Euthanasia now legal in Australian state

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world...ate/ar-AAD5TfY
Terminally ill Australians can for the first time apply to end their own life, after new laws went into effect in the state of Victoria Wednesday.

The country's second most populous region made voluntary euthanasia legal under closely specified circumstances, a first for the country.
Victorian Premier Daniel Andrews -- who supported the bill after his father's death from cancer in 2016 -- said the laws were about giving patients a "dignified option at the end of their life".
"We've taken a compassionate approach," Andrews told commercial broadcaster Channel Nine, adding that he hoped it would bring people the dignity of a "good death."
Assisted suicide is illegal in most countries and in Australia until Victoria state introduced laws to legalise the practice in 2017.
The scheme will be accessible only to terminally ill adult patients with fewer than six months to live -- or one year left to live for sufferers of conditions such as motor neurone disease and multiple sclerosis.
Multiple restrictions will be put in place, including residency requirements and assessments from multiple doctors, meaning around 12 people are expected to use the law this year.
Andrews said that up to 150 might use the law each year after that. An independent review board and a coroner will track and monitor all deaths.
Other states in Australia have debated assisted dying in the past, but the proposals have always been defeated.
But experts said other states will now be watching closely to see how the law is implemented and whether they should follow suit.
"Although over forty attempts to change the law in Australia have failed in the past, more recent reform efforts appear to be getting closer to laws changing," Ben White from Queensland University of Technology's Australian Centre for Health Law Research said.
"Western Australia, Queensland and South Australia (states) all have inquiries considering change."
The law has been criticised for being both too permissive and too stringent.
Prominent Australian euthanasia activist Philip Nitschke told Melbourne's The Age that the safeguards were "too strict and onerous" and could result in "challenges to the law pressing to broaden access".
The Catholic Archdiocese of Melbourne said in a statement that the law was a "new, and deeply troubling chapter of health care in Victoria".


State legal and inflicted human euthanasia is legal in Oregon, and other states. It is spreading to other countries. One of the DPST"Human health care rights" - the right of the State to terminate a person's existence.

It is for sure the DPST's in the Congress - led by Pelosi and Schumer- are quietly plotting new laws as part of the ACA to terminate irksome individuals.
Anyone labelled a Conservative or Republican will be classified as afflicted with an "incurable disease " and eligible for State Euthanasia.

So merciful on their part.

Do not laugh - it will come if the DPST's get a half assed chance at it.

Over/Under for the first US State to legalize euthanasia?
Over/Under for first pregnant woman who sues to be euthanized because she doesn't want her child and her to grow up in a world where Trump is President?

Euthanasia is legal in Washington, D.C. and the states of California, Colorado, Oregon, Vermont, New Jersey (Starting August 1, 2019), Hawaii, and Washington; its status is disputed in Montana.
Vermont - Bernie is looking forward to extending the provisions of the law.
I'll take your bet - Gnadfly!

so what is the objection to this? why shouldn't a terminally ill patient be allowed to end their suffering?

what moral and/or religious grounds can be made against it?

why wouldn't the so-called compassion of religion allow it?

what about forcible rape? why should a woman be forced to have a child created by rape? how can you call that humane in the name of religion? or any other rational argument?

same with risk to the woman's life or forcing a woman to carry to term a knowingly deformed child? and care for it for the rest of her life? what happens after she dies? who takes care of the child then? The State? her family?

Adoption is not a solution either. at least not a forced solution. if a woman wants to carry the child and then allow adoption by her religious views or any other rationale that's her choice and hers alone. the State and Religion have no moral ground to compel that. None.

could a man legally compel a woman to carry his child if she does not want to, even if by some iron clad legal agreement the man would take complete responsibility for the child?

now you've made women legal breeding stock at the whims of a man. Again if the woman agrees and only if the woman agrees, then ok.

Religion is why there is such controversy over abortion. and euthanasia. people make bad choices in life. having unprotected sex is one of them. why does religion dictate that the mother must have the child? to be born and raised in a bad environment? yeah .. that's not work out well. all you get is a criminal when they grow older. how does religion justify that result? what would religion say if this child becomes a murderer? would Jesus of Nazareth agree with that?

in the old days a deformed child would be killed out of mercy. and religion was a far greater influence then than today. any fans of "Vikings" here? Ragnar was going to leave Ivar to die but relented due to his wife. this was a common practice in the old days.

TWK - It is a very slippery slope to take - and the DPST leaders are looking forward to placing opposition in their own "AOC Concentration Camps"!
There is great similarity to the DPST tactics of today and those of the national Socialists in the 1930's.

TWK - It is a very slippery slope to take - and the DPST leaders are looking forward to placing opposition in their own "AOC Concentration Camps"!
There is great similarity to the DPST tactics of today and those of the national Socialists in the 1930's. Originally Posted by oeb11

if you are equating this to FEMA camps and the "NWO" you are grossly overreacting. it's paranoid conspiracy theory.

if you want to discuss euthanasia and/or abortion then discuss it. if you want to talk about NWO paranoia open another thread on it.

I believe I am the OP, TWK
Go open your own thread , and provide an article reference with it.

You are welcome to walk the DPST walk right into one of their "Concentration camps for re-education of "Right-thinkers'!!

Thank You!!

I believe I am the OP, TWK
Go open your own thread , and provide an article reference with it.

You are welcome to walk the DPST walk right into one of their "Concentration camps for re-education of "Right-thinkers'!!

Thank You!! Originally Posted by oeb11

so what if you are? arya .. gonna "ban" certain posters from your threads if ya don't agree with their posts?

you started a thread about the right to euthanasia for terminally ill people. so it's really about the NWO conspiracy to enslave the world? if that was your intent then you intentionally opened a misleading thread.

so i'll take it that you would prefer to be forced to live out your life drooling on yourself in a wheelchair because you think that euthanasia for the terminally ill is a pretext for the NWO globalists to take over the world and murder 75% of the population to save "Mother Gaia"?

the real conspiracy is that there is no conspiracy.

you are off the deep end on this stuff.

Normally I respect your posts - TWK
Not this thread.