Posted on 08/31/2006 6:50:45 PM PDT by Aussie Dasher
SOUTH Australia's Parliament has voted to block the internet version of a speech from Australian Democrats MP Sandra Kanck which detailed ways to commit suicide.
The Government last night presented a motion to Parliament's upper house which called for Ms Kanck's comments not to be displayed on Parliament's website.
The motion was passed 10 votes to nine, with the Liberal opposition voting against the proposal on the grounds it would set a dangerous precedent.
The speech will be included in the Parliament's hansard but deleted from the Hansard version placed on the internet.
The vote followed a decision by state Cabinet to prevent Ms Kanck's controversial comments from becoming widely available.
On Wednesday, Ms Kanck used the protection of parliamentary privilege to detail how people could commit suicide, saying she wanted to challenge federal laws.
Under Commonwealth law, it is illegal to distribute information about suicide by electronic means – but such material can be given face to face, or provided in a letter.
By giving her address in SA's Legislative Council, Ms Kanck's speech was required to be recorded in the Hansard and also on Parliament's website – contravening the federal law.
Ms Kanck, a life member of SA's Voluntary Euthanasia Society, said she wanted to provoke a "constitutional clash" between the federal and SA parliaments that would result in the federal law being declared unconstitutional.
But Premier Mike Rann described her action as shameful.
"Even though the experts told her about the damage she might do she decided to go ahead with it anyway," he said.
"That demonstrates a shameful lack of responsibility because if just one person follows the methods she outlined in the Parliament, she will have a death on her conscience."
Mr Kanck remained defiant today and said the Government had shown it was out of touch with the community in its moves against her speech.
Tap dance and bring up Oregon all you want. In Holland they brought in assisted suicide for just the reasons you cite--so people could "control their lives and destinies." That is the consequence of the idea you propose. Sure, in theory it might be possible to let folks off themselves with a doctor's help and build a strong wall between bad actors and the vulnerable, but we have to deal with what IS, and at this pint we have a state that would be glad to turn "control" into "enforced obligation," maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, but soon, and for the rest of our likely shortened lives.
You also obviously don't have a grasp on how many people considering assisted suicide are not mentally competent to make the decision. If you have a severe depression and call Dr. Kevorkian, you're not controlling your destiny, your depression is.
What's sad is when stuff like what TR's Nana's doctor wanted to do gets lumped in with the many people who die from morphine overdoses because they're already terminal and dealing with the pain becomes so important the patient can be prescribed a dose that is eventually lethal.
I couldn't possibly make up stuff as funny as this!
She should practice what she preaches!!!
She seems to be doing so...making her own choice as to when to die. Is self-governance really so difficult a concept to understand?
Ah, how I hear the echoes of that phrase through the ages... "In theory, it might be possible to let those peasants run a Republic..."..."In theory, it might be possible to let (dark) folks run their own lives..."..."In theory, it might be possible to let those citizens possess their own arms..."..."In theory, it might be possible to let those citizens decide whether to attend church..."
You also obviously don't have a grasp on how many people considering assisted suicide are not mentally competent to make the decision.
On the contrary, I am quite aware of the claim you make. Have you ever seen me argue against getting adequate care for those who are depressed? Four out of five depressed patients can be helped.
However, you seem unaware that psychiatric treatment is imperfect; one in five patients have depression that is treatment-resistant, and many thousands of people remain in hell despite seeking treatment. Is the pain of someone considered less important because we label him "mentally competent"?!?
If you have a severe depression and call Dr. Kevorkian, you're not controlling your destiny, your depression is.
And if you are hungry and call for pizza, you're not controlling your destiny, your hunger is. And if you have a headache and take an aspirin, you're not controlling your destiny, your headache is. Sorry, but this argument doesn't justify the State controlling your destiny, either. However, I am aware of no state in the USA that fails to address the possibility of mental incompetence via a clear procedure (e.g., involuntary committment, observation, etc.).
Throughout human history, civilizations have decided on what conditions are to be socially acceptable for suicide. Nowdays, it seems to be "terminal illness" only...but in the past and around the globe, it has been such disparate reasons as "broken romance" to "honor" to poverty"...each considered appropriate at times, while considered "a silly reason to die" at others. Fact is, America should get back to its roots of respecting individuals and their own preferences.
We are in agreement, my FRiend.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.