Euthanasia case in NZ
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
08-06-2015, 01:32 PM
RE: Euthanasia case in NZ
(08-06-2015 06:58 AM)Hafnof Wrote:  Let's see if an analogy will help here. Let's say that murder is illegal, except in cases of spousal murder wherein it is justified. Say we now scrub the justification clause. We replace it with "nothing justifies the use of force against a spouse"

Do you think this change to the law prohibits rough sex?
Let's say that the wife didn't want to have sex and certainly didn't want to be rough housed into it. The police come because she phoned the police, she tells them she wants to press charges. The police assess the situation and take it upon themselves not to proceed because they think that it is fine for a husband to strongly demand sex from his wife, or perhaps the offender was a friend of the police officer or a prominent person or perhaps they were white rather than black.

This is one issue.
But I don't think you are really understanding the situation. 66% of parents are technically criminals, perhaps even more. Under NZ law if you use force for the purpose of correction, i.e. smack, force a kid into naughty corner, forcibly take a toy away from a child (for the purpose of correction) then you are breaking the law.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-06-2015, 01:34 PM
RE: Euthanasia case in NZ
(08-06-2015 06:26 AM)BnW Wrote:  As for euthanasia, I'm for the right to die, but I think the objections are not just religious based. I also think you need to be really careful. What about someone who is depressed and living with constant mental anguish? Do they have a right to painless suicide? How and where do you draw the lines?
I think generally they put constraints such that the person has to have been assessed as being terminally ill with an expected lifespan of less than 6 months.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-06-2015, 01:50 PM
RE: Euthanasia case in NZ
And who decides when you have 6 months to live? Is there a standard of review? What about a disease like ALS where the diagnosis will typically give you 6 months to 5 years?

Not trying to be contrary, but I think it's a tougher issue than people realize. Still, I agree even if the law is too strict there should be a right to die in certain situations.

Shackle their minds when they're bent on the cross
When ignorance reigns, life is lost
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-06-2015, 03:04 PM
RE: Euthanasia case in NZ
(08-06-2015 01:50 PM)BnW Wrote:  And who decides when you have 6 months to live? Is there a standard of review? What about a disease like ALS where the diagnosis will typically give you 6 months to 5 years?

Not trying to be contrary, but I think it's a tougher issue than people realize. Still, I agree even if the law is too strict there should be a right to die in certain situations.

http://public.health.oregon.gov/Provider...index.aspx

No point in reinventing the wheel. It's live and doing very well in Oregon.

[Image: dobie.png]Science is the process we've designed to be responsible for generating our best guess as to what the fuck is going on. Girly Man
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-06-2015, 03:22 PM
RE: Euthanasia case in NZ
(08-06-2015 01:50 PM)BnW Wrote:  And who decides when you have 6 months to live? Is there a standard of review? What about a disease like ALS where the diagnosis will typically give you 6 months to 5 years?

Not trying to be contrary, but I think it's a tougher issue than people realize. Still, I agree even if the law is too strict there should be a right to die in certain situations.
I would imagine that two independent doctors would need to make the assessment.
Of course nothing is certain, just statistically they can assess the expected lifespan and there will be outliers that could last for several years beyond. However, it is just qualifying criteria.
Ultimately it comes down to the patient to either make the decision if they are capable or to write up a legal order such like a DNR order at a time when they are capable but to be carried out during a time when they are not capable.

I do hear people state that euthanasia could be abused. I would like to know what reality is. Have there been documented issues in places where it is legal?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-06-2015, 03:46 PM
RE: Euthanasia case in NZ
(08-06-2015 03:22 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(08-06-2015 01:50 PM)BnW Wrote:  And who decides when you have 6 months to live? Is there a standard of review? What about a disease like ALS where the diagnosis will typically give you 6 months to 5 years?

Not trying to be contrary, but I think it's a tougher issue than people realize. Still, I agree even if the law is too strict there should be a right to die in certain situations.
I would imagine that two independent doctors would need to make the assessment.
Of course nothing is certain, just statistically they can assess the expected lifespan and there will be outliers that could last for several years beyond. However, it is just qualifying criteria.
Ultimately it comes down to the patient to either make the decision if they are capable or to write up a legal order such like a DNR order at a time when they are capable but to be carried out during a time when they are not capable.

I do hear people state that euthanasia could be abused. I would like to know what reality is. Have there been documented issues in places where it is legal?

I linked to complete Oregon records above - and - no.

People take a pill when they want to. Many of them never do. Those who do, do it at their own discretion, it's not administered. You have to be able to pop a pill.

[Image: dobie.png]Science is the process we've designed to be responsible for generating our best guess as to what the fuck is going on. Girly Man
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Dom's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: