Mr Invisible
Banned
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2008
- Messages
- 0
- Reaction score
- 47
Euthanasia already exists for those sound enough of mind to make the call themselves.
It's called suicide.
It's called suicide.
Well I hope it passes, nobody knows what another person wants or needs.They do, but this vote is kind of the other way around. TPTB have always wanted to dictate when you die by telling you that even though you're going to die in 6 months anyway, and even though it's going to be a long and painful death, you're still not allowed to choose when you die. The Victorian legislation changes that so people who have less than 6 months to live can choose to die.
I guess people just want a painless option, they can't stop people making the final call.Euthanasia already exists for those sound enough of mind to make the call themselves.
It's called suicide.
Yeah.. that's not true at all.
Netherlands assisted suicide laws are a bit overboard but they can't terminate a patient without their request. That's just stupid and it's based on the recent dementia case where the pateint woke up confused during the operation. The court said that the Doctor did the wrong thing but made the mistake in good faith and it technically wasn't a crime.
Exactly! But people can suicide painlessly.I guess people just want a painless option, they can't stop people making the final call.
Exactly, so just like the SSM, waste of time and money for personal issues and to keep the useless eaters fighting and occupied.Exactly! But people can suicide painlessly.
Euthanasia is just making it legal to make that call.
That's the one I was talking about. The media sensationalise it a bit. She had dementia and after a lot of psychological testing and consultation she signed something saying that she wanted Doctors to end her life when she reached advanced stage dementia.http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4166098/Female-Dutch-doctor-drugged-patient-s-coffee.html
Female Dutch doctor drugged a patient's coffee then asked her family to hold her down as she fought not to be killed - but did not break the country's euthanasia laws
- The case was referred to the Regional Review Committee in the Netherlands
- It concluded that the female doctor had effectively acted in good faith
- The Netherlands introduced the euthanasia law 17 years ago
A Dutch woman doctor who drugged an elderly woman and then asked her family to hold her down as she fought desperately not to be killed did not break the law, according to medical experts citing the country's euthanasia legislation.
The shocking case was referred to the so-called Regional Review Committee in the Netherlands which admitted that while the case involved some irregularities that merited a reprimand, the female doctor had effectively acted in good faith.
However they also added that the case should come to court so that judges can confirm that any other doctor who acts in good faith when providing euthanasia to people with dementia cannot be prosecuted.
Regional Review Committee Chairman Jacob Kohnstamm said: 'I am convinced that the doctor acted in good faith, and we would like to see more clarity on how such cases are handled in the future.'
The Netherlands introduced the euthanasia law 17 years ago, and since then more than 5,500 people have ended their life, arguing that they are suffering unbearably. One of those who died was a sex abuse victim who suffered severe anorexia, chronic depression and hallucinations, and another was a severe alcoholic.
Every time a doctor performs euthanasia, they have to prepare a report for the coroner who sends the relevant documents to the Regional Review Committee.
In the latest controversial incident the unnamed woman, who was over 80, reportedly suffered from dementia and had earlier expressed a desire for euthanasia when she deemed that 'the time was right'.
As her situation deteriorated, it became difficult for her husband to care for her, and she was placed in a nursing home.
Medical paperwork showed that she often exhibited signs of fear and anger, and would wander around the building at nights. The nursing home senior doctor was of the opinion that she was suffering intolerably, but that she was no longer in a position where she could confirm that the time was now right for the euthanasia to go ahead.
However the doctor was of the opinion that the woman's circumstances made it clear that the time was now right.
The doctor secretly placed a soporific in her coffee to calm her, and then had started to give her a lethal injection.
Yet while injecting the woman she woke up, and fought the doctor. The paperwork showed that the only way the doctor could complete the injection was by getting family members to help restrain her.
It also revealed that the patient said several times 'I don't want to die' in the days before she was put to death, and that the doctor had not spoken to her about what was planned because she did not want to cause unnecessary extra distress. She also did not tell her about what was in her coffee as it was also likely to cause further disruptions to the planned euthanasia process.
The Review Committee concluded that the doctor 'has crossed the line' by giving her the first sleeping medicine, and also should have stopped when the woman resisted.
The paperwork and the recommendations of the committee are now being considered by prosecutors and health officials.
