Everyone has a view of whether it should pass into legislation or not & some are already commenting on the legislation...and yet there is none. None at all, its not passed & its not even a draft bill.
In fact the McCusker led Expert Panel Report has only been submitted this week, just a few short days ago. So do I support the legislation? No, because there is none and we only have suggestions & views of what the draft bill will contain. Why would I support anything that has absolutely no details at all?
We do know that Victoria's up & running legal model has 6 months attached, the patient must be expected to pass away within 6 months. Whereas the WA model it will be pushed out to 12 months.
In Victoria 2 doctors are required to carry out an assessment & sign off on it before Euthanasia can commence. In WA it may end up being one doctor & one Nurse Practitioner due to the possible scarcity of doctors in rural & regional areas. Its a fair point, however in some areas it may be a bit of a wait for one doctor. I would have expected that this will be a procedure that won't be happening very often & where it does it's likely to be where greater medical attention & patient care is. It's in the palliative care stage and would hope there's more than one doctor within a 100km.
In Victoria, the patient must be a Victoria resident of at least 12 months. In WA there's a curious departure from that with McCusker report suggesting 6 months due to the large amount of FIFO people. I would imagine if you're a FIFO worker & you're considering euthanasia then you probably haven't been working for 6-12 months anyway. I guess there'll be exceptions but I don't think your primary workplace should be regarded as your primary place of residence. If the family home is in Adelaide & & you FIFO to the Pilbara...well its one for the legislators to ponder over.
Its likely also that it may not be allowable for a person with dementia or Alzheimer's. I guess that will be sorted out but knowing when a person was capable of making a rational decision is one thing, how long that decision has statute is another. You make the decision at 52 & 12 years later you're declining in health badly, does the decision still stand?
Personally not too phased, with the composition of the Lower & Upper House in WA I expect the legislation to receive full vigour.
Where I am a little worried is how the differing views might get presented.
I think there's a chance some who are more anti Christian than non Christian might see the chance to fire pot shots, possible too some people of faith will cite chapter & verse of the Bible/Quran/whatever holy scriptures and be either cop flak or hit a dead end.
Here's the thing. People of faith may well have a view that's formed from or by their faith. That's as valid as any other differing view. If people of faith though want to make any sort of progress they cannot make a faith based argument. Reason is that's called "arguing from authority" and if other people do not recognise nor adhere to that authority they won't be swayed by it and some may actually be further compelled to oppose it.
So a religious person can be motivated by their faith, but they should argue with a secular argument otherwise its just brick walls.
Having said that, I know it won't happen but people probably shouldn't cite their own experience. I know of a person who was at death's door but Euthanasia wasn't available. I won't be presenting his experience, his wishes at the time or explaining the immense pain & discomfort he was going through in his last 6-8 weeks stuck in hospital. Its only the technical aspects, or rather all the aspects de-personalised that is most valid.
Yes, his experience was confronting to say the very least but I cannot & won't use it to either support or oppose VAD. I can see many will take the opportunity to vent personal experience.
The Aust Medical Assoc. has apparently stated that VAD is not a medical matter therefore they are opposing it, citing it is contrary to all their professional values. Not sure if it was the AMA but I respect their view and we also have to respect the view of the doctors who will wish to not be involved in any VAD. I don't know if there'll be an opt in or opt out doctor's register but no one should be forced to assist in the death of anyone else.
How do I think it will pan out? Well at the risk of sounding like Doris Day with a "whatever will be will be" well...exactly that really. I think the proposed legislation will get run through the proverbial wringers and that is exactly what should happen with such a topic of such huge gravity.
Will there be a filibuster? Probably, don't care to be honest. All parties have done that so no one's got high moral ground to complain about that political tactic. I notice no one's pushing desperately for that to be abolished in legislation.
Its a bit like SSM, the sooner the government is not involved in it the better. Leave it to people's free choice & free will. From a Christian perspective, even if it were a sin that would deny someone of resurrection, its free will & that is a conservative value.
I think it will eventually pass but not before much pontificating and moralising from both sides.
Labor is dead set keen on bringing it in, but they mostly have an issue of straying into religious territory they cannot occupy. I expect they will claim it's immoral to oppose it, that the opposition (or those opposing it at least) are cold & immoral.
Here's the thing, making a moral claim you have to cite a moral code. If you're a humanist, an atheist, agnostic that gets pretty hard because you're taking on a moral judgement when you're either a moral relativist (what you think is moral must be...otherwise known as a personal opinion) or you've adopted society norms about which none are actually formed as its not legal yet. Which also leaves the uncomfortable possibility that a devout Labor follower could employ an intellectually corrupt tactic by claiming its "immoral" due to society law & it fails as a bill.
Again, it has to be de-personalised and secular, fully fact, evidence & data based.
It will be difficult and it will be politically charged.
This will likely be a left vs right barrage even if there's a quite a few from the non left supporting it.
Labor will champion this & will try to earn electoral mileage at every minor turn.
