Does Sonny and Cher still have that stupid show?

http://news.smh.com.au/national/jury-out-in-wylie-mercy-killing-trial-20080616-2rag.html

I can't believe this woman actually had to plead "guilty to the lesser charge of aiding and abetting suicide [ My italics]."

Something just doesn't seem right about all that.

Aside from the fact that this is all hella lame, what's the jury considering? She plead guilty...

I think that 'the crown' is actually going for the full murder charge.

Oh, "earlier plead guilty."

So despite her pleading to the already totally unfair charge, they want to convict her the same as if she broke into the guy's house and shot him against his will. Good idea.

What an age we live in...

The clown is down...

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/mercy-killing-duo-guilty/2008/06/19/1213770801657.html

Sad face. For real.

Well, she ended up having to take her own life.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/euthanasia-campaigner-takes-own-life/2008/09/19/1221331207048.html

Some system.

Normally i would probably take the side against the two of you- but when i heard about this case (i think it was in the papers a few months back) it was quite upsetting... i don't necessarily agree with euthanasia (except in extreme cases), but i think that the 'crown' went over board- most coz they're afraid that if someone does it without consequences someone will abuse it further down the line.

Sometimes humanity makes me sick- we pods have it way better!

I don't think that assisted suicide should be legal because where do you draw the line? Once you open the door to even the most deserving case, such as someone dying of a flesh eating virus which would be incredibly painful and also causes demensia (spell?), you open the door to people who have in operable cancer, then its cancer in general, then its burn victems, then.. and then... and then... .and then emo's (although......).

Its not that I am against it morally, what you do with your own life is your own. I do think that some suicides are selfish like the ones that jump in front a train, but if you do it quietly to stop yourself going to through needless pain what the hey. However legalising it is saying something more than its 'ok'. It legitimises it as a way out, as an option. It shouldn't be an option, it should be the last consideration, the last desperate act of a pain riddled mind and not a box to tick on a medical form.

Ah, the ol’ slippery slope argument, how I missed you – I mean, I think I’m dying… because I hate it so much.

Okay, so legalising it may send out the message that it’s ‘A-O.K.’ but I don’t think it necessarily will. I mean, death is still death, and nobody will take it lightly just because it’s legalised in certain situations (let’s make it clear that it is in certain situations, although the situations might be difficult to define, as you’ve both illustrated). We euthanise animals, it’s legal. But that doesn’t mean that pet owners are just like “Mmm, you know, I’m a little tired of this one, let’s kill it and get a new one.” It’s still a very traumatic and tough decision that takes a long time to assess. But the thing is we do assess it, and say that the animal is obviously in too much pain etc. that its quality of life is such that it would be cruel of us to keep it alive. Though, of course, sometimes (often) our emotions interfere with our reasoning (understandably) and even in the case of pets people do not want to let go of their companions, despite what is perhaps in the best interests of the animal that is going to be laid to rest.

So I don’t know if legalising it will just make it ‘ok’. And what’s more, doesn’t maintaining its illegal standing mean that it unnecessarily does more harm to those involved by charging with murder/manslaughter and potential gaol time those patient’s loved ones who helped the patient end their life?

ADD ON:
Also, Tom, have you thought about joining forces with Marc to create Team Devil's Advocate? 'Cause you guys would rock.

Unfortunately the whole thing with legallity vs illegallity is that morallity and ethical considerations often have to take a backseat to the good ole worst case scenario. Unfortunately, historically, making something legal has sent the message that it is OK. You just have to look at societies, like the worst case society Germany, where legallity made violence against the minority legitmate and eventually not just ok but actually an obligation. Slippery slope arguments (not as in just coming back to one point over and over again but rather the ones where you say 'its a slippery slope' ((slippery slope is actually a rhetoric term for the type of arguments employed by people who's argument is not actually an argument but is rather a statement of 'fact' with no supporting logic))) are viable when its true.

