|
Youth in Asia? or Euthanasia? |
For many, the euthanasia issue probably holds even less interest for them than if the topic was ‘youth in Asia’.
The push for the legalisation of euthanasia is now firmly back on the agenda for Greens Leader, Bob Brown. According to Senator Brown, “My bill will restore the legitimacy of the Northern Territory legislation allowing voluntary euthanasia for terminally ill patients after rigorous conditions have been applied. The bill will effectively support the Australian Capital Territory to legislate for voluntary euthanasia as well”.
Brown states that every opinion poll since the 1980’s shows the vast majority want euthanasia along the lines of what the Netherlands and the USA state of Oregon permit, yet he doesn’t quote the names of any of the studies – were you polled and asked your opinion on euthanasia?
Yet again the “dignified death” wheelbarrow is being pushed. Is it truly dignified to die with a plastic bag over your head complete with gas cylinder oozing helium into the bag for you to inhale after you have swallowed enough sleeping pills to “make you sleepy but not sick” as per an insider’s information at one of the Exit Australia meetings in 2005? The aim of the sleeping pills is to help you fight the natural urge to remove the plastic bag which restricts your breathing in fresh air. “The helium is used as it is heavier than air and would push out the air in the bag” and “helium becomes untraceable in the human body as it doesn’t bind to blood and cannot be detected,” according to one of the speakers at that meeting. It was also mentioned that you would be found with a “bright pink face” due to this method of dying – yep, sounds dignified to me.
Seems the euthanasia lobby will consider many methods to increase their numbers - if they could “go to the politicians with 50,000 (members) instead of 500 they would see changes made to the law due to the pressure” commented one elderly woman at the meeting. She commented that this was the reason that she had joined the Independent Retirees Association – to encourage them to join the Voluntary Euthanasia group! So one wonders how successful has she been to date? And what have each one of us done to spread the life message to ensure euthanasia is never legalised? Now is your chance – firstly, write and thank those politicians who do not support the legalisation of euthanasia. Irrespective of your political alliance, we must commend those politicians who have publicly said that they will not support euthanasia and interestingly, two of those politicians have been the Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, and the Queensland Premier, Anna Bligh. (The relevant media articles have been included on page 2 of this newsletter).
If we do not commend them when they stand for life on a particular issue, we are missing an opportunity to encourage them to stand firm, and inform them that there are many like-minded people who do not think that euthanasia should be made legal. If they are not aware of the many life-minded people out there, they may just buckle under pressure when the next round for life is being fought.
Secondly write to Senator Bob Brown, Parliament House, Canberra ACT 2600 or GPO Box 404, Hobart TAS 7001, call 02 6277 3170 or fax 02 6277 3185 (Tas Ph 03 6224 3222 Fax 03 6224 2999) and express your disapproval of his move to push euthanasia. For those wishing to email, there is no listed email address on the Greens website http://www.bobbrown.org.au/900_contact.php but you can email direct from that link.
Remember stick to one or two points only per letter (and yes, write as often as you like), be polite, and keep it to one page. The term ‘slippery slope’ is well and truly overused, however, this would be the reality if euthanasia in introduced.
Please also write to all Queensland Senators.
Teresa Martin - State President |
|
Rudd explains why he opposes euthanasia
Excerpt from “The Sydney Morning Herald” 2 May 2008
Prime Minister Kevin Rudd remains opposed to voluntary euthanasia but says parliamentarians are entitled to a conscience vote on the issue. “Euthanasia was a complex and difficult area of medicine but laws allowing it could lead to the elderly and terminally ill thinking they were a burden on their loved ones,” he said.
Mr Rudd, who supported the Howard government’s decision, said he was opposed to the move. “I say that as someone who has ... been in family circumstances where you’ve seen people very near and dear to you, in the case of myself, my mother, who died of cancer,” he told Macquarie Radio Network. “It’s not pretty to watch but my own personal view ... these are matters for conscience votes. “If it becomes a matter for vote in the federal parliament, people exercise their conscience differently. You asked me directly what my view is, that’s it.
“The question of whether there would be another conscience vote on euthanasia depended entirely on what proposals were put forward across the country and how they impacted on the federal parliament,” he said. “It’s just my own personal view ... that if you changed the laws in this area, I do become concerned about the way in which these things can drift over time,” he said, “particularly in the attitude taken by older people themselves, or people with terminal illnesses, who then conclude that they are being an increasing burden to their families and then conclude that it’s in other people’s interests, not their own best interests, to seek euthanasia.”
No review of euthanasia laws - Bligh
Excerpt from “The Australian” 13 April 2008
QUEENSLAND Premier Anna Bligh has ruled out any review of her state’s euthanasia laws despite former Brisbane Lord Mayor, Clem Jones, leaving $5million in his Will to support the controversial practice. “At this stage I don’t see any persuasive argument that would make me of a mind to revisit this issue. The Queensland Government has no intention of revisiting legislation in relation to euthanasia.” Ms Bligh said she shared the conservative view on euthanasia held by her predecessor Peter Beattie.
“I have a very conservative view on euthanasia. I think it’s a very difficult area to legislate in,” she said. “And I know from my discussion with medical practitioners in this field that it could be a very slippery slope for parliaments to enter.
“I’m also of the view that the current Queensland parliament is likely to take a very conservative attitude on this as well.”
Germany Liberalises Stem Cell Law
(excerpt from www.bioedge.org, April 16, 2008)
Germany has loosened restrictions on embryonic stem cell research after a long debate - but creating embryonic stem cells there is still banned. German scientists will now be able to import human embryonic stem cells which were created before May1, 2007, increasing the number of stem cell lines available for research from 40 to 500.
The German debate over stem cells would be familiar to Americans, Britons or Australians. The issues and the opposing teams are more or less the same. But many Germans remember that doctors and scientists did appalling medical experiments on inmates of Nazi death camps. Hence, despite their generally progressive social policies, German lawmakers have exasperated scientists by refusing to authorise the creation and destruction of embryos for their experiments. Until now, German researchers could only work on stem cell lines created before January 1, 2002. Reactions to the changes were mixed.
The head of the Max Planck Institute, Peter Gruss, commented that “the changes give German researchers the chance to stay competitive internationally”. But the premier of Bavaria, Guenther Beckstein, regarded them as a dangerous precedent. “My worry is that it will now become easier to further undermine the protection of unborn life,” he said.
“Pregnant Man”
Thomas Beatie, the pregnant man from Oregon USA, has been showcasing ‘his’ pregnancy on any media outlet taking ‘his’ story. Sensationalist headlines of “Pregnant Man”, “Man who used to be a woman pregnant with baby girl” and the like have hit our screens and papers.
There is nothing newsworthy in this article - it boils down to the fact that a woman is pregnant, a totally natural and highly unsensational event in the normal course of life. Whilst the exterior of this person may appear male due to the removal of breasts and the use of hormone treatment, Thomas’ internal organs are those of any other woman. The method used to impregnate her may not have been the norm but a woman being pregnant is.
The question to be asked is this, “What about the child?”
|
|
Insurer to Cover Birth Defects |
|
The Age Newspaper, Sunday 27 April 2008
by Louise Hall, Matthew Benns
EXPECTANT mothers will soon be able to insure unborn babiesagainst pregnancy complications, birth defects and death. Mothers whose children have disabilities such as blindness anddeafness or other congenital malformations - including spina bifida,Down’s syndrome and cleft palate - will receive $50,000 under an insurance policy launched this week.
Women suffering dangerous conditions, such as ectopic pregnancy,will get a $50,000 lump sum, while stillbirths qualify for a $10,000 payout.
The baby cover, offered through insurance giant ING, is the first ofits kind in Australia, possibly the world, and is aimed at the growingnumber of older mothers.
Australia’s median age for new mothers is almost 31, up from 27 in1985. A 25-year-old woman has a one-in-1400 chance of having a babywith Down’s Syndrome and one-in-500 chance of having a live babywith a chromosomal abnormality. But the risk for both defects rises to one in 60 for 40-year-old women. For women 35 or over, the risk ohaving a stillborn is one in 440, compared to one in 1000 for youngerwomen.
The baby policy, an optional extra in ING’s top life insurance, will be available to women aged from 16 to 40. There is a 12-month waiting period before starting, and the cover ends on the child’s second birthday. Premiums rise with age. A 32-year-old professional non-smoker earning $80,000 a year would pay an annual life premium of about $1440, including the $439 baby option. A 40-year-old woman would pay double that total amount.
ING spokesman Mark Vilo said the payouts could be used to cover medical expenses, adjustments to the home, mortgage repayments, replace salary or wages, pay for a carer, or cover funeral costs if the child died. The company would not require mothers to undergo genetic testing to predict if they had a greater chance of having a baby with a defect. However, the vice-president of the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists warned that women could be frightened into paying for insurance they did not need. Dr Edward Weaver said conditions covered under the policy such as eclampsia, infantile hydrocephalus and disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC) were rare. The plan does not cover complications of pregnancy due to IVF or miscarriage before 20 weeks’ gestation unless caused by one of four specific conditions (being eclampsia, DIC, hydatidiform mole and ectopic pregnancy).
Dr Weaver said the firm should be made to publish incidence rates of each of the conditions so women could assess if the premium was worthwhile.
“If people want to insure their baby that’s OK, but I’m concerned because these are quite rare conditions and most women won’t get them. If they did, most would terminate the pregnancy,” he said. “We haven’t had a DIC in our obstetrics unit in 10 years, yet the company could sign up women for the insurance when they have little< chance of needing it.”
Mother Inc founder Claudia Keech said insurance against birth defects would appeal to 21st century parents. “You insure your car against an accident, your house against a fire, so why not the health of your child or your pregnancy,” she said. |
|
Please consider Cherish Life in your will |
Below are the words to take to your solicitor when next you update your Will should you wish to include Queensland Right To Life as a beneficiary. Sadly the issues of abortion, euthanasia and embryonic stem cell research are unlikely to go away. QRTL needs to be able to continue fighting the good fight – please consider bequeathing to our longstanding pro-life organisation.
GIVE DEVISE AND BEQUEATH
The sum of ............................................................... dollars ($ ) to that incorporated association known as CHERISH LIFE QUEENSLAND INC. (the “Association”) or if at the date of my death the same shall not be in existence then to such organisation within the State of Queensland which (whether an incorporated or unincorporated association body corporate or other organisation) shall succeed the Association (the “Successor”). (For the purposes of this clause the expression “Successor” shall mean an incorporated or unincorporated association body corporate or other organisation which shall be formed upon a reconstitution of the Association). If at the time of my death there shall be no successor to the Association then my Trustee or Trustees for the time being shall appoint the incorporated or unincorporated association body corporate or other organisation within the State of Queensland which most closely approximates the objects of the Association as the beneficiary of the bequest pursuant to this clause. Any beneficiary of this bequest shall be entitled to apply the bequest for such purposes as shall be within the objects or powers of such beneficiary and my trustee or Trustees shall not be obliged to see to the application thereof. The receipt of the President, Secretary or Treasurer for the time being of any beneficiary pursuant to this clause shall be a full and complete discharge to my Trustee for the time being.
|
|
