Euthanasia Lookout!
Forget Gay Marriage - the Greens, according the ABC TV news tonight - are going for the jugular: Bob Brown has announced that the first thing on their agenda is to get the law changed so that the Territories have the freedom to enact Euthanasia laws. In essence, he is hoping to overturn the decision of the Federal Government 13 years ago that outlawed a piece of Northern Territory legislation allowing Euthanasia. A small window of "opportunity" that allowed Dr Death (aka Philip Nitschke) to bump off four of his patients (something he is very proud of...)
Forget Islam! Forget the Boats! Forget the Feminists even! These guys are the guys that are really - I mean REALLY - out to change the very fabric of our Society. So what are we going to do about it?
Well, begin by raising awareness of the very real dangers that the Green's agenda is posing.
OPPOSING EUTHANASIA AND ASSISTED SUICIDE
October 13 Wed 7:30 PM
O'Hanlon Centre, Mitchell Street, Mentone VIC
$5.00 per person
ALex Schadenberg, Executive Director of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition is speaking on ''Caring Not Killing".
Democratic Labor Party Upper House MP, Peter Kavanagh is chairing the meeting
Bishop Peter Elliott will be in attendance.
Car parking is available in St. Patrick's School grounds, enrtance via Childers St.
For more information, see the Euthanasia Prevention Coallition
There are moves afoot to legalise euthanasia in Victoria [and elsewhere!] so get informed!!!
posted by Schütz @ 10:07 am
23 Comments
.JPG)
23 Comments:
I agree with Tony that there could be a "bad law". My fear is that those who cannot speak for themselves -the disabled,the elderly the new born ill-will more likely be the losers,by family members ,applying pressure.
In this day and age, it is still appalling that palliatvie and end of life care for people with cancer have better pain management protocols and procedures than other terminal conditions eg Progressive neurological degenertaive diosders and cardiac disease.
i speak as one who has nursed the dying and cared for their relatives.
I think the Greens are coming from the compassionate end of euthanasia,but for all of that euphemism ,we still have human beings trusting in man and not in God's providence
But do not get me wrong for all of their compassionate talk,the Greens are pagans in their thinking and Gareth ,it is not just Catholicsthat should be taking this up to them -it needs to be all true Christians. I will be ointerested to see how my own Church -a Baptist one- takes this ,because if they wimp out like they did on the Abortion law "reform ' here in Victoria, i will be walking .
I rest my case, David.
Gareth wants a 'fight' where the enemies and friends are clearly defined. Meanwhile the people facing these decisions at a time when they are themselves vulnerable and confused, will be even more so because of the noise of 'righteous fighters' like Gareth.
If that's what you want, go ahead, it will enjoy the same success as the abortion 'debate'.
Meanwhile, the conservation Catholic hero, Mr Abbott, says there are more important 'bread and butter' issues to worry about.
Whoever thought that ageing hippies would bring down Western civilisation? ;0)
But seriously, as Luther noted, historically it has always been the decadence within that destroys a civilisation, rather than the threat without. I do agree, the Greens are dangerous, and Christians should have no illusions about their agenda.
One could also mention their intention to reduce funding to independent (read Christian) schools to - I think - 2004 levels. This will be attempted when these funding arrangements come up for renegotiation in the new parliament.
Oh, yes, you have a typo, David - that should be _jugular_.
Tony, Gareth has a point here. It isn't only "conservative" Catholics who are against abortion and euthanasia. By and large, practicing Catholics of every stripe know that you have to draw the line at actively killing people.
There is not much to be taken seriously when responding to such a acatholic zealot (sorry, your a Catholic that just doesnt find the infinite wisdom of God or the Church's arguements convincing) as yourself...
It's only simple in theory, David. There's the rub.
Really? Aside from the question of double effect, I don't know of any complicating issue here. It is currently against the law for any person to kill any other (unborn) person except in soldiers and police in "the line of duty". Doctors, nurses, carers etc. are legally prohibited from doing anything that would actively and intentionally cause the death of or assist the suicide of their patients. Permitting Euthanasia would over turn that in a "simple" stroke.
May I add, I am never a fan of those that sit on the sidelines and say 'well the pro-life movement would have done better if it took this approach or that approach'.
Those that take an active approach when issues such as abortion or euthanasia enter the public domain do the best they can.
Unless one has also personally helped out the cause, I dont see any reason why people should sit by and criticise.
I am sure God will bless their efforts even if politicians, the general public or that evil and wicked man, Bob Brown dont listen
I'm glad it's so simple for you David; so simple that it's covered by the words in a law.
Even in families where the is a unified agreement with a Catholic position, there are difficulties of deciding when measures taken to preserve life are unreasonable or 'are we asking the doctor to do this because we want what's best for our loved-one or because we can no longer face his/her suffering'? Often the answer is anything but a simple 'yes or no'.
