New Zealand approves euthanasia, set to reject recreational marijuana

[snoop1130]

New Zealand approves euthanasia, set to reject recreational marijuana

By Colin Packham

 

FILE PHOTO: Voters wait outside a polling station at the St Heliers Tennis Club during the general election in Auckland, New Zealand, September 23, 2017. REUTERS/Nigel Marple

 

(Reuters) - New Zealand has provisionally voted to legalise euthanasia but is on course to reject law changes that would allow recreational marijuana use, the country's Electoral Commission said on Friday.

 

New Zealand voted on the two referendums this month while casting ballots during a general election that returned Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern to power.

 

Issuing preliminary results, the commission said there are nearly half a million mostly overseas-based special votes still to be counted. These votes will not be enough to alter the vote on euthanasia but may be enough to swing the count on recreational marijuana, it said.

 

Full results will be published on Nov. 6, but with more than 65.2% of voters in favour of the recently passed legislation permitting euthanasia, New Zealand will become the seventh country to allow assisted suicide.

 

The law - which allows terminal patients with less than six months to live to request assisted suicide - will come into effect in November 2021.

 

Those requesting euthanasia will have to be 18 and will need the approval of two doctors.

 

While euthanasia has been endorsed, recreational marijuana use is still up in the air.

 

New Zealand's Electoral Commission said 53.1% of voters opposed the country becoming only the third to legalise the adult use and sale of cannabis, following Canada and Uruguay.

 

In 2017, Ardern supported the cannabis referendum plan in order to secure enough support to form a coalition government.

 

Ardern throughout the campaign refused to say which way she would vote, but a representative on Friday said the prime minister voted in support of both referendums.

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2020-10-30

 

- Whatever you're going through, the Samaritans are here for you

- Follow Thaivisa on LINE for breaking COVID-19 updates

[CygnusX1]

Great result on euthanasia, though I prefer the term assisted suicide. Way more important than the result of the election. Pity about marijuana failing, but this does show that a very clear majority of people from all sides of politics strongly oppose people being slowly tortured to death.

[thaibeachlovers]

2 minutes ago, CygnusX1 said:

Great result on euthanasia, though I prefer the term assisted suicide. Way more important than the result of the election. Pity about marijuana failing, but this does show that a very clear majority of people from all sides of politics strongly oppose people being slowly tortured to death.

I voted for on both, but the euthanasia bill doesn't go far enough for me, though it's a start.

I think many voted against the mj on the basis it wouldn't stop the gangs being involved. It's already easy to get as much as wanted, or so I'm told, and the cops won't arrest anyone with small amount. They've better things to do with their time.

[scubascuba3]

Good that euthanasia will be legal, I think it should be the right of anyone at any time to decide, would avoid suicides

[Dumbastheycome]

46 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I voted for on both, but the euthanasia bill doesn't go far enough for me, though it's a start.

I think many voted against the mj on the basis it wouldn't stop the gangs being involved. It's already easy to get as much as wanted, or so I'm told, and the cops won't arrest anyone with small amount. They've better things to do with their time.

I am genuinely curious  to know why  you  say "does not  go far  enough ".

 

[CygnusX1]

41 minutes ago, Dumbastheycome said:

I am genuinely curious  to know why  you  say "does not  go far  enough ".

The article states that it will only apply to people who’ve been diagnosed with a terminal condition and who have less than 6 months to live. That excludes people who for example might be in an immense amount of pain from a non terminal condition, or who may have been rendered totally immobile or blind, etc, and who wish to die. That of course in no way implies that many or most quadriplegics and blind people can’t have enjoyable and fulfilling lives, just would give them the choice.

[CygnusX1]

1 hour ago, scubascuba3 said:

Good that euthanasia will be legal, I think it should be the right of anyone at any time to decide, would avoid suicides

In principle I agree with you, but I suppose we can’t approve euthanasia for an 18 year old who wants to die after just breaking up with his girlfriend. It is difficult to draw a line, but any line is better than no line, which is the situation in most countries.

