Monday, June 19, 2017

Assisted dying polls

From ACT's Free Press:
"The End-of-Life Choice Society have released a Horizon Poll showing 75 per cent of New Zealanders want assisted dying legalised. Taking out don’t-knows, only 11 per cent are opposed. This is extraordinary support, and is consistent with previous polls from Reid Research (71-24) Colmar Brunton (75-20) and Curia (66-20). It is time for opponents to concede that, whatever other arguments they may have, public opinion is overwhelmingly in favour of change."
As previously stated, I'll not try and persuade or argue with detractors. Each is entitled to their view and they can express it here. Just don't tell me that there is some 'greater good' reason for ceding autonomy over my ending (within the context of this bill).

27 comments:

Redbaiter said...

Son: Mum, you've been sick for a while and we, your sons and daughters, are finding it very difficult to meet the costs of your treatment.

Mum: OK son, what are you saying?

Son: Well we think you've had a pretty fair innings, you're 75 now. The money spent keeping you alive would be better spent on education etc for your grandchildren. We think you should agree to be euthanized.

Mum: OK son, I can see how it would be selfish of me to cling to life when it is causing you and your siblings and all the grandchildren such hardship. Get the papers drawn up, and let's get it done.

Psycho Milt said...

Son: Well we think you've had a pretty fair innings, you're 75 now. The money spent keeping you alive would be better spent on education etc for your grandchildren. We think you should agree to be euthanized.

You need to present a case for how the above conversation would be more likely to occur than its current equivalent:

Son: Well we think you've had a pretty fair innings, you're 75 now. The money spent keeping you alive would be better spent on education etc for your grandchildren. We think you should commit suicide.

Good luck making that case, because there isn't one.

Mark Hubbard said...

Straight from the gutter of your own mind, Red. Most of us have loving, functional families still. (Always thought that's what you promoted?)

This bill is only about those who are terminally ill within 12 months of death. They will have to be of sound mind and convince two independent doctors of their wish to die with dignity: that's plenty of safeguards: your shameless, disgusting scare-mongering is just that; shameless, disgusting scare-mongering. Although at least you're not using Lindsay's forum to accuse her on cheering on youth suicide (which as I stated, has nothing to do with this bill, your conflation of the two sheer evil).

You have no right, none, to be making the decision about the manner of my death if I want to leave a valueless, pain-racked body with my loved ones around me. I wish no right in any decision concerning your death. That also has always been the value system you push (when convenient to you).

You say you're not Xian, however, your argument, it's essential dishonesty, it's bullying disregard of MY rights, it's callousness of results (Rosie Mott dying alone gasping for breath with a plastic bag over her head) is Xian all right.

My choice doesn't affect you. You have no right to be in this debate. And you've lost me on anything else you promote because I do not like a bully who uses vicious emotive blackmail like you're using across last two threads. Same tactics - emoting over reason - that the SJW's you hate use.

Mark Hubbard said...

Just read Psycho Milt's post: spot on. Again pointing out the dishonesty at the heartlessness of Red and his compassionless, busy-body God-Squad trying to force their primitive beliefs into the beds of the dying where they have no right to be.

Anonymous said...

Personal responsibility. What's not to like?

Most likely mum is gaga anyway and dooped up to the eyeballs in a "rest" home. Sans teeth, sans eyes, sans taste, sans everything.

If the kids can't pay or won't pay - who should? Taxpayers? Singapore style court orders confiscating relatives assets? Or the resthome throw mum onto the street.

Don W said...

Redbaiter, what you are proposing is murder not euthanasia. When adult children want to bump off their old mum who has past her use by date and has become a nuisance, that is not euthanasia. No doubt when you are forcing your mum to sign the papers to end her life, you will also be forcing her to change her will in your favour. Would you like your children to do that to you.?

Mark Wahlberg said...

Went out for popcorn, what have I missed?

Redbaiter said...

"a Horizon Poll showing 75 per cent of New Zealanders want assisted dying legalised"

And they vote this way for what reason exactly? Because they subscribe to the view that "No one owns your life but you". Or any other so called Libertarian based reason? This is nonsense, and we know this because- No one votes for Libertarians. Once they garnered 8000 votes, but since then their support has dwindled to the stage where they can't finance an election run. Overwhelmingly NZers prefer to vote for a collection of despicable statists.

NZers have for decades voted for more and more govt in their lives. Voted for more and more of their income to be stolen. A referendum to reduce the size of govt failed dismally. So from these facts we can deduce one thing. NZ is not today a country that puts any great value on personal liberty.