But most familes are way more complicated than that and a decision has to be arrived at at a time when they are at the worst possible capacity to make a decision.
You can't tell them, 'Hey guys, it's simple!'. They face losing their loved one or watching them suffer.
As usual Gareth, I give your assessment of my 'Catholicity' the consideration it deserves.
I didn't say that it was "simple" watching a loved one die. I said it was "simple" knowing that one should never act in such a way as to intentionally cause or hasten a person's death. That's pretty simple.
Tony: But most familes are way more complicated than that and a decision has to be arrived at at a time when they are at the worst possible capacity to make a decision.
Gareth: What decision?
Are you implying that (as stated above) to hasten one's death is a logical decision to begin with?
Yes, Terra, the Greens have not wasted any time getting their anti-human-life agenda on the table.
Tongue in cheek i say " Can Bob Brown volunteer to be the first euthanasia candidate. better yet,let's ask the whole lot of the Greens to put their brachial arteries where their mouths are ,and inject each other " .
Seriously I think that we as a nation will fall under the Judgement of God if this goes ahead. Yes sounds old fashioned and perhaps some will disagree with me but that is the feeling in my bones. REMEMBER Jefferspn's words:
"I tremble for my country when i remember that God is just".
I like Tony,know of atheists and agnostics who fight tooth and nail for the rights of the disabled and for them to lead normal lives,and I hope that it is these also who will join the anti Euthanasia coalition.
Unfortunately, despite being correct, this debate will be very precarious to engage with. Already someone at the SMH (Paul Daley I think?) has written a piece talking about how we have to be considerate, and have sympathy, which, prima facie, is of course true. What we must be very careful of is allowing sentimentality, and the 'sacredness' of other people's suffering to cloud our thinking.
From my understanding, the debate will be waged in this fashion:
Argument 1
p1/ people know for themselves what is best
p2/ when people suffer and they want 'out' they are the only ones who can possibly understand their own experience
c1/ therefore, if people want to be killed (and I use the term deliberately) to say otherwise is to commit a kind of moral violence (i.e.: claiming to know better than they do what is good for them "how dare you tell me what is good for me...")
Argument 2 (same as Arg. 1 only expanded to the family)
p1/ euthanasia is a matter for families, not society.
p2/ only families who are currently under the stress of caring for a sick/dying relative can understand the experience
c1/ therefore, to tell a family not to kill their family member is cruel.
Argument 3
p1/ the meaning of life and existence is "subjective"
p2/ if someone defines their life as 'meaningless' then their life is, indeed, meaningless
c1/ a meaningless life is unbearable, and therefore ought to be allowed to be ended
I think that the arguments will be played out among one of these various 3 arguments. The question of the response is (unfortunately) likely to be rather ineffective. As Budziszewski says, "A lie takes 5 seconds to tell, and 150 seconds to explode."
The difficulty with the response to such arguments is that they rely implicitly on the foundation of modern society (i.e.: every individual knows what is best for them, as a matter of subjective authority). Nonsense as the position is, it is none-the-less part of the set of accepted idea's, and the difficult consequence is that euthanasia is the logical consequence of such thinking.
Anyway, that's my bet.
3 arguments Tom? Not sure that you've nailed them, but at least you given in to the idea that it's all so 'simple'.
And it's very important that we don't give the impression of being in hock to the political hard right, which id where the pro-life movement too often ends up. This is another area in which the Pope is givng us wise leadership - see, for example, his remarks on global poverty in his Westminster Hall address.
Boat People and Muslims, Louise? How are they are part of this "problem"? I rather think that we would have allies among them on this issue and on many other life issues. Even Feminism - if it is true to itself - need not be an enemy in this fight. It is individualism and materialism (and a certain kind of "spiritualism" for that matter) that are the enemies in this fight.
Deal
Thanks Pax, but I'm trying to work out how on earth you could be thinking I'm trying to run away from the 'challenge'. Nothing could be further from the truth, both in my life and in what I post.
We do all we can in palliative care to minimise pain and suffering .
I know, Pax, I've been a volunteer at a hospice for over 10 years. I also know, that as good as PC can be, it's not perfect. Some conditions defy the best we can offer and they are the ones who end up in a hospice.
We do not have to use extraordinary measures to prolong life. We can allow people to go out with maximum pain killing drugs and surrounded by those who love them ...
Again, I know. Sometimes the line between extraordinary measures and non-extraordinary measures is grey and families have to make difficult calls when there often least able to do it and discussions about the 'breath of God' just don't cut it.
But the situation you have described is not what the Greens are proposing.
The Greens are not advocating for Doctors to increase morphine to have the implicit consequence of hastening someone's death by a few hours - the Greens in introducing such a Bill desire fully assisted suicide.
There is a massive difference and implications for our society.
But the situation you have described is not what the Greens are proposing.
So? Despite your best endeavors to convince yourself of the opposite, I'm not advocating for The Greens.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home