Ultimately the fantastic thing about the law is that it is written down. The first people to do this, the Roman's, who had the ten immutable laws carved into stone, which were then expounded upon and added to until it was a constitution, knew that when you put something into unchangable writing you make that law unalterable, you make it applicable to everyone and that gives everyone the same rights. The bad thing is that while it is fantastic that everyone gets the same rights to defence against oppression etc it also guarentees personal freedoms that, for some are not advisable.
Personal freedoms are a wonderful thing and any day i will fight for them, and there is a personal freedom to suicide. You have the freedom to choose to kill yourself. Who cares about the legallity if you are dead. But saying that it is legal means that it takes the last barrier away. It means you don't have to do it in secret, that you can tell everyone, have a big going away party then slip finally into the night. As it stands your loved ones can intervene by enlisting the aid of the law.

How can you truly judge a persons level of pain? Do you make a chart and say if you feel this much pain then you are allowed to die, but just under it you have to live with it? Who makes that determination? The judge? Do you really want to have to put a judge, a person who has served the commonwealth faithfully, in the position where they have to make the decision on behalf of a person in chronic pain as to whether they are allowed to die. By what right does society have to tell a judge they have to do that? By what right does society have to tell someone that, while this person can end their life you cannot because your pain isn't severe enough.

What about mental pain? Mental anguish? A person who has lost their entire family? A person who does not want to live without their spouse? A person who is manically depressed and doesn't want to go on taking drugs? A schizofrenic who is constantly harangued by their own mind to the point where they can't find a job? Are we going to make a dilineation between physical and mental pain? If so you are sending the message that mental pain is trivial and undeserving of release as opposed to physical pain.

It is the mentally anguished that commit suicide. The people who, by dint of traumatic life events or physical pain have become mentally unwell. It is a natural instinct to stay alive and I don't think that the state should legitimise something which aids insanity in anyway. I won't argue that you should take away their right to choose. They have that right, even if their choice is usually guided by a mind unwell. What i am saying is that A) society doesn't have the right to delineate between those deserving and those not B) legitimising something by making it lawful does, for all intents and purposes make it OK and C) making assisted suicide legal would open a door better left closed.

What the hell is up with the title of the thread?

hahahahhahaha

Brockman: Tonight on Eye-Witness News: A man who's been in a coma for 23 years wakes up.
Man: Do Sonny and Cher still have that stupid show?
Brockman: No, she won an Oscar, and he's a congressman.
Man: Good night!



It's related, trust me.

Tom wrote:Unfortunately, historically, making something legal has sent the message that it is OK.

Yeah, sorry, I was gunna mention that I do agree that that possibly would happen. All I was trying to say was that it needn’t necessarily do that. But yeah, people are stupid like that... I agree.

Tom wrote: How can you truly judge a persons level of pain?

Oh, it’d be difficult, no question. But I don't know if that's a reason to not allow it, especially if not allowing it could lead to worse situations... or just additional bad ones.

Tom wrote: What about mental pain?

Mental pain is just as bad, for sure. I didn’t want to imply anything else.

Tom wrote: A) society doesn't have the right to delineate between those deserving and those not

Yeah, I could agree to that. But what if we just stick to the individual? Unless they don’t have the capacity to decide, in which case it usually isn’t difficult to decide, I think.

Tom wrote: legitimising something by making it lawful does, for all intents and purposes make it OK and C) making assisted suicide legal would open a door better left closed.

These two I think go together... ? And yeah, I understand, as stated above. But still... I can see how it’s kind of an argument, which essentially goes like this (correct me where I’m wrong):

Legalising suicide means it will, in some sense, make it more of an option and so the suicidal will be more likely to commit suicide.

I does make sense, but I’d just like to say this: people who are suicidal are suicidal, and they kill themselves now (unfortunately). As you yourself have pointed out, once you’re dead the law and its consequences are of little concern to you. So, I don’t know if there’s a very large group of people who are like “Man I would so kill myself if only it was legal”. So I don’t even know if the law really affects them (just like we've all said that being convicted of attempted suicide is, if it wasn't pretty tragic, a joke). It seems to be more addressed at those who would assist those to die, and those that need assisting are usually so far gone that it isn’t so much of an issue deciding whether or not they ‘qualify’.

I can see your argument re: the people who help are punished. But the law is all about curtailing the rights of the few in order to protect the many. My right to hit someone who backchats me is curtailed in order to protect all those that back chat me! Just as the suicidal are marginally protected from would be good doers who would help them commit suicide.

