{"id":1377,"date":"2009-10-21T13:59:02","date_gmt":"2009-10-21T02:59:02","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/imaginarydiocese.org\/bishopjohn\/?p=1377"},"modified":"2009-10-30T15:31:59","modified_gmt":"2009-10-30T04:31:59","slug":"euthanasia-report-2-pros-and-cons","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/imaginarydiocese.org\/bishopjohn\/2009\/10\/21\/euthanasia-report-2-pros-and-cons\/","title":{"rendered":"Euthanasia Report (2): Pros and Cons"},"content":{"rendered":"

The Tasmanian Parliamentary Committee’s ‘Report on the Dying with Dignity Bill 2009′<\/strong> sets out in Part 3 ‘Analysis of the Bill’, comments and observations on major sections of the proposed euthanasia\/patient assisted suicide legislation<\/strong>. I found this to be\u00a0a useful guide to the arguments both pro euthanasia and against. e.g.:<\/p>\n

\n
It is concerning that this title of the Bill lays claims to Euthanasia as being a dignified death, promoting the premise that any other avenue of death is undignified and euthanasia (or medical assisted suicide) as the\u00a0only method of a\u00a0dignified death.\u00a0The excellent levels of palliative care provided in Tasmanian hospitals and aged care facilities do\u00a0allow a person to die with dignity. – Archbishop Adrian Doyle (Submission No. 121, page 1)<\/address>\n
\u00a0<\/address>\n
As a legislator, it is my duty to put forward law reform proposals when the law diverges too greatly from reality. A landmark study conducted in 1997 found that, \u201cAustralian law has not prevented doctors from practicing euthanasia or making medical end-of-life decisions explicitly intended to hasten the patient\u2019s death without the patient\u2019s request.\u201d Clearly existing criminal law against assisted suicide has failed to prevent euthanasia. – Mr Nick McKim (Submission No. 494 p.2)<\/em><\/address>\n
\u00a0<\/address>\n
\u00a0<\/em>\u2026the title \u201cDying with Dignity\u201d this is sheer sophistry. No-one could argue that the taking of a human life conveys dignity\u2026the word \u201cdignity\u201d\u2026 should not be in the title at all. The title of a Bill should always accurately convey the content. So I would suggest, \u2018A Bill to Permit a Person to be killed with a Lethal Substance on Request\u2019 would be a more appropriate title. \u2013 Mr Rene Hidding (Transcript 10\/8\/09 p.6)<\/em><\/address>\n
\u00a0<\/address>\n
The value of the Netherlands experience is not\u00a0in the establishment of the right to die a dignified and humane death. The value is in providing an example of the perils of active voluntary euthanasia as a whole. And for each vulnerable person within that society a right to die, once accepted too easily becomes a duty to die or an excuse to kill. –\u00a0Reverend Richard Humphrey (Transcript 24\/8\/09 p.15) <\/em><\/address>\n
<\/em>\u00a0<\/address>\n
We believe, and have evidence in our document and in these other documents, that this legislative option is responsible, democratic and safe. – Dr Margaret Sing (Transcript 24\/8\/09 p.76)<\/em><\/address>\n
\u00a0<\/address>\n
An individual with decision-making capacity should\u2026be able to determine how and when he or she dies as long as this does not interfere with the rights of others\u2026self-determination does not entail a right to demand and receive active voluntary euthanasia… <\/em>The Bill\u00a0… contains a number of provisions to ensure the voluntariness of the doctor\u2019s decision to provide assistance under the legislation. \u2013 Prof. Margaret Otlowski (Submission No. 487 p.8)<\/em><\/address>\n<\/blockquote>\n

\u00a0<\/em> Report here<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The Tasmanian Parliamentary Committee’s ‘Report on the Dying with Dignity Bill 2009′ sets out in Part 3 ‘Analysis of the Bill’, comments and observations on major sections of the proposed euthanasia\/patient assisted suicide legislation. I found this to be\u00a0a useful … Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[5],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/imaginarydiocese.org\/bishopjohn\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1377"}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/imaginarydiocese.org\/bishopjohn\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/imaginarydiocese.org\/bishopjohn\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/imaginarydiocese.org\/bishopjohn\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/imaginarydiocese.org\/bishopjohn\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1377"}],"version-history":[{"count":43,"href":"http:\/\/imaginarydiocese.org\/bishopjohn\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1377\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1433,"href":"http:\/\/imaginarydiocese.org\/bishopjohn\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1377\/revisions\/1433"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/imaginarydiocese.org\/bishopjohn\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1377"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/imaginarydiocese.org\/bishopjohn\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1377"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/imaginarydiocese.org\/bishopjohn\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1377"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}