I work with Simon and was sent a link to this post. I find too much agreement here for my liking (and I think there is some potentially interesting discussion I’d like to read people’s thoughts on), so time for a devil’s advocate to say a few words:

I think the main difficulty with the issue of euthanasia is how to decide what would ultimately be best when no-one can predict the future. A patient suffering from cancer could recover and/or be motivated/talented enough to cure/vaccinate against this killer, a dementia patient could still produce art or words that can inspire and uplift a large number of people, a physically disabled person could still push the boundaries of science. The trouble is these scenarios have very low odds of happening. If the caree is to decide on how to respond to the odds then moments of weakness or doubt can have massive repercussions potentially for many people, which could warrant the choice being taken out of their hands, if the carer is to decide on how to respond then, like it was said in the article, they may not make a choice in the best interest of the caree.

So what to do? You would probably need to have an ‘objective’ carer or board of carers who weigh up the odds of a person performing deeds of, or experiencing, ‘good’ (you could take into account such factors as family situation and history, education, wealth, history of charitable work, field of employment, references from friends etc.) against the magnitude of the tally of ‘bad’ (prognosis, amount of visitors, pain level, history of suffering etc.), also obviously taking into account the wants of the person and potentially any carer. This would need to be continued to be evaluated over time until the odds are too low and euthanasia is allowed.

Having an objective carer council could also mean other similar scenarios can be considered where the odds of good vs bad are key and someone is requesting euthanasia, all of which would save us money and are problems largely of our own making which would get smaller with legal euthanasia, things like:
- Criminals who are sure to be tortured and killed by other criminals upon release from prison can request to be euthanised to avoid this, or it could be they’re repeat offenders who have no hope and are sure they’ll just repeat offend again, they could get depressed enough to request euthanasia and due to their history and outlook it is highly unlikely they will accomplish anything good and hence could be considered.
- People who have suffered emotional damage due to abuse or other similar trauma and would prefer death to living with their memories, as long as they are essentially paralysed by their history and haven’t responded to counselling they could apply
- People born with severe mental illness, who have been institutionalised could potentially be considered as suffering enough to warrant euthanasia with some education of course to inform them of their choices
- People born into poverty who can’t hope for anything except starvation and death, the cost of ongoing health care and support would be much greater than giving them the option of avoiding their suffering, obviously a streamlined process would be needed in this case

I hope you see by those examples, that there is a very fine line between committing a morally reprehensible act and ‘playing the odds’. Deciding which is which most of the time in my opinion will be beyond any committee and hence while euthanasia is a nice idea ultimately it cannot be implemented, there is too much scope for misuse and odds are if it were to become mainstream it will do more harm than good.

By the way Happy 80th Birthday today

Sante,
Petch

Based on my observations and experience, I would say that there is the law, and there is justice, and the two have nothing to do with each other.

If there was justice, Alan Bond would rot for the rest of his life in a dungeon after robbing his companies (meaning the thousands of people who invested in his companies) for his own extravagant personal benefit. That would be justice. What the law gave him was a couple of years in minimum security, he got to keep all the stolen goods, and he’s now living in luxury, unlike the people he ruined. Similarly with Christopher Skase, and all the other fancy-dancers who ran ENRON, Worldcom, and apparently every bank in the world. Those mongrels continue to live high on the hog, taking their obscene salaries and bonuses while the send the world to hell.

Don’t get me started! Oh…I think I’ve started…:-)

Cheers

Geoff

it’s been quite a while since I had a look at your writing, so I thought it was time to have another refreshing update of free thinking.

I read your article about the constitution after returning from a trip to Port Douglas in North Queensland. The people who live there are governed by people in Brisbane who live over 1200 km away, I had a number of conversations with local people, and was struck by the resentment that they felt about decisions being made that affected their lives and livelihoods, when the decisions were made by people who were so removed from them. My parents, who live in northern NSW, feel the same about the state government in Sydney.

This reinforced my view that a great improvement could be made to this country by getting rid of the small minded, petty, greedy, self-interested and generally corrupt scum who make up the majority of the state governments. I was struck therefore, when I saw you express the same view in your blog post.

What we need is a single federal government that implements programs of national interest in areas such as health, education, transport and defence etc. I went to school in 3 different states and the ACT, and the curriculum differences severely affected my education, so I speak from personal experience.

Then, at the local level, we just need reasonably sized non-political regional administrative areas that provide day to day operation of services like garbage collection, road maintenance etc. I say non-political, because I see no reason why (like in the ACT for example), the people who are responsible for things like getting the garbage collected are arranged on party political line. What does that achieve apart from a lot of noise, and not much signal?