In a perfect world, in a perfect world, in a perfect world.... we don't live in a perfect world. We live in a world where the weak are preyed on by the strong, where those in power use their power to create more power for themselves. There is not much altruism going round. Its sad that those who would help the sick and dying to ease their pain eternally must too suffer but I would say that it is a necessary bi-product of the nature of the law. If you make a law without a black and white mandate then it will be applied to cases it was never intended to be applied to. If you make a law which says 'in this case yes, in this case no, to be judged by the judge' then lawyers will argue that the yes case is actually this and the no case doesn't apply... It will happen.

I agree that life should never be a taken lightly, whether creation or ending that life. That's why I don't think that they should legalise it.

I don't know what more I can say.

Short answer: Legalised suicide = generally a bad idea.

Andy, in reference to your hatred of the slippery slope argument, that's unfortunately the way the law works. See: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/precedent

But, that's not to say that we can't control legalised suicide. Theres the option of saying 'You are only allowed to kill yourself if you have a terminal illness, with less than 2% chance of recovery, and you are in a severe state of constant pain.' There are parts of the law that have subjective wording like this. But unfortunately with an issue this widespread we just end up back at the slippery slope argument. Someone will eventually argue something that pushes the boundaries, then that gets set in stone, then someone will push the boundaries more, etc, etc.

Simmo! wrote:Short answer: Legalised suicide = generally a bad idea.

Do we need a seperate topic titled: "Simmo! Declares!" ?

Simmo! wrote:Andy, in reference to your hatred of the slippery slope argument, that's unfortunately the way the law works.

Oh, no question. But that still doesn't mean that it isn't a bad idea.

Also, I know that this topic has slightly drifted into 'legalising suicide' (partly my fault), which I have no problem with —the drift, no problem with the drift — but the original question was more to do with the un-illegalising of euthansia.

...................................... which is the same thing?

Tom, you're my best and most loyal friend, but you've earned my contempt once again.



I reckon the euthanasia laws are more concerned with the people assisting the suicide, maybe? I think the whole court case thingie wasn’t about prosecuting the guy who actually committed suicide but about charging the people who helped him commit suicide.

Well yeah...? How can you prosecute, in an 'atheistic society' the dead? The only people left to prosecute are... stay with me now.... the living?

Ok a little over the top but how else are they going to do it? The law isn't actually aimed at the people who help but, in the end that is how it pans out. Its just generally illeagle.

I may have missed this being stated but i thought that one of the major reasons for this law was to stop people being euthanized for the wrong reasons (e.g. our father is old and infirm, just killing him will mean we don't need to care for him!)- so we don't end up with a country that kills people instead of dealing with their problems, like horse doctors

Re: Tom
Okay, fine, so they’re a little related. I accept the point that they would get tangled up. But, interestingly, I just did a little perusing around the net (so grains of salt needed) but suicide seems to actually not be illegal in any Australian state (“no longer an offence” are the words), whereas “assisting or encouraging” someone else to commit suicide is an offence. I think euthanasia is separate in that it seems to deal more with the area of people asking others to kill them.

Re: Glen
Sure, that was probably the “reasoning” behind the law, I don’t really know, but I must say that I have a real problem with that view; namely, that (I think I mentioned this before) it assumes that the only reason people don’t kill their family members is because it’s illegal. I’m pretty sure that that isn’t the case. Maybe a small fraction of the population is like that, and only a small fraction of them will ever be put in that situation, thankfully, and the distress that results from maintaining the illegality far out ways (in my opinion) that other unfortunate problem.

Re: General
Also, making it illegal will not suddenly, or inexorably, lead to people devaluing life and killing loved ones—or making them not love them—at the drop of a hat. I can’t stress that enough, people. Interestingly, going back to the start, it is currently legal (if that website is legitimate) for a patient to refuse medical treatment, under the full knowledge that without that treatment they will die. This is (at least a form of) suicide. Yet our society hasn’t spun off uncontrollably into this descending spiral of moral decay, where angst ridden teens knock themselves, and anyone that looks at them cock-eyed, off because their favourite emo track got remixed one too many times. It won’t happen.

Article: http://www.aph.gov.au/library/Pubs/bd/1996-97/97bd045.htm