A1 Arguments in support of voluntary euthanasia A1. One common method is the gas chamber. When euthanasia is accomplished by adding a lethal solution to water or food, adequate installations shall be provided for feeding and watering which are sufficiently enclosed in order to provide for protection from contamination by feces, uric acid, feathers, and any other debris.
If religious people object to voluntary euthanasia, they need not ever request euthanasia. For some pet owners, the emotion may be too overwhelming, but for many, it is a comfort to be with their pet during the final moments.
In a humane society the prevention of suffering and the dignity of the individual should be uppermost in the minds of those caring for the terminally ill. Territory citizens are considered sufficiently responsible to make their own wills, to marry, to ask for removal of life support, and arrange financial transactions, without interference from an authoritarian state.
This is a right that Angelique Flowers was denied. The territories should not have to live with the uncertainty of not knowing which laws will be overturned, or which powers will be revoked, whenever some Commonwealth leaders feel inclined to force their religious values on people.
The slippery slope argument is a common sensationalist argument of the clergy and other euthanasia opponents. Only terminally ill individuals themselves know what harm is. The injection process allows staff to provide personal comfort to each animal in its last moments, which may greatly offset the emotional stress.
However, if normal precautions e. The injection process allows staff to provide personal comfort to each animal in its last moments, which may greatly offset the emotional stress. Abuse of the chamber is common.
The right to die with dignity is justifiable The Euthanasia Laws Act was not legislation born of a need to legislate for the territories to ensure the national good, as those who drafted the Constitution might have envisaged, but rather an attempt to impose the predominantly religious view of the leaders of the previous socially-conservative government on as many Australians as possible.
Some people would like to choose the option of euthanasia. Consequently, such patients will be considered ineligible for euthanasia. In some, perhaps many cases, the need for assisted suicide and active voluntary euthanasia will be reduced through developments in palliative care.
Accordingly, democratic societies can make laws to prohibit murder and robbery, but should not make laws to prohibit sex before marriage, religion, or voluntary euthanasia.
The Northern Territory law dictates that the patient must personally initiate the process, consider the options for treatment and palliative care, be psychologically assessed, sign a request, obtain second opinions, consider the effect on the family, use qualified interpreters if necessary and endure a cooling off period.
Should we, on the other hand, be a little more circumspect in how easily we apply euthanasia to our animal companions?
Voluntary euthanasia is the humane, moral and civilised outcome for Australia and consistent with providing dignity for terminally ill patients who want it.
The Euthanasia is it humane to life argument in the context of voluntary euthanasia has no ethical merit. In recent times there has been an ongoing debate about the diverse and multicultural society in which we as Australians all live. To be denied the right to make this decision is a blight on democracy.
The second reading speech for the Euthanasia Laws Act by Kevin Andrews MP referred to economic pressures on terminally ill patients, but not in a way that reflects a tight monetary situation.
The Euthanasia Laws Act, in prohibiting the territory governments from enacting voluntary euthanasia legislation, limits the ability of territories to govern themselves.
But for all practical purposes, they can be ruled out. The territories should not have to live with the uncertainty of not knowing which laws will be overturned, or which powers will be revoked, whenever some Commonwealth leaders feel inclined to force their religious values on people.
The most common methods are discussed here, but there are other acceptable methods used in different situations. Those who opt for quantity of life regardless of the pain or suffering might not want voluntary euthanasia, and they need never request it.
They should not be denied the right to have a peaceful death, a right that does not directly affect others.
It claims that if right to assisted suicide and active voluntary euthanasia were instituted, it would lead to an increased rate of non-voluntary euthanasia, then euthanasia of those who are not attractive to society, those with fanatical political beliefs, extreme religious or cultural values and so on.
A2 A refutation of some arguments against voluntary euthanasia A2. To deny terminally ill patients the right to euthanasia is to condemn them to a miserable existence, contrary to their wishes.
However, as many terminally ill patients consider that the quality of their life is more important than staying alive, the option of a peaceful death to alleviate their pain and suffering is a more humane and valid alternative.
The gist of the above analogies is that not providing the option of voluntary euthanasia in the above situations is inhumane and callous. Acceptable physical methods must first cause rapid loss of consciousness by disrupting the central nervous system."Euthanasia Agency" means an entity certified by the State for the purpose of animal euthanasia that holds an animal control facility or animal shelter license under the Animal Welfare Act.
(d) "Euthanasia Drugs" means substances that are used by a euthanasia agency for the purpose of animal euthanasia. That is why we offer a Humane Euthanasia Services at no-cost to the public. This service is designed to assist pet owners in providing their suffering pets with compassionate relief from illness, disease, or severe aggression.
PETA, The American Veterinary Medical Association, and The Humane Society of the United States concur that an intravenous injection of sodium pentobarbital administered by a trained professional is the kindest, most compassionate method of euthanizing animals.
It is an individual decision whether or not you and your family want to be present during the euthanasia procedure. For some pet owners, the emotion may be too overwhelming, but for many, it is a comfort to be with their pet during the final moments.
Euthanasia is about individual choice and dignity, and for that reason it is a rational and humane cause. Until parliaments have the courage and commitment to act and provide that choice, ordinary Australians will continue to take matters into their own hands.
PETA, The American Veterinary Medical Association, and The Humane Society of the United States concur that an intravenous injection of sodium pentobarbital administered by a trained professional is the kindest, most compassionate method of euthanizing animals.Download