[moogradod]

15 minutes ago, CygnusX1 said:

In principle I agree with you, but I suppose we can’t approve euthanasia for an 18 year old who wants to die after just breaking up with his girlfriend. It is difficult to draw a line, but any line is better than no line, which is the situation in most countries.

Don't you think it is very disturbing that some government may decide about your life and when you may die and when you must live ? I feel it is up to any grown up to decide if they want to live or not. Unconditionally.

[CygnusX1]

10 minutes ago, moogradod said:

Don't you think it is very disturbing that some government may decide about your life and when you may die and when you must live ? I feel it is up to any grown up to decide if they want to live or not. Unconditionally

We might be getting into philosophy here, but yes, I do agree with you, in principle. However, we must look at what is achievable in practice, and not give those opposed to assisted suicide for people in great pain the opportunity of mounting a “thin end of the wedge” argument. Even you seem to accept that there are limits when you refer to any “grown up”.

[Dumbastheycome]

8 minutes ago, CygnusX1 said:

The article states that it will only apply to people who’ve been diagnosed with a terminal condition and who have less than 6 months to live. That excludes people who for example might be in an immense amount of pain from a non terminal condition, or who may have been rendered totally immobile or blind, etc, and who wish to die. That of course in no way implies that many or most quadriplegics and blind people can’t have enjoyable and fulfilling lives, just would give them the choice.

There are instances involving individuals I have  personally been involved with occupationally who  have been rendered permanently almost  100% immobile but due to  medical intervention have  "survived" and despite desperately  managed communicating  a desire to discontinue "living" have been denied the option.

Sad as that is survival in that context  may be dependent  on  continued  support and involves  a whole other question about such intervention but there is  no predictable expectation in future  point of termination as there is with  terminal disease conditions.

In your reference to quads and or the blind  being provided  the "choice" could also be considered  crossing  the boundary of any ethical limits in terms of  "assisted" death because it does not  necessarily involve a specified terminal expectation of  death as a direct result of physical state. Especially in the affliction of  being blinded by accident or disease. A psychological state requesting death need  be removed from any question of assistance in provision  if it does  not involve any physical justification because of the danger of inducement .

Suicide of the  physically healthy is an indictment of social influences and expectations  far in excess of the cause of   identifiable "disease" .

Or  should we return to adopt the practices of the ancient Greeks who are considered an historic advanced  civilization and under compulsory social by the "ruling  class"  edict  caste  all "defectives" over a cliff into the sea as  "special " offerings to the  Gods?

No  longer available to ask but  perhaps  Stephen Hawkins  could  have had an interesting  opinion on the subject.

 

 

 

 

[CygnusX1]

9 minutes ago, Dumbastheycome said:

In your reference to quads and or the blind  being provided  the "choice" could also be considered  crossing  the boundary of any ethical limits in terms of  "assisted" death because it does not  necessarily involve a specified terminal expectation of  death as a direct result of physical state.

You seem to be saying that whether someone’s condition is terminal or not is of great importance. I disagree, surely someone in a condition of incurable great pain should be considered for assisted suicide even if the condition isn’t terminal.

As for Stephen Hawking, he had a mental life of such richness that we can scarcely imagine it, so I doubt if he’d have wished for assisted suicide. As to whether he’d have wished for others with his disease to have the option, I have no idea, maybe there’s something on record of his opinion?

You also seem to be implying that a physically healthy person who wishes to commit suicide must have mental issues. Can you prove that a state of existence is preferable to a state of non existence? We’re really getting into philosophy there!

Certainly casting defectives off cliffs against their will is the very antithesis of assisted suicide.

[fangless]

3 hours ago, scubascuba3 said:

euthanasia will be legal, I think it should be the right of anyone at any time to decide, would avoid suicides

Euthanasia is just self inflicted murder committed by an approved accomplice!