So that isn't the basis of their support for mass suicide of the elderly.

So what is the true basis for this support? Its the same basis that convinced them to vote for redefining marriage. So limp were they on this issue they didn't even demand a referendum, but passed the decision on to those they obviously regard as their elitist betters. The bunch of mainly statist scum that populate the Beehive.

They'll support the legalising of drugs for the same reason. Not because they value personal liberty, but because they've been persuaded over decades that this would be the cool thing to do. Persuaded by such fatuous argument as "the war on drugs doesn't work" when at the same time they lamely submit to the idea that a war on guns will work, and all we ever need there is more legislation and more control. Just keep ceding more and more of your rights to govt and eventually all gun crime will disappear.

These are the people who support aged suicide because it represents some kind of freedom to them?? Never, and only a complete idiot would make this assumption.

The real reason lies in remarks above from Psycho Marxist. Note how he's drawn to euphemisms? Note how the value of life is not the issue to him? Its merely a matter of semantics. Of pedantry.

Psycho Marxist, an unrelenting communist for all of his life, is cheering for the suicide of the elderly. He really doesn't see anything wrong with it or any danger. That's because he's actually a victim.

Cont/.....

Redbaiter said...

Psycho is not so much a Cultural Marxist himself. He's a victim of Cultural Marxism. His tiny brain has thrived on his great gulps of Marxist kool-ade over decades. He doesn't know it, which is how its meant to work of course. The greatest success of the strategy lies in its stealth and gradualism. Frogs in slowly warming water.

Most of NZ has been infected with this disease, and more so in recent times, and it is this infection that pushes the country's thinking towards support for suicide of the elderly. As it pushes it towards so many ideas designed to divide us, destroy our culture, destroy our unity, destroy our social homogeneity and leave us ripe for eventual communist revolution.

Cultural Marxism and Critical Theory have a number of primary objectives, but the one we are concerned with here is the breaking down of our traditional Western values. The same idea that underpinned the redefinition of traditional marriage. That being the gradual destruction of everything that cemented us into an homogenous united functioning society.

The left want our values destroyed. All of them, so that when they eventually take over, they can rebuild from scratch. The value being attacked and weakened here is the value we put on life. Always a defining characteristic of our Western civilisations. We sacredly revere each person's life. While sub-cultures across the globe, noticeable for being behind us in terms of human achievement, do not share this value. North Korea today. Cambodia some time ago. Germany when the Jews were dehumanised.

Not today, you see. But further down the track. This is just one step in thousands the left have planned over their long journey. As same sex marriage. As drug legalisiation, so is killing of the aged. The gradual undermining of the values that cement our culture and our society to bring slow but sure political advantage and ultimate victory to the left.

Those who see it as some kind step towards liberty are tragically wrong. In truth and reality, and over the long term, it is a step in the opposite direction.

Mark Hubbard said...

Red, you're so busy falling over cultural Marxists under your bed, you've allowed yourself to be at best a bully - you are no different to a SJW anymore - at worst, a mindless drone.

You say, quote: '"a Horizon Poll showing 75 per cent of New Zealanders want assisted dying legalised" ... And they vote this way for what reason exactly? Because they subscribe to the view that "No one owns your life but you". Or any other so called Libertarian based reason? This is nonsense, and we know this because- No one votes for Libertarians. Once they garnered 8000 votes, but since then their support has dwindled to the stage where they can't finance an election run.'

I despair. The issue of euthanasia has nothing to do with idiot party politics, libertarians or elections. That 75% probably have never heard of the Libertarian party, because it's not relevant. The majority of Kiwis want a compassionate (rights based) euthanasia law. That law won't affect any of the decisions you make around your death, so you have no right to force your will on that majority and their individual rights.

And of course in your last post you then draw in same-sex marriage (no link to euthanasia), drug legalisation (no direct relationship to euthanasia other than medicinal cannabis should be freely available for pain relief), etc. You bring these in because you are a bigot and bully. Correction, re euthanasia and your bigotry against same-sex marriage: a Christian bully-boy. You disgust me. And God help us, we have a parliament full of meddling bullies like you.

Tim Darlington said...

Thanks for the personality assessment. Did you have any argument for why that conversation would be more likely to occur if the bill passes than it is now, or are we supposed to infer one from your ramblings about "cultural Marxism"?

Redbaiter said...

NZ's political problems are exacerbated by the insularity of its population. A weakness fully exploited by a sinister and cynical media, who decides for them what they should know and what they should not know. Who tells them what to care about and what not to care about.

