sharetrader
Page 3 of 10 FirstFirst 1234567 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 189
  1. #41
    Advanced Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    , , .
    Posts
    1,597

    Default

    TGA its important to read carefully on what Rod Macleod is saying and reflect on the practical implications of this Bill on those patients whose requests for early death fade away .
    With this legislation some will be dead before they can derive the benefit of palliative care.

  2. #42
    Advanced Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    1,958

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tga_trader View Post
    This is the article I read that finally helped me decided, and funnily enough it was arguments by both sides that got me there.
    https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/euthanasia-debate/300057650/euthanasia-referendum-the-arguments-for-and-against-legalising-assisted-dying


    So people dont just get the diagnosis and decided to just 'check out'. They enjoy the time they've got and only once it gets unbearable at the end do they make the choice to move on.


    Exactly right, and palliative care will still exist, and still be able to support the vast majority of people, but why can palliative exist alongside the option of euthanasia at the very end. They can, and should, co exist. It doesn't have to be a 'either, or' decision.
    Ummm.....how on earth can they have any accurate data that says people on average only shorten their lives by 10 days? There is no way that can be possibly measured, which immediately indicates a bias from the author of the study.

  3. #43
    Permanent Newbie
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,220

    Default

    Thanks for the links Baa baa had already done the quiz 6 out of 10 first time canít remember the ones I got wrong except I didnít appreciate that this automatically becomes law if there is a majority in the referendum.

    So something to take seriously as it will be the voters who decide.

    As always Snoopy has analysed the crap out of it and actually read some stuff. Thanks for the summary Snoopy, the legislation probably has its merits in a few cases but it opens the possibility for mistakes and lowers protection for the vulnerable in my humble opinion.

    Interesting that this bloke Rob McLeod is someone who is at the coal face so to speak and has seen this day in and day out is against the bill.

    I assume there are people at the coal face who are for this legislation I probably have not read from them as I have a terrible confirmation bias when choosing to read things but would be interested to hear their views.

    Sorry to keep this debate rolling, pretty sure no one will be changing their mind before election day but I am not convinced some emotional heart breaking stories about people dying in pain is enough.

    I will still be voting NO for The End of Life Choice Act (euthanasia).

  4. #44
    Update Ready To Install
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Floating Anchor Shoals
    Posts
    9,058

    Default

    8 out of 10 for me.A resounding YES vote.Humane progress ,yes. Be inhumane by all means but live with that and go and watch someone dying slowly in agony and if you can possibly pierce your own bubble try and imagine if that was you.

  5. #45
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Posts
    85

    Default

    I'm voting yes for choice.

  6. #46
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    635

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fish View Post
    Moka I find it hard why you think this link supports your view on euthanasia?

    Sounds as if Austen using her pro-euthanasia views and contacts helped a depressed old lady commit suicide

    She did not have a terminal illness, though she did suffer from arthritis and had been dealing with depression for more than two decades.

    Depression is probably the commonest reason why people want to die but can be very difficult to detect .
    As a humane society should we not be putting more effort into detecting and treating depression ?.
    I wasnít using it to support euthanasia but to respond to respond to Aaronís comment that ďyou always have the choice to take a handful of pills if that is how you want to go.Ē Which is not as easy as it sounds.

    I do agree with this comment about euthanasia in the article "I believe that in many things that have happened in New Zealand society that it's a natural progress. And it is progress, I believe, not a degeneration into murdering people. This is absolutely atrocious scaremongering. It's not like that at all."

    I think it is more civilised to allow people to have the choice to end their life if they meet the criteria. Making people suffer can be barbaric, and despite the claims palliative care does not work for everyone. Orthodox pain relief does not work for some people, and that is why some people want to use cannabis because it does work for them. Cannabis is a different topic but the debate has similarities with some people including religious organisations wanting to restrict other peopleís choices. Just like with abortion. Choices give you control over your life, rather than other people restricting your choices.

  7. #47
    Advanced Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    1,958

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moka View Post
    I wasn’t using it to support euthanasia but to respond to respond to Aaron’s comment that “you always have the choice to take a handful of pills if that is how you want to go.” Which is not as easy as it sounds.

    I do agree with this comment about euthanasia in the article "I believe that in many things that have happened in New Zealand society that it's a natural progress. And it is progress, I believe, not a degeneration into murdering people. This is absolutely atrocious scaremongering. It's not like that at all."