Imagine having a single Australian drivers licence instead of a state licence, a single educational curriculum, a single rail gauge, a single Australian legal system etc. The benefits of standardisation and removal of duplication of effort would be enormous!

Anyway, I’m sorry it’s been so long since I last visited here. It’s been very refreshing to read your thoughts and know that I’m not the only person in the country who thinks these things.

Cheers

Geoff

Interesting point: The anti advert for smoking thing actually HELPED their profits. Previously they made $X million and spent $Y million on advertising so that their opposition didn’t win over part of their share of the market. Then – blam – the govt legislates no more advertising…. because nobody is gaining someone elses share of the market anymore (because NOBODY is advertising), each cigurette company is now making $Y more than they were before (i.e. the amount they would have spent on advertising).

‘course the idea is that less people take it up in the first place, so over time hopefully their profits will dwindle, but the immediate effect was quite observable.

I couldn’t agree more. What is interesting is how polarising it is. The hack program on JJJ had some people on there discussing Israel and what happened with the flotilla (a couple of people being killed and all that) – it was either “What they did was wrong, the flotilla was aid for Palestine which has 3rd world country conditions” or “What they did was right because they are Israel and everyone hates them so they gotta fight. ”

I can’t see how anyone can say that it was right, so instantly said “I bet they’re Jewish”. Nobody wants to believe their “homeland” is a murderous bunch, so they’ll stand on their side just because it’s their religion.

Being Jewish and being Israeli is really weird. “The Jews” are supposed to be a race, or is it a religion? It’s so confusing. My friend is born in Israel, and is therefore Jewish, but is as atheist as you or I. But my friend who married him who’s Australia is as atheist as her husband is not Jewish and can never be Jewish. She doesn’t EXIST in their systems. It’s so weird. If you are Jewish in another country you can go to Israel at the expense of the country (once) but being born there you get no such perks.

And they are the most racist bunch of people I have ever met. The “Black Hebrews” is a perfect example – Africans who arrived and said “Hi, we’re jewish, let us in” and they borked and said “You can’t be jewish – you’re black!”. The confusion between being Jewish race and Jewish religion is just odd. I think the Black Hebrews ended up being allowed to stay in Israel but not near the “normal” Jewish.

The source of your information is already biased, the chief magistrate only sees the worst side of it, talk back radio only gets calls from people who listen to talk back radio (which instantly excludes pretty much anyone of my generation). The only one I give any credit to is Lorraine, who see’s a very small proportion of the total schooling population.

Add to this that I am working with Alfred-Deakin high school to install an Aquaponics system so that they can teach their children all about natural lifecycles, science, and where food comes from (i.e. not woolworths). They have funding to do this, and even if the parents are just sending them off to school, the teachers give a shit, and they are doing their best to make a difference.

You CAN NOT say that “now days parents send their children to school to be disciplined and taught comformity”. The fact is that in every generation there are people who subscribe to that philosophy, and as the population increases, so does that group (as does every other group). Because it’s reported more, does not mean that every parent does it.

Regards to sounding like an old man, I am an old man. I like to think that I consider things but I have to be influenced by my experiences. One of the things I have learned is that you can’t be half right and half wrong emphatically, e.g. you can’t be half an atheist or royalist, you are or you are not and if you are you cannot argue the opposite point of view with any meaning or honesty. You can listen and try to teach your challenger but if you start to accept their point of view you have changed your point of view.
Most things are not that important so they are just to be argued as the case may be. This is the way to learn I suppose.
Regarding the last piece of your comment, I was referring to Tony Abbot, I am not so sure that the opposition will be able to get rid of him if they get elected at the next election, this would be terrible for the whole country, he is such a bigot!

You have no authority to make that final statement that “now days parents send their children to school to be disciplined…” etc. I think the reality is that people still want their children to question things, and grow up smarter and more aware than their own generation, and you’re plain wrong about people wanting to have their children disciplined and taught conformity. What on earth made you think this in the first place? I’d also like to point out that my own mother went back to work after our births as soon as she was able. And that most people who don’t believe in global warming are my the baby boomers (guilt complex). Nowadays I hear mothers talking about the science which shows that the formative years of a childs life require a mother to be present etc etc

This is not an observation on life, this is you being a old man!

I assume you’re talking about Tony Abbot – I’ve heard someone postulate that when a party knows they are going to lose an election, they put in the idiots to take the fall so that when they replace them after the election the new guy looks like a bloody genius and everyone goes “He’s so much better than the last guy, lets vote for him”.

~Gemmell