NZ voters are generally blissful enough about being exploited in this manner. They are largely unaware the media has changed from a relatively objective organisation reporting on unfolding events into a manipulative force working towards a common global political objective.

This compromised media force make sure the big picture is concealed, and voters are encouraged in an obsession with minutiae. Elections are not fought on any significant policy differences. The mission is to discredit any political group that might provide voters with an option other than socialism.

The insularity of NZers and the deceit of the political group posing as the media are two factors helping to obscure the fact that the same pattern is being followed in every Western county. UK, Canada, Australia, USA, all the same issues are being driven by the same forces. Its an obvious pattern.

The pattern is a strategy, and the groups behind that strategy are always the same kind of people with the same objective. Anyone who looks at the big picture, globally and over time, can see that objective is plainly global socialism.

A plethora of insular gape jawed stooges (AKA useful idiots) like to claim this coordinated effort does not exist, or that to claim it does marks one as a conspiracy theorist. Absurd and silly, when those behind the plan make their intent clear in any number of publications readily available to the public. Its no conspiracy. The plan is in plain sight.

Socialist International (Helen Clark was a senior figure there for many years, and still is AFAIK) have thousands of words on their website explaining the strategy and guiding disciples in its application. Saul Alinsky, recognised as a long term mentor of both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, has laid it out in his book Rules for Radicals, and western universities are busy everywhere feeding these ideas to naive gullible students.

Broadly, the idea is a cultural revolution that eventually breaks down our cohesive societies (mainly by attacking our bedrock values) to the point where we are so divided and weak socialists can assume total power. With every group opposing them gradually extinguished.

To ignore this plan, or claim it does not exist, especially when that is done by those who claim to value liberty, is the utmost folly.

To join in and in blind ignorance push the very ideas, little or big, designed to bring this plan to its conclusion is even worse. Ironically, it could easily go by the euphemism "assisted euthanasia" of Western society. More accurately suicide.

Mark Hubbard said...

Red: tell me what right you have at my bedside determining the circumstances of my death?

It's as simple as that. Explain it to me.

And without mentioning your mantra of cultural marxism - WHICH HAS NOTHING AT ALL TO DO WITH THE EUTHANASIA DEBATE - answer to PyschoMilt's first question to you on this thread.

You're a typical bully: very good at strutting around like a peacock in jackboots telling us all how to live in the drek dystopia you would create, but you never answer a straight, relevant question. You really have become what you hate: look i the mirror - it's a SJW. Milt and I - who have very different politics - have given you two pertinent questions: answer them clearly, concisely. You're at my bedside, you've muscled Mrs H outside, and for some reason you think you have a right to deny me a death with dignity even though that doesn't affect you, so as you hand me the Glad plastic bags, you tell me why as I gasp for breath in the barbaric death YOU forced on the likes of Rosie Mott, why you are there?

Any respect I may have had for you in the past, is totally used up.

Mark Wahlberg said...

How does my dying an ugly prolonged death by way of terminal cancer stop the march and domination of world socialism?

Redbaiter said...

Countries that have been to the abyss usually have a much more mature understanding of Progressives and their strategies than New Zealand. Take Poland for example. Suffering so much from the past predations of various ideological tyrants and invaders it is now a solidly conservative nation.

Unsurprisingly, support for legalised suicide there is relatively low. Neither do they support drug legalisation and/ or homosexual marriage. The also value their Christian heritage. They are a strong united coherent country, starkly different to many of their progressive European neighbors.

They will not go the way of France, Venezuela, Chicago, or Baltimore (for example). Places that have enthusiastically elected progressive politicians and supported their policies, and now risk losing everything.

Its worth giving a a bit of thought to the value of Christianity. Explain why one doesn't have to be a believer to appreciate its worth.

Progressives hate Christianity for its a serious (although not the only) bulwark against their own religion. Marx hated it. Stalin hated it. Nth Korea tries to stamp it out. The totalitarian thugs and murderers running China try to extinguish it. They all recognise it as a serious obstacle to their wish for complete and utter power over the people.

Our Christian heritage made England and its colonies the strongest and the most free nations on earth. The gradual destruction of this heritage can only have one aim, and that is to destroy that freedom. Look at the UK today. Gone. No freedom of speech anymore. People jailed for thought crimes. They are a nation that yielded fully to Progressives, and now they pay the price. They are not Poland.

Canada is fast heading for the same destination as the UK. The battle rages in the US and Australia. NZ has long ago surrendered, much like the UK, and it will only be a matter of time here before we are as lost as that country.