    I think it is more civilised to allow people to have the choice to end their life if they meet the criteria. Making people suffer can be barbaric, and despite the claims palliative care does not work for everyone. Orthodox pain relief does not work for some people, and that is why some people want to use cannabis because it does work for them. Cannabis is a different topic but the debate has similarities with some people including religious organisations wanting to restrict other people’s choices. Just like with abortion. Choices give you control over your life, rather than other people restricting your choices.
    With choices come responsibilities and repercussions. We are restricted in all manner of choices. Why now for this one? What has changed that we require this choice when we have the best palliative care in human history?

  8. #48
    Permanent Newbie
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,220

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pipi View Post
    I'm voting yes for choice.
    Suicide is not illegal.
    Turning off life support is not illegal.
    Denying life saving treatment is not illegal.
    Refusing life saving treatment is not illegal.
    Administering accelerant drugs is not illegal.
    Comatosing a patient until death is not illegal.
    Getting someone else involved in that choice and helping you pull the trigger is illegal.

    Vote NO don't give someone else the chance to make that choice for you.

    Actually reading that list I am not 100% sure they are all legal but Baa baa is a stickler for informed debate so I assume they are right.
    Last edited by Aaron; 02-10-2020 at 02:04 PM.

  9. #49
    Antiquated & irrational t.rexjr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Location
    Under the sycamore tree
    Posts
    439

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Aaron View Post
    don't give someone else the chance to make that choice for you.
    Your list appears to include situations where it is in fact someone else that has to make that choice for you...







    I'd agree with Snoopys' observation of death "None were entirely pleasant, but neither was any one of them unpleasant". I relate that to the actual moment of passing itself. I've found that moment to be strangely beautiful for want of a better description. If only the days/months prior could share that tranquility...

    If it were me, even though my personality would likely not make the choice, I'd want that ability to choose should I need.
    Perhaps that's selfish...
    I can't envisage a line of cliff jumpers, willing or coerced, like it seems others do. Surely it would be a fairly rare event
    Last edited by t.rexjr; 02-10-2020 at 03:37 PM.

  10. #50
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    635

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jonu View Post
    With choices come responsibilities and repercussions. We are restricted in all manner of choices. Why now for this one? What has changed that we require this choice when we have the best palliative care in human history?
    I donít understand what you mean by responsibilities and repercussions. Whose responsibilities for what?

    Reading through your posts you said:

    • Euthanasia doesnít involve one person
    • And this proposal isn't about when we end our life, but when someone ends it for us. It is an important distinction.


    No health practitioner would have to carry out a request for assisted dying if they had a conscientious objection towards it, under the legislation.

  11. #51
    Permanent Newbie
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,220

    Default

    John Roughan had a good opinion piece on it in the herald this morning.
    I worry for the less selfish amongst us (although that seems to be a smaller and smaller group of people as time progresses) who worry about others and being a burden. With this legislation we are now saying that they have an option rather than just hanging in there when they have nothing more to provide to society. 6 months terminal is probably hard to diagnose.

  12. #52
    Legend
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Sth Island. New Zealand.
    Posts
    5,235

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Aaron View Post
    John Roughan had a good opinion piece on it in the herald this morning.
    I worry for the less selfish amongst us (although that seems to be a smaller and smaller group of people as time progresses) who worry about others and being a burden. With this legislation we are now saying that they have an option rather than just hanging in there when they have nothing more to provide to society. 6 months terminal is probably hard to diagnose.
    Just having nothing left to offer society is not enough.

  13. #53
    Permanent Newbie
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,220

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fungus pudding View Post
    Just having nothing left to offer society is not enough.
    People who are eligible for assisted killing are probably often in the situation of feeling like a burden. How many might choose death because they don't want to be a burden? We will never know.

  14. #54
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    , , .
    Posts
    1,094

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Snoopy View Post
    Not saying it was the case with your experience. But there are situations where other palliative care patients have needs that they do not shout about that do need attention. And unless you pay for one on one care for your loved one, there will be situations where people who desire attention may have to wait. You may find that the 'agonising screams' are more monitored than you think they are. But it is certainly true that I have never seen a palliative care unit that is overstaffed.

