RM> on the euthanasia debate. My only disagreement with ET is that it
RM> could cheapen human life in some cases, eg: "You sick old bastard,
RM> why don't you stop annoying us and leeching my hard earned money
RM> away from my kids? Go kill yourself! After all, it's legal now!"
RM> Add to that the line "Your liver is history, but someone might
RM> live longer with your heart or kidneys, and you get no say in
RM> that. Do something useful for once - bugger off and die."

RS> Trouble with this line of argument is that you can say precisely the
RS> same thing about not allowing people to stay in hospital as long as
RS> they feel like, or legalising suicide too. Anything can be abused.

RS> Including allowing relos to have some say on treatment, particularly
RS> with the very elderly who are a bit dotty. There is always a risk that
RS> they will say 'dont tell them about the cancer, surgery at this very
RS> advanced age is pointless, just treat the symptoms, its all for the best'

RS> It can ALSO be the perfectly sensible thing to do rather than
RS> subject someone who has a pretty poor lifestyle to having it
RS> buggered up even more comprehensively by running them into hospital
RS> for major surgery which wont achieve much at all lifestyle wise.

RM> Are you agreeing or disagreeing with me here? It's a bit hard to tell.

I'm saying that your line at the top about the potential for abuse is
a complete dud, coz that potential is there already with the other than
euthanasia and has always been there. There is ALWAYS potential for abuse.

So thats not a good enough reason to not allow euthanasia.

RM> I'm in favour of euthanasia, but I think the conditions
RM> attached will need very careful consideration.

RS> But the current euthanasia that deliberately flouts the law is fine ?

RM> What law?

The current law in everywhere except the NT doesnt allow euthanasia.
Euthanasia is very widely practiced ANYWAY. Essentially the law is flouted.

RM> Has anyone been prosecuted over that death?

I didnt mean the NT euthanasia law and that one, now two, death.

RS> You just cant get past the very fundamental point that
RS> we continue to do to humans what you can and do get charged
RS> for doing if its your dog in that particular situation.

RM> About the only thing I can think of that I could legally
RM> do to a human that I can't legally do to a dog is screw it.

You are allowed to let the human suffer obscenely.
You would be charged if you did that to a dog.
@EOT:

---