Exactly what the debate does not need.
In fact the McCusker led Expert Panel Report has only been submitted this week, just a few short days ago. So do I support the legislation? No, because there is none and we only have suggestions & views of what the draft bill will contain. Why would I support anything that has absolutely no details at all?
We do know that Victoria's up & running legal model has 6 months attached, the patient must be expected to pass away within 6 months. Whereas the WA model it will be pushed out to 12 months.
In Victoria 2 doctors are required to carry out an assessment & sign off on it before Euthanasia can commence. In WA it may end up being one doctor & one Nurse Practitioner due to the possible scarcity of doctors in rural & regional areas. Its a fair point, however in some areas it may be a bit of a wait for one doctor. I would have expected that this will be a procedure that won't be happening very often & where it does it's likely to be where greater medical attention & patient care is. It's in the palliative care stage and would hope there's more than one doctor within a 100km.
In Victoria, the patient must be a Victoria resident of at least 12 months. In WA there's a curious departure from that with McCusker report suggesting 6 months due to the large amount of FIFO people. I would imagine if you're a FIFO worker & you're considering euthanasia then you probably haven't been working for 6-12 months anyway. I guess there'll be exceptions but I don't think your primary workplace should be regarded as your primary place of residence. If the family home is in Adelaide & & you FIFO to the Pilbara...well its one for the legislators to ponder over.
Its likely also that it may not be allowable for a person with dementia or Alzheimer's. I guess that will be sorted out but knowing when a person was capable of making a rational decision is one thing, how long that decision has statute is another. You make the decision at 52 & 12 years later you're declining in health badly, does the decision still stand?
Personally not too phased, with the composition of the Lower & Upper House in WA I expect the legislation to receive full vigour.
Where I am a little worried is how the differing views might get presented.
I think there's a chance some who are more anti Christian than non Christian might see the chance to fire pot shots, possible too some people of faith will cite chapter & verse of the Bible/Quran/whatever holy scriptures and be either cop flak or hit a dead end.
Here's the thing. People of faith may well have a view that's formed from or by their faith. That's as valid as any other differing view. If people of faith though want to make any sort of progress they cannot make a faith based argument. Reason is that's called "arguing from authority" and if other people do not recognise nor adhere to that authority they won't be swayed by it and some may actually be further compelled to oppose it.
So a religious person can be motivated by their faith, but they should argue with a secular argument otherwise its just brick walls.
Having said that, I know it won't happen but people probably shouldn't cite their own experience. I know of a person who was at death's door but Euthanasia wasn't available. I won't be presenting his experience, his wishes at the time or explaining the immense pain & discomfort he was going through in his last 6-8 weeks stuck in hospital. Its only the technical aspects, or rather all the aspects de-personalised that is most valid.
Yes, his experience was confronting to say the very least but I cannot & won't use it to either support or oppose VAD. I can see many will take the opportunity to vent personal experience.
The Aust Medical Assoc. has apparently stated that VAD is not a medical matter therefore they are opposing it, citing it is contrary to all their professional values. Not sure if it was the AMA but I respect their view and we also have to respect the view of the doctors who will wish to not be involved in any VAD. I don't know if there'll be an opt in or opt out doctor's register but no one should be forced to assist in the death of anyone else.
How do I think it will pan out? Well at the risk of sounding like Doris Day with a "whatever will be will be" well...exactly that really. I think the proposed legislation will get run through the proverbial wringers and that is exactly what should happen with such a topic of such huge gravity.
Will there be a filibuster? Probably, don't care to be honest. All parties have done that so no one's got high moral ground to complain about that political tactic. I notice no one's pushing desperately for that to be abolished in legislation.
Its a bit like SSM, the sooner the government is not involved in it the better. Leave it to people's free choice & free will. From a Christian perspective, even if it were a sin that would deny someone of resurrection, its free will & that is a conservative value.
I think it will eventually pass but not before much pontificating and moralising from both sides.
Labor is dead set keen on bringing it in, but they mostly have an issue of straying into religious territory they cannot occupy. I expect they will claim it's immoral to oppose it, that the opposition (or those opposing it at least) are cold & immoral.
Here's the thing, making a moral claim you have to cite a moral code. If you're a humanist, an atheist, agnostic that gets pretty hard because you're taking on a moral judgement when you're either a moral relativist (what you think is moral must be...otherwise known as a personal opinion) or you've adopted society norms about which none are actually formed as its not legal yet. Which also leaves the uncomfortable possibility that a devout Labor follower could employ an intellectually corrupt tactic by claiming its "immoral" due to society law & it fails as a bill.
Again, it has to be de-personalised and secular, fully fact, evidence & data based.
It will be difficult and it will be politically charged.
This will likely be a left vs right barrage even if there's a quite a few from the non left supporting it.
Labor will champion this & will try to earn electoral mileage at every minor turn.
Exactly what the debate does not need.
Watch this Space
No comments:
Post a Comment