 

Edited October 30, 2020 by fangless

[fangless]

53 minutes ago, Dumbastheycome said:

Or  should we return to adopt the practices of the ancient Greeks who are considered an historic advanced  civilization and under compulsory social by the "ruling  class"  edict  caste  all "defectives" over a cliff into the sea as  "special " offerings to the  Gods?

Can you please translate the above, and the rest of your dissertation, into plain English, or other understandable language,  so the rest of us non suicidal people can get on with our lives.  If you don't there is a chance some of us just might tend that way!

????

Edited October 30, 2020 by fangless

[scubascuba3]

9 hours ago, CygnusX1 said:

In principle I agree with you, but I suppose we can’t approve euthanasia for an 18 year old who wants to die after just breaking up with his girlfriend. It is difficult to draw a line, but any line is better than no line, which is the situation in most countries.

If that 18 yo wants to die he can now but has to do it in a horrific way 

[scubascuba3]

8 hours ago, fangless said:

Euthanasia is just self inflicted murder committed by an approved accomplice!

 

You mean suicide, fine, avoids someone throwing themselves off a condo

[RichardColeman]

12 hours ago, snoop1130 said:

New Zealand has provisionally voted to legalise euthanasia but is on course to reject law changes that would allow recreational marijuana use

I guess that's as they don't want people asking for euthanasia whilst high on marijuana !

[thaibeachlovers]

11 hours ago, Dumbastheycome said:

I am genuinely curious  to know why  you  say "does not  go far  enough ".

 

I want to have a painless death at a time of my choosing, not because I'm screaming with pain.

Suicide is actually quite hard to do successfully.

Why does anyone think they can dictate to me when I die- it's my life, not theirs.

[thaibeachlovers]

10 hours ago, CygnusX1 said:

In principle I agree with you, but I suppose we can’t approve euthanasia for an 18 year old who wants to die after just breaking up with his girlfriend. It is difficult to draw a line, but any line is better than no line, which is the situation in most countries.

Abortion used to be only after being interviewed by a couple of Drs to ascertain the mental state of the woman wanting one.

They could do the same for those wanting suicide.

 

[thaibeachlovers]

9 hours ago, Dumbastheycome said:

There are instances involving individuals I have  personally been involved with occupationally who  have been rendered permanently almost  100% immobile but due to  medical intervention have  "survived" and despite desperately  managed communicating  a desire to discontinue "living" have been denied the option.

Sad as that is survival in that context  may be dependent  on  continued  support and involves  a whole other question about such intervention but there is  no predictable expectation in future  point of termination as there is with  terminal disease conditions.

In your reference to quads and or the blind  being provided  the "choice" could also be considered  crossing  the boundary of any ethical limits in terms of  "assisted" death because it does not  necessarily involve a specified terminal expectation of  death as a direct result of physical state. Especially in the affliction of  being blinded by accident or disease. A psychological state requesting death need  be removed from any question of assistance in provision  if it does  not involve any physical justification because of the danger of inducement .

Suicide of the  physically healthy is an indictment of social influences and expectations  far in excess of the cause of   identifiable "disease" .

Or  should we return to adopt the practices of the ancient Greeks who are considered an historic advanced  civilization and under compulsory social by the "ruling  class"  edict  caste  all "defectives" over a cliff into the sea as  "special " offerings to the  Gods?

No  longer available to ask but  perhaps  Stephen Hawkins  could  have had an interesting  opinion on the subject.

 

 

 

 

Which is why it's important to have a living will, so the Drs can't keep one alive through medical means. Of course being starved to death because that's the only option available to one is not a desirable situation.

 

[thaibeachlovers]

9 hours ago, fangless said:

Euthanasia is just self inflicted murder committed by an approved accomplice!

 

and?

My life my choice.

[Tug]

A progressive nation with competent leadership kudos nz 

[Emdog]

"To be, or not to be?" hmmm let me check with a couple of doctors and get longevity estimate.

