All laws are open to abuse
Those who support euthanasia should look at what is happening in countries where it has been legalised. Despite so-called safeguards, the law is being abused. Safeguards are hard to enforce.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
Today, pressure is mounting for the Dutch government to legalise a “euthanasia pill” for those who are not ill, but simply consider their lives to be “full”.
Many people are worried about the erosion of protection for those who are “socially vulnerable” and “medically fragile”.
Geriatric care places are increasingly feeling pressure from families who want to euthanise family members.
This law is clearly a slippery slope with changes guaranteed if it becomes law.
Do you seriously think that Australia would be any different to to other countries? I think not.
Catherine McPhie, Epsom
Don’t deny me a choice
Beware the inevitable "slippery slope" arguments likely to emerge from the "no" camp. We have a bill before us with its focus solely on providing choice of death for those with interminable illness and suffering.
The contents of that bill alone should be the subject of the debate, not improbable circumstances that realistically would never come to pass.
If I ever faced a terminal illness and the suffering that goes with it, I would want a death of my choosing. I find it galling that, at present, I am denied that choice.
The "'no" campaigners want people to not have any choice, instead to endure an often protracted, painful, and undignified death. They are welcome to take this option for themselves. But don't take away my right for a more desirable and humane end to my own life.
Daniel Strachan, Wedderburn
Mixed messages confuse
I am writing in response to “Local refugees wary of changes” (Bendigo Advertiser, July 13).
It is troubling to read the Bendigo Karen community leader, Venerable Ashin Moonieinda, state that many of his 1000-strong local refugee community “don’t have high levels of English - they don’t do much reading and writing”.
According to Loddon Campaspe Multicultural Services executive officer Kate McInnes, entrants to Australia are entitled to 510 hours of free English lessons, provided locally by Bendigo Kangan Institute.
Despite this, it appears that there is a level of apathy in this portion of the community in relation to the importance of learning (and being fluent in) the English language.
Being fluent in the local language is the link to refugees being socially connected, employed and able to assimilate into the wider community.
I applaud the Government’s stance in requiring an acceptable command of the English language as part of the Australian citizenship requirements; non-compliance contributes to social isolation, unemployment and in some cases, anti-social behaviour.
I am not suggesting for one moment that this is the case in the Bendigo Karen population; however, these difficulties experienced by refugees have been widely reported in the metropolitan media.
Having said that, I do wonder how serious the government is in requiring a command of the English language.
I recently received an Australian government publication “Your Energy Savings”, which was distributed by Centrelink to all Australian residents eligible for the one-off Energy Assistance Payment.
On the reverse of the brochure it proudly explains that “We speak your language” with the brochure being printed in 33 different languages.
Why? The government is quite simply enabling non-English speaking residents. Considering the new legislation being introduced, it seems rather contradictory to me.