    SNOOPY
    Yes, you're right, the situations are always quite complicated. In this particular case the relative had end-stage renal failure and severe cellulitis. The staff were aware of the situation but said there was nothing they could do. The on-staff nurse stated that she was not permitted to administer any pain relief until the MD arrived in 5 or so hours, so he would need to wait. The door was shut to muffle the noise for other patients. He died a few weeks later.

    A year on at another facility with a different relative, I couldn't speak more highly of the care provided. There was almost a 1-to-1 ratio of nurse/Dr to patients. Once the estate has been settled we have decided to form a regular donation to this facility. They certainly deserve additional support.

  15. #55
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Posts
    85

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Aaron View Post
    Suicide is not illegal.
    Turning off life support is not illegal.
    Denying life saving treatment is not illegal.
    Refusing life saving treatment is not illegal.
    Administering accelerant drugs is not illegal.
    Comatosing a patient until death is not illegal.
    Getting someone else involved in that choice and helping you pull the trigger is illegal.

    Vote NO don't give someone else the chance to make that choice for you.

    Actually reading that list I am not 100% sure they are all legal but Baa baa is a stickler for informed debate so I assume they are right.
    Many years ago my grandfather became very sick, we all traveled to see him in Tauranga in hospital. He was still with it in mind but his body was deteriorating. I remember him begging us to let him die. I just want to die, please let me die. Of course no one did. I left shocked and very upset. He deteriorated very quickly after that and pretty much became a vegetable in a rest home that lay there and dribbled, they kept him alive like that for 2 years. He didn't move, didn't eat for himself, didn't recognise any of us. It was heart breaking. He knew what was coming. He wanted the choice to end it and I feel he should of. What is the point in keeping someone alive like that? To keep the money circle working for the rest home? To keep staff in jobs? I have also seen many friends die over the years of cancer. They would of liked the choice to die in dignity rather than a drugged up vegetable.

    That is why I am voting YES

  16. #56
    Advanced Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    , , .
    Posts
    1,597

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pipi View Post
    Many years ago my grandfather became very sick, we all traveled to see him in Tauranga in hospital. He was still with it in mind but his body was deteriorating. I remember him begging us to let him die. I just want to die, please let me die. Of course no one did. I left shocked and very upset. He deteriorated very quickly after that and pretty much became a vegetable in a rest home that lay there and dribbled, they kept him alive like that for 2 years. He didn't move, didn't eat for himself, didn't recognise any of us. It was heart breaking. He knew what was coming. He wanted the choice to end it and I feel he should of. What is the point in keeping someone alive like that? To keep the money circle working for the rest home? To keep staff in jobs? I have also seen many friends die over the years of cancer. They would of liked the choice to die in dignity rather than a drugged up vegetable.

    That is why I am voting YES
    Sounds like your grandfather would not have met the requirements of this Bill for Euthanasia .
    Your comment about the money circle has nothing to do with Euthanasia-I hope.
    No one in a rest-home has the ability to keep someone alive for 2 years if they really want to die .
    I would vote in favour of this Bill if I believed there were adequate safeguards.
    The most important one being a comprehensive neuro-psychiatric assessment or we will be helping depressed people commit suicide when their mood is low or untreated.
    Most doctors are very poor picking up atypical depression .

  17. #57
    Legend
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Sth Island. New Zealand.
    Posts
    5,235

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fish View Post
    Sounds like your grandfather would not have met the requirements of this Bill for Euthanasia .
    Your comment about the money circle has nothing to do with Euthanasia-I hope.
    No one in a rest-home has the ability to keep someone alive for 2 years if they really want to die .
    I would vote in favour of this Bill if I believed there were adequate safeguards.
    The most important one being a comprehensive neuro-psychiatric assessment or we will be helping depressed people commit suicide when their mood is low or untreated.
    Most doctors are very poor picking up atypical depression .
    There are more than 13,000 doctors in NZ. I'm amazed that you know most of them. Well done.

  18. #58
    Membaa
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Paradise
    Posts
    3,366

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fish View Post
    Sounds like your grandfather would not have met the requirements of this Bill for Euthanasia .
    Your comment about the money circle has nothing to do with Euthanasia-I hope.
    No one in a rest-home has the ability to keep someone alive for 2 years if they really want to die .
    I would vote in favour of this Bill if I believed there were adequate safeguards.
    The most important one being a comprehensive neuro-psychiatric assessment or we will be helping depressed people commit suicide when their mood is low or untreated.
    Most doctors are very poor picking up atypical depression .
    So you would vote yes, but the safe guards in your opinion are inadequate. Iím guessing, mainly from your covidPosts, that are you in the health profession?