Its remarkable how any people here claim to revere freedom but subscribe enthusiastically to ideas that will eventually destroy it. As I said in a previous comment, the effectiveness of Cultural Marxism lies in its stealth and gradualism, and its ability to infect so many victims without their knowledge.

That is the big picture. Give progressives everything they want and there's no doubt whatsoever that they will eventually have the total power that is their obsession. NZ can be Venezuela or Poland. In my humble opinion the die is already cast, but I will not be part of that decline and neither will I support any ideas that I think will accelerate it.

Mark Hubbard said...

Christian Red: none of that comment has anything to do with dying with dignity. Nothing at at all. It's just a parade of your bigotry.

Go away, Red. Just go away you inhuman monster.

Mark Hubbard said...

Again, Red, have the guts to give a straight answer: tell me what right you have at my bedside determining the circumstances of my death?

It's as simple as that. Explain it.

Do you believe I own my body? You obviously don't, so why do you own me?

Mark Wahlberg said...

I said to myself 'Look, but don't touch,leave it alone, no good will come of it."

But here I am, like Red, my fingers are possessed.

Poland!! That's Red's shinning example of enlightenment?

I read an article from a recent Economist magazine which suggested Poland, after recent elections, was heading toward becoming an Illiberal Democracy. I didnt know what that meant, so I asked my friend Mr Google? Its just a fancy term for a new age totalitarian dictatorship.

Like Red I dispair at the state of politics in new Zealand today. Living as I do in the old Blue Ribbon seat of Keith Holyoake's Pahiatua electorate, which by the way was gifted to John Falloon when Holyoake became Governor General. It was often joked the National Party could stand Mickey Mouse in a blue ribbon seat and the faithful would elect him. I used to think this fanciful, until Todd Barclay arrived on the scene.

Now when I stare at the wall and contemplate life I ponder the thought- what if Jesus really did walk on water???

I on the other hand am a Pirate and have a peg leg. Water aside, I'm still trying to master walking on soft sand.........................

Anonymous said...

Frankly I don't believe that the poll is correct.
It's simply another name for suicide, and suicide is wrong.
It's also a PC/leftist wish, all fitting in with their agenda.
Course we will never get a binding referendum on it.

Redbaiter said...

Anonymous- Pretty much in agreement with you, although not sure about the poll. One needs to consider the effect of thousands of Lizzie Marvelly type communists being pumped out of a derelict education system controlled by post-modernist Marxists.

As well indoctrinated Progressives, they too will call anyone disagreeing with their collectivist mantras names and attempt to de-humanise them. Uncontrollable rage is also frequently part of it. Its all brainwashed people have.

Hate speech, so called bullying, homophobia, islamophobia, are all perverted concepts designed to shut down dissent, and its only a small step from this dehumanisation by words to putting people in camps and then there's the next step, which is killing them. These poor ignorant of history dupes don't realise the potential evil of the habits they have acquired.

As you say, the agenda is the thing, and there's been so little resistance these mis-educated thugs are now reaching plague proportions in the West. Its most notable that Libertarians, who profess to lust after liberty, have frequently sided with these barbarians in their mission to destroy everything that made the West great.

Gary Johnson, who ran for selection as Republican party candidate was an absolute buffoon. Evan McMullin who ran representing the Libertarian party is even worse. In their enthusiastic support for multi-culturalism (just one example, but probably the worst) these idiots have the potential to totally destroy Western society and the freedoms it cherishes.

This is the thing with Libertarians, and its sad they cannot see that aligning themselves with the Marxist destroyers of the West is a massive mistake. Its a policy that puts one in mind of the Vichy Police in France and their alignment with the Nazi Party.

As for the issue here, these mantras about "ownership" demonstrate that Libertarianism is a Scientology like cult rather than the reasoned ideology it makes itself out to be. They make an illiberal extension of the private property concept that has underpinned Western freedoms for so long and try to apply it to their body or their life or their thoughts or whatever. Artificial inverted navel gazing ideas that have no basis in reality.

Its an approach that would be tolerable at least except for the fact they commonly use these misconceptions as the basis for supporting the Marxists.

"Ownership" of ones life or one's body just doesn't work as a rational concept, and its sad to see such confusion giving rise to support for the enemies of our Western culture and its traditional reverence for liberty.

Mark Hubbard said...

No, ffs, euthanasia has nothing to do with Marvelly.

Again, comparing euthanasia in the circumstances of this bill to suicide is pure evil (and childish).

I hope MPs read this thread so they see that those bullies against allowing individuals this rational and compassionate choice are superstitionists, frankly insane, and not worth the time of day.

