\u00a0Excellent article on euthanasia issue coming to national parliament of\u00a0Australia and test for PM,<\/p>\n
The entire key to the euthanasia debate lies in its great paradox: consistent polls showing a majority in favour. But what, exactly, are people supporting? The 1996-97 debate provides the answer: most people think that turning off life-support machines and discontinuing life-preserving treatment is euthanasia. In fact, this is nothing to do with euthanasia. Indeed, it is the precise opposite of euthanasia. If a family turns off a life-support machine, the patient dies because of their illness, not because of the doctor. But if the doctor gives a lethal injection, then the patient is killed. This is a fine yet critical distinction.<\/p>\n
This issue was best put by former NSW politician Tony Burke<\/span>, now Minister for Sustainability and Environment in the Gillard government, when he led the 1996 campaign (against euthanasia)\u00a0from Labor’s side: “There is a maxim often used in the capital punishment debate which applies perfectly to legalised euthanasia: whether you support it or oppose it in principle, if one innocent person is going to be killed, that is too high a price.” Exactly.<\/p>\n
Former Labor MP Lindsay Tanner<\/span>, on October 28, 1996, tore to shreds the logic of the Northern Territory law. Asking where the line should be drawn, Tanner asked rhetorically: “Why is it that it is only the terminally ill? Why shouldn’t it also be the severely disabled? Why not somebody with an incurable mental illness? Why not children who are terminally ill?”<\/p>\n
Tanner’s point is that lines cannot be firm or fixed. Reinforcing his argument is that many euthanasia advocates, such as Peter Singer, actively promote its extension more widely.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Full article, Brown’s euthanasia bill a perilous test for Gillard<\/a>.\u00a0<\/p>\n
From the following QLD article a quote from Euthanasia advocate Dr Nitschke<\/span> who is indifferent to an innocent person being killed (as per Tony Burke’s concern above)<\/p>\n
Dr Nitschke said if voluntary euthanasia was legalised people would be subject to a \u201cpretty arduous process\u201d including checks with doctors to verify the patient\u2019s terminal illness and mental condition.<\/p>\n
\u201cCould someone slip through the net? I suppose it\u2019s possible,\u201d he said yesterday.<\/span><\/p>\n
\u201cBut just because that could happen, should you disenfranchise the vast majority of Australians who want to see this legislation brought in?\u201d<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n
QLD unlikely to debate euthanasia; also an\u00a0online poll. Bligh dodges euthanasia debate<\/a>.<\/p>\n
WA Parliament debated this last month, see\u00a0WA Euthanasia Bill\u00a0rejected<\/a>.<\/p>\n
Tasmania has a private member’s bill being prepared by the Attorney General!? See here<\/a>\u00a0 and Mercury Editorial here<\/a>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
\u00a0Excellent article on euthanasia issue coming to national parliament of\u00a0Australia and test for PM, The entire key to the euthanasia debate lies in its great paradox: consistent polls showing a majority in favour. But what, exactly, are people supporting? The … Continue reading