suicide-how-one-woman-chose-to-die-then-survived/

 

This is why not for the Doctor.

http://www.life.org.nz/euthanasia/euthanasiakeyissues/complications-and-euthanasia/

 

 

 

 

[GuiseppeD]

Great news.  Now the good people of Victoria will have the same right as dogs.  Strange, but true and glad some places are catching up.

[boomerangutang]

good.

 

[thaibeachlovers]

 

12 hours ago, ELVIS123456 said:

This is why not for the person.

http://dailysignal.com/2015/05/18/assisted-suicide-how-one-woman-chose-to-die-then-survived/

 

This is why not for the Doctor.

http://www.life.org.nz/euthanasia/euthanasiakeyissues/complications-and-euthanasia/

 

 

 

 

Neither of those articles is of real significance. If assisted suicide also involves using gas, it is effective- life without O2 is impossible.

As for the first, the headline is misleading. She merely changed her mind and decided to let the medical profession assault her with dangerous radiation and drugs. Had she chosen death there wouldn't be anything to write about, but the fact she didn't involve her family from the start is deeply disturbing. They have a right to say goodbye at the least.

Edited November 24, 2017 by thaibeachlovers

[ELVIS123456]

10 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

 

Neither of those articles is of real significance. If assisted suicide also involves using gas, it is effective- life without O2 is impossible.

As for the first, the headline is misleading. She merely changed her mind and decided to let the medical profession assault her with dangerous radiation and drugs. Had she chosen death there wouldn't be anything to write about, but the fact she didn't involve her family from the start is deeply disturbing. They have a right to say goodbye at the least.

The point is that it is not just about morals or the right to die.

 

It is a complicated issue involving many issues - that is why it is still not legal.  And where it is (places referenced) there are still problems.

 

1.  The VIC safety net rule is must be terminal with 6 months - that safety net is patently false as Doctors get it wrong. Many cases of people being diagnosed terminal and living for many years. 

 

2.  Doctors can be sued for painful deaths that go wrong? Doctors will be sued if they refuse to provide it?  Doctors can or cant refuse?

 

And tghere are so many other things that dont seem to have been coverd.  In my view it is far too complex an issue to just say it is a 'right' - then let 'the marketplace' sort out the issues?? VIC Govt is full of left-wing <deleted> who see it as a right, but as usual they dont want to do the homework needed to make sure it is introduced carefully.  

 

 

 

[InMyShadow]

The point is that it is not just about morals or the right to die.

 

It is a complicated issue involving many issues - that is why it is still not legal.  And where it is (places referenced) there are still problems.

 

1.  The VIC safety net rule is must be terminal with 6 months - that safety net is patently false as Doctors get it wrong. Many cases of people being diagnosed terminal and living for many years. 

 

2.  Doctors can be sued for painful deaths that go wrong? Doctors will be sued if they refuse to provide it?  Doctors can or cant refuse?

 

And tghere are so many other things that dont seem to have been coverd.  In my view it is far too complex an issue to just say it is a 'right' - then let 'the marketplace' sort out the issues?? VIC Govt is full of left-wing who see it as a right, but as usual they dont want to do the homework needed to make sure it is introduced carefully.  

 

 

 

nobody that is told they have 6 months to live but are still full of beans will race to Victoria to end it. that's just common sense

 

those that are suffering terribly with say brain or lung cancer and have that Grey deathly complexion and no longer want to endure chemo are the ones that will seek it out and usually when the pain becomes to severe and they don't want to be a burden to family.

 

[ELVIS123456]

27 minutes ago, InMyShadow said:

nobody that is told they have 6 months to live but are still full of beans will race to Victoria to end it. that's just common sense

 

those that are suffering terribly with say brain or lung cancer and have that Grey deathly complexion and no longer want to endure chemo are the ones that will seek it out and usually when the pain becomes to severe and they don't want to be a burden to family.

 

point being ? 

 

 

[Scott]

Most doctors will not directly assist in suicide, legal or not.   The reason is that it violates the Hippocratic Oath and variations of the Oath that some doctors take.   Legally, it isn't binding in most places.   

 

In the US for example, executions are not done by doctors and as a result, they are sometimes botched.  

 

Medical providers may help in providing guidance and instructions, but actually doing it, might find a shortage of doctors.   Someone, however, will have to prescribe the medication necessary.  

[InMyShadow]

point being ? 
 
 

Your kidding right?

[thaibeachlovers]

14 hours ago, ELVIS123456 said:

The point is that it is not just about morals or the right to die.

 

It is a complicated issue involving many issues - that is why it is still not legal.  And where it is (places referenced) there are still problems.

 

1.  The VIC safety net rule is must be terminal with 6 months - that safety net is patently false as Doctors get it wrong. Many cases of people being diagnosed terminal and living for many years. 

 

2.  Doctors can be sued for painful deaths that go wrong? Doctors will be sued if they refuse to provide it?  Doctors can or cant refuse?

 

And tghere are so many other things that dont seem to have been coverd.  In my view it is far too complex an issue to just say it is a 'right' - then let 'the marketplace' sort out the issues?? VIC Govt is full of left-wing <deleted> who see it as a right, but as usual they dont want to do the homework needed to make sure it is introduced carefully.  

 

 

 

Not so- it is an extremely simple issue. It is MY life, not anyone else's. I can kill myself and risk it not working or I should be able to get a pill from a Dr and have someone stand by to make sure I go.

I shouldn't have to be in pain or only have 6 months to live to be allowed to die in dignity. If I decide I don't like my body/ life, that is the only criteria, and is nobody else's concern. I despise any one that claims they have a right over my life. Nobody gives a monkey's about me in life, so why are they so concerned to keep me alive? HYPOCRITES.

 

Drs should be covered as for abortion. If they don't want to do it they can't be forced to do them, but yes, legislation should prevent them being sued provided consent is signed and witnessed and person is of a legally sane mind, and not being forced into it by family wanting the money.

 

Anyway, once the baby boomer generation hits old age the cost of keeping us all alive against our will is going to bankrupt the health services, so politicians will be forced to allow it. It's apparently already available for people "tired of life" and no lower age limit in Europe ( in enlightened countries ).

 

What I want is to decide when I want to go out so I can spend all my money to have a fantastic time, and when it's all gone take the pill and say goodbye to this crappy life. Nothing sadder than being forced to linger on in a horrid nursing home being parked in front of day time tv ( torture ) while memories of happier days torment one's mind.