Red, in your argument above you are barking. In your refusal to answer a direct question - what gives you the right to govern circumstances of my death - you are a dishonest, cowardly charlatan. I used to have respect for you; that is completely gone.

Redbaiter said...

"In your refusal to answer a direct question - what gives you the right to govern circumstances of my death"

My time on the internet is limited. I can't waste it responding to idiotic tangled twisted questions produced by a thought process that has no connection with reality.

You are here enthusiastically advocating for govt to have that right, (via new legislation covering hundreds of pages) and apparently totally blind to this contradiction.

Don't expect me to respond to any more incorrectly premised gobbeldy gook questions. If you've got an argument, then lay out the case. Mindless and simplistic questions begging an answer you want and will approve of won't do it.

Here is a real question for you, re the scenario in my opening comment. This is going to happen. Without a doubt. How many such sly murders will you countenance as a result of your legislative victory?

One? Two? Five hundred? How many are acceptable? Deal with the goddamn reality for once.

MaryLou said...

"My choice doesn't affect you. You have no right to be in this debate. And you've lost me on anything else you promote because I do not like a bully who uses vicious emotive blackmail like you're using across last two threads. Same tactics - emoting over reason - that the SJW's you hate use."

Really Mark? Everyone's allowed a voice on this topic, even Red :).

I've long been a fence-sitter. You're quite right in what you say, but don't think for a moment the criteria won't change with time, and that there won't be some old-persons either guilted into it deliberately or not, or make the decision themselves without reference to their children. Like most, I want to see the safeguards written in both now and with any subsequent amendment, then I might be persuaded to vote yes. I'd say a lot of people feel the same way. Not necessarily against, just cautious of unintended consequences.

Redbaiter said...

I see Cameron Slater is taking the usual progressive view on this issue. But when did he ever stand against Cultural Marxism? Today he writes-

"All that aside, it is time we have this debate. Just like we did with Homosexual law reform and Marriage Equality"

We didn't have the debate. Politicians had the debate and arrogantly denied NZ citizens a referendum. I'm sure the same path will be followed on this issue. NZers will dotingly allow a house of confirmed statist scum to make the decision for them.

MaryLou- Good comment, thought you might like the following excerpt, from an article I read today. Cynical? Maybe, but I think the lady is speaking truth.

-------------------------------------------

Ilora Finlay has specialised in the care of the dying for more than 27 years. She is an independent member of the House of Lords and current president of the British Medical Association. She co-chairs Living and Dying Well, a think-tank, and opposes the Assisted Dying bill brought before the House of Lords by Lord Falconer last year. Here she describes some of her clinical experience.

JENNY (not her real name) was a week or so short of her sixtieth birthday when she came into the hospice. She had advanced cancer and she, and her family, knew the end was close. And her family were devoted. Not a day went by without one or more of them at her bedside.

We stabilised Jenny’s condition; she was comfortable, more independent and able to have quality time with her family. And, as often happens with good palliative care, the prospect of her imminent death receded. Then came her birthday. It was a muted affair, but understandably so as it was clearly her last.

But then the family visits gradually fell away. “It’s a pity your family can’t come so often these days,” one of the nurses said to Jenny. “Oh,” she replied. “They won’t be in so much now. You see, my fixed-term life insurance expired on my birthday.”

Mark Hubbard said...

Red, you say 'My time on the internet is limited. I can't waste it responding to idiotic tangled twisted questions produced by a thought process that has no connection with reality.'

But it's the simplest question. Why do you get to dictate the terms of my death, when I wish no such control over yours? Answer it.

Mark Hubbard said...

MaryLou

That's a red herring argument, and invalid scare-mongering. This bill only concerns those with terminal illness within 12 months of death. Anything outside of that requires new debate.

I'm sick and tired of this dishonesty from teh against bullies.

(For the record, I believe euthanasia should be available for a wider series of ills: such as paralysis, etc, anything where the value I place on life falls below the pain of living. It's my goddamned body and my life and death. But I don't get that with this bill. Stick to what the bill is about.)

Mark Hubbard said...

Mary-Lou, sorry, reading deeper into your answer:

There is plenty of safeguard with this bill. The person has to be of sound mind, and convince two independent doctors of their wish to die with dignity. That's fine by me.

And it's not about the safeguards. They come. The debate is about my right to die with dignity and that's no one else's business. We know there will be car crash deaths: that doesn't mean any of us advocate the end of driving cars. We need the right granted, the safeguards follow in tandem with that.