    I fear that no law is perfect but it Is a perfect system that you desire in order to support your Agreement to the end of life choice. So in principle you support end of life choice but in practice you will never be satisfied as the system will never be perfect.

    What right do you have though to limit others rights to choose? Of course your right is the referendum. A no vote denies others the right to choice. In all good conscience how can you deny others the right to choice?

    When you say ď No one in a rest-home has the ability to keep someone alive for 2 years if they really want to die .Ē I wonder what experience you have with rest homes?

    I personally have experienced and know there are people who would have chosen to End their life, with assistance, because they were incapable of doing so themselves, who suffered ignominy and anguish for many more years than just two.

    One is still blithering after 10 years in rest home hospital care and she would have chosen assisted dyinga long time so. Itís so sad.

    Why do you think you should deny that choice, by voting no? Is it really just your view that the Act is imperfect, or something else?

  19. #59
    On the doghouse
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    , , New Zealand.
    Posts
    7,223

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zaphod View Post
    Yes, you're right, the situations are always quite complicated. In this particular case the relative had end-stage renal failure and severe cellulitis. The staff were aware of the situation but said there was nothing they could do. The on-staff nurse stated that she was not permitted to administer any pain relief until the MD arrived in 5 or so hours, so he would need to wait. The door was shut to muffle the noise for other patients. He died a few weeks later.
    This does on the surface sound like a case of sub-optimal medical management. 'Severe cellulitus' sounds like this person should have been in hospital. End-stage renal failure was likely a condition known about for this patient for some time. So it seems odd that this patient had not had a pre-approved PRN (for 'pro re nata,' which means that the administration of medication is not scheduled) prescription to be administered under exactly the kind of circumstances that you describe. I don't believe that assisted suicide should be seen as a solution to medical mismanagement.

    Quote Originally Posted by Zaphod View Post
    A year on at another facility with a different relative, I couldn't speak more highly of the care provided. There was almost a 1-to-1 ratio of nurse/Dr to patients. Once the estate has been settled we have decided to form a regular donation to this facility. They certainly deserve additional support.
    Hmm, maybe your regular donation should have gone towards the first facility you described? It sounds like they were the ones needing more financial help! I do know of facilities that will provide 1 for 1 care at critical stages. But I don't think that is a realistic expectation for any vulnerable loved one, no matter how good the reputation of that care facility might be.

    SNOOPY
    Last edited by Snoopy; 03-10-2020 at 08:38 PM.
    Industry shorthand sees BNZ employees still called 'bankers' but ANZ employees now called 'anchors'. Westpac has opted out of banking industry shorthand...

  20. #60
    Advanced Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    , , .
    Posts
    1,597

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Baa_Baa View Post
    So you would vote yes, but the safe guards in your opinion are inadequate. Iím guessing, mainly from your covidPosts, that are you in the health profession?

    I fear that no law is perfect but it Is a perfect system that you desire in order to support your Agreement to the end of life choice. So in principle you support end of life choice but in practice you will never be satisfied as the system will never be perfect.

    What right do you have though to limit others rights to choose? Of course your right is the referendum. A no vote denies others the right to choice. In all good conscience how can you deny others the right to choice?

    When you say ď No one in a rest-home has the ability to keep someone alive for 2 years if they really want to die .Ē I wonder what experience you have with rest homes?

    I personally have experienced and know there are people who would have chosen to End their life, with assistance, because they were incapable of doing so themselves, who suffered ignominy and anguish for many more years than just two.

    One is still blithering after 10 years in rest home hospital care and she would have chosen assisted dyinga long time so. Itís so sad.

    Why do you think you should deny that choice, by voting no? Is it really just your view that the Act is imperfect, or something else?
    I have been a Health Professional for over 40years and lots of experience in Rest-homes.
    There is no way this Bill enables the person described in your experience to end their life.
    I will be voting against this Bill for one important reason only.
    I have seen lots of patients given a terminal diagnosis have a reactive depression and express the desire they want to die.
    Four weeks later they are enjoying their life and doing the things I feel are important before life ends.
    With this Bill some will die without having this experience-dying from a terminal illness correctly managed is not the painful or degrading experience many posting seem to imagine

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •