I posted this here because it may be outside Forum rules. Although I feel it is an important subject.

Mods feel free.

Cheap flight to Thailand for euthanasia drugs

By TREVOR PADDENBURG From: The Sunday Times March 20, 2010

THAI TRIP: Euthanasia advocate, Dr Philip Nitschke, is recommending trips to Thailand to purchase life-ending drugs

Source: Reuters

DOZENS of West Australians who want to end their lives are jetting to Thailand as the country becomes the new destination of choice for buying euthanasia drugs.

Cheap flights and the ease of obtaining preferred suicide drug Nembutal from veterinary clinics in Bangkok means right-to-die group Exit International is recommending drug-buying missions to Thailand over Mexico or Peru.

Buying the illicit barbiturate has become so common that one Thai vet supply shop reportedly has a sign in the window that reads: "Welcome Australians buying vet supplies."

So far this year, more than 300 sick or elderly West Australians have contacted Exit wanting information on where and how to buy Nembutal, which kills in 30 minutes.

Exit director and euthanasia advocate Philip Nitschke - who is coming to Perth for a right-to-die seminar next month - said another dozen West Australians had already visited the country and brought the drug into WA. He said the 12 people had it on stand-by to use for suicide, while others had been successful in ordering the drug by mail.

Dr Nitschke's suicide guidebook The Peaceful Pill Handbook - banned in Australia but available online for about $75 - is updated monthly with advice from people who have visited Thailand.

It includes details on the best veterinary clinics to visit in Bangkok and other Thai cities, where a lethal dose of the drug costs less than $50.

"We're getting emails every day from people with the latest advice," Dr Nitschke told The Sunday Times.

"At the moment, there are three good clinics in Bangkok. We update the online book every month, so it's got the latest information for people.

"Thailand is looking pretty good. It's easier and cheaper to buy Nembutal there than Mexico or Peru, which are the other two countries where people can readily get it."

Dr Nitschke said Australia's anti-euthanasia laws were forcing ordinary West Australians who wanted to die with dignity to become drug traffickers and risk a lengthy jail sentence.

His book, which details controversial suicide techniques, including cyanide recipes and tips on how to conceal euthanasia, was banned by the Classification Review Board because it outlines how to manufacture barbiturates.

Dr Nitschke said the penalty for bringing in a lethal dose of Nembutal - about 6g - could result in a jail term of 25 years.

This was because in Thailand a lethal dose of the drug is mixed with water and sold in 100ml bottles, making importation a drug-trafficking offence.

Health Minister Kim Hames has said he opposes voluntary euthanasia, but is happy for the issue to be debated.

A police spokesman warned euthanasia candidates faced the same penalties as drug runners caught bringing illicit substances into the country.

I see nothing wrong with old or sick people wanting to check out early.

It is their body.

I see nothing wrong with old or sick people wanting to check out early.

I agree, but the religious types want people to keep suffering as long as possible. I think they are relatives from the Nazi Gestapo who enjoyed torturing people.

I see nothing wrong with old or sick people wanting to check out early.

I see somethng wrong with trying to prevent sick people doinng whatever they want to their body.

I am curious how a 25 year jail term would deter a terminally ill person. I wonder if the state would actually take on the burden of palliative care for a convited drug running terminally ill patient.

I see nothing wrong with old or sick people wanting to check out early.

I see somethng wrong with trying to prevent sick people doinng whatever they want to their body.

What's the difference between the two posts?

I agree with Koheesti, though.

I am curious how a 25 year jail term would deter a terminally ill person. I wonder if the state would actually take on the burden of palliative care for a convited drug running terminally ill patient.

Good point.

I see nothing wrong with old or sick people wanting to check out early.

I agree, but the religious types want people to keep suffering as long as possible. I think they are relatives from the Nazi Gestapo who enjoyed torturing people.

Yep.

A couple of years ago my wife had an ectopic pregnancy, the only solution was an abortion. A couple of bible bashers on our building caught wind and felt the need to tell her that she was a murderer and was going to hel_l blah blah, of course I felt the need to tell them to F-OFF and shove their bibles where the sun don't shine.

I see nothing wrong with old or sick people wanting to check out early.

I see somethng wrong with trying to prevent sick people doinng whatever they want to their body.

What's the difference between the two posts?

I agree with Koheesti, though.

Yeah, whilst I'm agreeing....I am also making a corollary point that is perhaps too subtle for you . The way your post is worded implies that you may disagree with my post.

I see nothing wrong with old or sick people wanting to check out early.

I agree, but the religious types want people to keep suffering as long as possible. I think they are relatives from the Nazi Gestapo who enjoyed torturing people.

Yep.

A couple of years ago my wife had an ectopic pregnancy, the only solution was an abortion. A couple of bible bashers on our building caught wind and felt the need to tell her that she was a murderer and was going to hel_l blah blah, of course I felt the need to tell them to F-OFF and shove their bibles where the sun don't shine.

That's the kind of narrow-minded dogmatic attitude that is the root of all evil in the world today. Whatever the religion or belief.

(I mean the bible-bashers you refer to).

I see nothing wrong with old or sick people wanting to check out early.

I see somethng wrong with trying to prevent sick people doinng whatever they want to their body.

What's the difference between the two posts?

I agree with Koheesti, though.

Yeah, whilst I'm agreeing....I am also making a corollary point that is perhaps too subtle for you . The way your post is worded implies that you may disagree with my post.

I think it's too subtle for me too. I believe that if someone has led a long full life and wants to check out (that goes for healthy 90-yr olds) or is suffering from an illness they should be allowed to find the way of their choosing to end their own life as long as it doesn't affect anyone else or destroy property (like jumping out of a plane over the World Cup Final, hanging yourself over a busy intersection, etc). good old-fashioned drugs would do nicely.

Now, what did you mean that sick people should be able to do whatever they want to their bodies? Do you mean something other than death?

...........

I think it's too subtle for me too. I believe that if someone has led a long full life and wants to check out (that goes for healthy 90-yr olds) or is suffering from an illness they should be allowed to find the way of their choosing to end their own life as long as it doesn't affect anyone else or destroy property (like jumping out of a plane over the World Cup Final, hanging yourself over a busy intersection, etc). good old-fashioned drugs would do nicely.

Now, what did you mean that sick people should be able to do whatever they want to their bodies? Do you mean something other than death?

No I did not mean something other than death (although it's not limited to death). I meant that there is a difference between actively preventing, and passively allowing.

Of course, as with all freedoms, they should not affect another person, as you point out.

Your freedom ends a few inches from my nose.

I see nothing wrong with old or sick people wanting to check out early.

I see somethng wrong with trying to prevent sick people doinng whatever they want to their body.

What's the difference between the two posts?

I agree with Koheesti, though.

Yeah, whilst I'm agreeing....I am also making a corollary point that is perhaps too subtle for you . The way your post is worded implies that you may disagree with my post.

While your subtlety was lost on me, I see my sarcasm was lost on you.

You may imply whatever you wish with this particular post. Makes me no difference.

And again another thread degenerates into personal animosity between the four horsemen of he mediocrity.

Potentially good thread OC

I think the penalties could refer to the probable misuse of such drugs in the wrong hands.

There also has to be some kind of safe guard against certain vulnerable people being manipulated by other unscrupulous relatives or friends or guardians

And again another thread degenerates into personal animosity between the four horsemen of he mediocrity.

Couldn't agree more. Can we have a whip round to buy them their own playground?

Some people go to Pattaya to complain about the hookers. More sensible types go to a different beach.

"Outside the Box" used to be called the "Bear Pit" until it was (very sensibly) closed down by the management. Not much has changed since then. It is the nature of the beast.

And again another thread degenerates into personal animosity between the four horsemen of he mediocrity.

Potentially good thread OC

I think the penalties could refer to the probable misuse of such drugs in the wrong hands.

There also has to be some kind of safe guard against certain vulnerable people being manipulated by other unscrupulous relatives or friends or guardians

You bring up 3 very good points. The last point is perhaps the most disturbing yet relevant, I think.

How do you decide if a terminally ill patient actually truly desires death, and is not just accomodating manipulative relatives/guardians?

To your first point I will reiterate for the umpteenth time....I react. Don't ask me to be insulted and stay silent....it's tantamount to asking me to keep my hands in my pockets if someone punches me in the pub.

