Euthanasia: we can live without it
For a junior health minister to fly the flag for such a change is strange enough (though we have seen that in other jurisdictions in recent times), but one wonders at the timing of such an announcement that elicited support from a Lib Dem MP as well.
A court case in New Zealand has sparked debate about Euthanasia & Assisted Suicide.
Recent news items featuring Dr. Philip Nitschke deserve some scrutiny (in addition to the scrutiny of medical authorities — see below).
The only consistent approach to suicide prevention is to oppose it and to prevent it in all its forms and for every reason.
There will be an inexorable creep towards the Nitschke/Exit philosophical position that is based squarely upon personal autonomy and nothing else.
The Australian ABC TV network is running a story about two men who separately suicided using Exit International's methods. Both were in contact with Exit. Neither were terminally ill. Neither had reached Exit's arbitrary age of 50 years.
The law remains an important deterrent in assisting in suicide as do the social mores around the subject, generally.
“Not a good look” said Phillip Nitschke to an ABC news journalist. He was referring to the fact that Merin Nielsen, the man convicted yesterday (Feb 16) in a Brisbane court of assisted suicide of Frank Ward in 2009 was the sole beneficiary of Ward’s estate.
In conjunction with their meeting at Westminster, UK disability activists delivered an important letter to 10 Downing Street, the home of the British Prime Minister, David Cameron.
The Victorian 'expert panel' contradicts the Parliamentary Committee.
Committee accepts assertions without scrutiny
If parliament does not clearly define the law, it will lead to future court cases designed to define or expand the excepted definitions of the law.
Page 9 of 15