 

 

[Dumbastheycome]

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Which is why it's important to have a living will, so the Drs can't keep one alive through medical means. Of course being starved to death because that's the only option available to one is not a desirable situation.

 

I agree.  However I put  my question while considering what limits there need be in terms of legislation to avoid abuses of intent. Limiting  legislation to terminal disease in the context of "assisted death" is a different issue to the ethical debate around withdrawal of life support. I recall the  agonizing and legal challenges in the Karen Quinlan case where the debate centered on her lack of cognitive competency. A Living Will would  probably settled that (if it had been accepted ! )

 

 

[Kiwiken]

I voted Yes to both. Have not touched weed in 40 years and have little desire to. But i have seen and continue to see countless numbers of Workers of all ages losing their jobs because they had a few joints on the Weekend.

Had they legalised Weed then there would have been levels at where if you showed over a scale you lose your job.

Funny you can get Drunk all weekend but as long as your Sober come Monday Morning everything is hunky Dory.

So the Gangs still have absolute control over the Supply. Many use meth amphetamines because you can be clean in 3 days as opposed to 14 days for weed (Which drug is worse)

If by some stroke of Bad luck I develop bone Cancer or Leukemia I have the gene) then i assure you legal or not I will imbibe weed for the pain.

Legalisation Would have loosened the Gangs hold on the Trade. Freeing the Police to smash it Once and for all.

The next Step i wanted to see (Acknowledging We never got past Go)

Would have been total Decrimilisation of All Drugs so the We could concentrate on the supply Chain (Smashing them) and treating the Addicts rather than endlessly chasing Our Tail..

NZ can be progressive on this One showed it Conservative side.

 

So We happy to elect to let the Terminally ill Choose Their time to die but not with a smile on their face.

Edited October 31, 2020 by Kiwiken

[jak2002003]

14 hours ago, CygnusX1 said:

The article states that it will only apply to people who’ve been diagnosed with a terminal condition and who have less than 6 months to live. That excludes people who for example might be in an immense amount of pain from a non terminal condition, or who may have been rendered totally immobile or blind, etc, and who wish to die. That of course in no way implies that many or most quadriplegics and blind people can’t have enjoyable and fulfilling lives, just would give them the choice.

I am registered blind myself, and I know and have worked with many blind people, and taught blind children.....and can tell you that being blind is not a valid reason to end your life.

 

Why would you even suggest that to someone that being blind you might be better off dead?!  How about you add deaf people or people with a missing limb? 

[thaibeachlovers]

1 minute ago, jak2002003 said:

I am registered blind myself, and I know and have worked with many blind people, and taught blind children.....and can tell you that being blind is not a valid reason to end your life.

 

Why would you even suggest that to someone that being blind you might be better off dead?!  How about you add deaf people or people with a missing limb? 

IMO that's not what he was suggesting.

[jak2002003]

4 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

IMO that's not what he was suggesting.

He says that being blind is an acceptable reason to be allowed assisted suicide. 

[thaibeachlovers]

Just now, jak2002003 said:

He says that being blind is an acceptable reason to be allowed assisted suicide. 

Context is everything.

[CygnusX1]

1 hour ago, jak2002003 said:

Why would you even suggest that to someone that being blind you might be better off dead?!  How about you add deaf people or people with a missing limb? 

I would have thought that my sentence “That of course in no way implies that many or most quadriplegics and blind people can’t have enjoyable and fulfilling lives, just would give them the choice” totally contradicts your statement. Of course, the great majority of people who will now be permitted assisted suicide under the new NZ law will probably not even think of exercising that option, as they too will consider that they still have a fulfilling and enjoyable life to lead. The opportunity to choose is everything.

Edited October 31, 2020 by CygnusX1

[wwest5829]

6 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I want to have a painless death at a time of my choosing, not because I'm screaming with pain.

Suicide is actually quite hard to do successfully.

Why does anyone think they can dictate to me when I die- it's my life, not theirs.

I have pondered on suicide being, “illegal” as if I will be brought back to life to answer to the law ...