In some ways I wish this was in a pub....they would have been shut up a long time ago.

I'm ok, i just have to pop up the road to Zurich.

I agree to it in extreme cases, when a person is suffering so much it is a terrible existence. Medical history, life expectancy etc. has to come into the equation.

What I don't agree to is the way the family and loved ones who have broken their hearts over the decision are treated as murderers.

If I was living like a veggie, I would hope they would make the right decision, and put me out of my misery.

And I have family members who feel the same way. And we have discussed it in great detail. Makes for jolly drinks after dinner conversation!! And before and during!!

In some ways I wish this was in a pub....they would have been shut up a long time ago.

There also has to be some kind of safe guard against certain vulnerable people being manipulated by other unscrupulous relatives or friends or guardians

That's a very good point. But nothing in life is perfect and if someone is clear-headed enough to want death (what was that old Richard Dreyfuss movie from about 30 years ago?) then there shouldn't be a question. It gets more complicated when they are hooked up to a machine and can't speak for themselves.

In some ways I wish this was in a pub....they would have been shut up a long time ago.

Except you, of course.....you're too old.

There also has to be some kind of safe guard against certain vulnerable people being manipulated by other unscrupulous relatives or friends or guardians

That's a very good point. But nothing in life is perfect and if someone is clear-headed enough to want death (what was that old Richard Dreyfuss movie from about 30 years ago?) then there shouldn't be a question. It gets more complicated when they are hooked up to a machine and can't speak for themselves.

Amongst those of us that are in qualified agreement over euthanasia, this is one of the important qualifications. You have addressed an aspect, that of being "clear-headed".

Is clear-headedness the only qualification?

In some ways I wish this was in a pub....they would have been shut up a long time ago.

If this was a pub, pretty much everybody on both sides would have given you a pounding.

In some ways I wish this was in a pub....they would have been shut up a long time ago.

If this was a pub, pretty much everybody on both sides would have given you a pounding.

I doubt if you are right. I expect most on your side might want to, but wouldn't dare. I wonder why you assumed I was inferring a punch-up?

I have a few times referred to the fact that lack of vocal tone and body language often leads to misinterpretations.....and your belligerence toward me has stemmed from a series of your misinterpretations.....that is why I think if this was a pub situation people such as yourself would not have said many of the derogatory remarks and intimations that you have.

Interesting that you took the physical violence interpretation.

And besides....you're too old too.

Actually, you are the one who is - once again - misinterpreting. I have no interest in pummeling you with anything but the truth.

Of course, I do realize that it is a complete waste of time and energy.

There also has to be some kind of safe guard against certain vulnerable people being manipulated by other unscrupulous relatives or friends or guardians

That's a very good point. But nothing in life is perfect and if someone is clear-headed enough to want death (what was that old Richard Dreyfuss movie from about 30 years ago?) then there shouldn't be a question. It gets more complicated when they are hooked up to a machine and can't speak for themselves.

Amongst those of us that are in qualified agreement over euthanasia, this is one of the important qualifications. You have addressed an aspect, that of being "clear-headed".

Is clear-headedness the only qualification?

You could argue wanting to kill yourself isn't a very clear-headed idea in the first place. Then again, you could say the same about killing anyone else, stealing a car, sleeping with your spouse's best friend, betting on England to win the World Cup this year, etc.

The film I mentioned earlier is "Whose Life is it Anyway", 1981. Dreyfuss plays a sculpter who becomes paralyzed from the neck down in a car accident and wants to be allowed to die. He has to argue that he is of sound mind - if not body. I forget how it ends so you guys will have to download it. Unless you feel that's theft then ask at your local DVD rental shop.

Actually, you are the one who is - once again - misinterpreting. I have no interest in pummeling you with anything but the truth.

Of course, I do realize that it is a complete waste of time and energy.

Liar. Why did you post a picture of a physical pummeling? What was anyone to interpet from that alongside your words?

lay off please. If you are unable to involve yourself in each others disucssions then put each other on ignore.

I am all for voluntary euthanasia. As I said in the other thread, life is about freedom of choice so if you chose to not live anymore then that is your business.