Kohnstamm said he was in favour of a trial: 'Not to punish the doctor, who acted in good faith and did what she had to do, but to get judicial clarity over what powers a doctor has when it comes to the euthanasia of patients suffering from severe dementia.'
It comes at a time when the Netherlands is considering a proposed extension to the law which would give all over-75s the right to assisted suicide.
A few conditions would have to be met first. There has to be a 'sustainable, well-considered and intrinsic' wish to die.
A specially trained 'life-ending consultant' would give their verdict about the death wish, which has to be seconded by another consultant or checking committee.
The life-ending consultant would have at least two interviews with the OAP, with at least two months between, to make sure the person knows what they are deciding and that they are not being pressured by their environment. The life-ending consultant could be a doctor, a nurse, a psychologist or a psychotherapist.
The proposal is likely to find support with Prime Minister Mark Rutte's coalition formed by the liberal VVD and their social-democratic partners of the PvdA, the Dutch Labour party.
The Ministers of Justice and Public Health have previously sent a joint letter to Parliament advocating a similar law.
Yet three Christian parties as well as the Socialist Party (SP) are leading the effort to stop any such law.
MP Renske Leijten of the SP said: 'Elderly care is not in order, a lot of OAPs are lonely and then they are making the ending of life easier?'
Gert-Jan Segers, a MP of the Christian Union, also attacked the plan.
He said: 'The proposal relies on the myth that this is an individual choice, but relatives, society and care workers are also involved.'
His party said the law would contradict with the duty of government to care for and protect the elderly, especially those in a vulnerable position.
This case worries me. Why drug the coffee first? This does not appear to me as though she awoke confused, it appears to me that she wasn't ready yet. Family have to hold her down? I wonder if the family members were in her will?
They acted according to her wishes, when she was of sound mind.http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4166098/Female-Dutch-doctor-drugged-patient-s-coffee.html
Female Dutch doctor drugged a patient's coffee then asked her family to hold her down as she fought not to be killed - but did not break the country's euthanasia laws
- The case was referred to the Regional Review Committee in the Netherlands
- It concluded that the female doctor had effectively acted in good faith
- The Netherlands introduced the euthanasia law 17 years ago
A Dutch woman doctor who drugged an elderly woman and then asked her family to hold her down as she fought desperately not to be killed did not break the law, according to medical experts citing the country's euthanasia legislation.
The shocking case was referred to the so-called Regional Review Committee in the Netherlands which admitted that while the case involved some irregularities that merited a reprimand, the female doctor had effectively acted in good faith.
However they also added that the case should come to court so that judges can confirm that any other doctor who acts in good faith when providing euthanasia to people with dementia cannot be prosecuted.
Regional Review Committee Chairman Jacob Kohnstamm said: 'I am convinced that the doctor acted in good faith, and we would like to see more clarity on how such cases are handled in the future.'
The Netherlands introduced the euthanasia law 17 years ago, and since then more than 5,500 people have ended their life, arguing that they are suffering unbearably. One of those who died was a sex abuse victim who suffered severe anorexia, chronic depression and hallucinations, and another was a severe alcoholic.
Every time a doctor performs euthanasia, they have to prepare a report for the coroner who sends the relevant documents to the Regional Review Committee.
In the latest controversial incident the unnamed woman, who was over 80, reportedly suffered from dementia and had earlier expressed a desire for euthanasia when she deemed that 'the time was right'.
As her situation deteriorated, it became difficult for her husband to care for her, and she was placed in a nursing home.
Medical paperwork showed that she often exhibited signs of fear and anger, and would wander around the building at nights. The nursing home senior doctor was of the opinion that she was suffering intolerably, but that she was no longer in a position where she could confirm that the time was now right for the euthanasia to go ahead.
However the doctor was of the opinion that the woman's circumstances made it clear that the time was now right.
The doctor secretly placed a soporific in her coffee to calm her, and then had started to give her a lethal injection.
Yet while injecting the woman she woke up, and fought the doctor. The paperwork showed that the only way the doctor could complete the injection was by getting family members to help restrain her.
It also revealed that the patient said several times 'I don't want to die' in the days before she was put to death, and that the doctor had not spoken to her about what was planned because she did not want to cause unnecessary extra distress. She also did not tell her about what was in her coffee as it was also likely to cause further disruptions to the planned euthanasia process.
The Review Committee concluded that the doctor 'has crossed the line' by giving her the first sleeping medicine, and also should have stopped when the woman resisted.
The paperwork and the recommendations of the committee are now being considered by prosecutors and health officials.
Kohnstamm said he was in favour of a trial: 'Not to punish the doctor, who acted in good faith and did what she had to do, but to get judicial clarity over what powers a doctor has when it comes to the euthanasia of patients suffering from severe dementia.'
It comes at a time when the Netherlands is considering a proposed extension to the law which would give all over-75s the right to assisted suicide.
A few conditions would have to be met first. There has to be a 'sustainable, well-considered and intrinsic' wish to die.
A specially trained 'life-ending consultant' would give their verdict about the death wish, which has to be seconded by another consultant or checking committee.
The life-ending consultant would have at least two interviews with the OAP, with at least two months between, to make sure the person knows what they are deciding and that they are not being pressured by their environment. The life-ending consultant could be a doctor, a nurse, a psychologist or a psychotherapist.
The proposal is likely to find support with Prime Minister Mark Rutte's coalition formed by the liberal VVD and their social-democratic partners of the PvdA, the Dutch Labour party.
The Ministers of Justice and Public Health have previously sent a joint letter to Parliament advocating a similar law.
Yet three Christian parties as well as the Socialist Party (SP) are leading the effort to stop any such law.
MP Renske Leijten of the SP said: 'Elderly care is not in order, a lot of OAPs are lonely and then they are making the ending of life easier?'
Gert-Jan Segers, a MP of the Christian Union, also attacked the plan.
He said: 'The proposal relies on the myth that this is an individual choice, but relatives, society and care workers are also involved.'
His party said the law would contradict with the duty of government to care for and protect the elderly, especially those in a vulnerable position.
This case worries me. Why drug the coffee first? This does not appear to me as though she awoke confused, it appears to me that she wasn't ready yet. Family have to hold her down? I wonder if the family members were in her will?
In Celebration, here's the lyrics to the Theme song from M.A.S.H.Victoria is in:
Victoria has become the first Australian state to allow euthanasia
BREAKING: Victoria has become the first Australian state to allow euthanasia.
news.com.auNOVEMBER 29, 201712:38PM
THE Victorian State Parliament passed the government’s “voluntary assisted dying” laws on Wednesday morning, meaning the state will become the first in Australia to allow euthanasia.
After more than 100 hours of tense debate, the bill passed through the lower house just before midday.
Once it receives Royal Assent —considered a procedural formality — it will become law.
The laws will come into force in 2019.
A second attempt to curb Victoria’s controversial Voluntary Assisted Dying Bill earlier failed.
The attempt was brought on by opponent and lower house Liberal MP Robert Clark. It lost 46-37 votes just before question time on Wednesday.
But when the matter resumed late on Tuesday afternoon for what was expected to be a purely administrative exercise, Mr Clark issued an amendment for debate to “be deferred indefinitely”.
It was the second unsuccessful attempt to do so, after the first was proposed by deputy premier and euthanasia opponent James Merlino when the matter was previously in the lower house.
So you know what state of mind she was in do you?They acted according to her wishes, when she was of sound mind.
TBH in her state, she probably would've attacked the doctor if she was giving her a panadol.
She had dementia.So you know what state of mind she was in do you?
Or it started to cost the family too much to keep her alive.She had dementia.
I think it’s pretty obvious.
Kind of. She was suffering from advanced dementia. Considering that all the news stories on it have all come from anti-euthanasia reporters yet after all the scare words they all admitted that she had advanced dementia.So you know what state of mind she was in do you?
The patient requested it while she was of right mind and the doctor made the call on when the time was right. The family had nothing to do with it.Or it started to cost the family too much to keep her alive.
I have had two family friends that dementia took, ok I have eaten a lot of shit these 6 years and I honestly prefer to what I have now than that evil.So you know what state of mind she was in do you?
That is a brutal but honest issue too sadly.Or it started to cost the family too much to keep her alive.
Or it started to cost the family too much to keep her alive.
You can tell people who have never been in this position before. They think this decision is made lightly and the doctor has their heart set on killing someone that day and won’t take no for an answer.The patient requested it while she was of right mind and the doctor made the call on when the time was right. The family had nothing to do with it.