Category Archives: Euthanasia

Regarding Dr. Roman Patricks letter to the editor, Take steps to reduce ever-increasing costs of medical care (July 26):

I am a dementia survivor. I had TBI (traumatic brain injury) dementia when I was in my 20s. It was a long fight but I have been able to make it into my 40s. And really, you talk of euthanasia?

I am also a dementia expert. I have five certifications and work everyday with people who have dementia. What I have found is that families and medical professionals have little education and help in dealing with someone with various forms of dementia. If they actually took the time to learn how to really care and treat the condition, I can tell you there would be much less cost, reduced hospital visits and re-admissions, and proper care.

In addition, most people in memory-care communities and skilled nursing facilities do not belong there. They should be at home, properly cared for by a company that has expertise in dementia care. I have built programs and train others in proper care, and it makes a difference in their physical and emotional health.

I also help families learn about how to properly care for those with dementia so they can stay home longer or until end of life. This is how aging should be done: in the home with family and experts.

Angela Haas St. Louis

Here is the original post:

Euthanasia is not an answer for those dealing with dementia - STLtoday.com

A "mischievous" and "misleading" Right To Life campaign that's drawn the ire of Labor MPs has hit Victorian Premier Daniel Andrews' electorate.

Right To Life are dropping 270,000 pamphlets throughout nine electorates, including Mr Andrews' seat of Mulgrave and six other Labor seats.

The flyer questions the government's proposed assisted dying laws and is emblazoned with the name of each respective local MP, causing confusion about the author.

"That rather mischievous, almost misrepresentation of who the author of that pamphlet was, that's not particularly fair, I don't think that's right, it doesn't add to the debate," Mr Andrews told ABC Central Victoria on Friday.

He later went on to tell reporters the flyer was "grossly misrepresentative" of a report completed by an expert panel and the subsequent proposed assisted dying scheme.

The Right To Life flyer reads "Do you believe in suicide prevention or suicide assistance from a doctor?"

It also contains MP contact information in large, bold type, with the Right To Life contact information in much smaller print on the back.

Bentleigh MP Nick Staikos, who is undecided on how he will vote, has copped abuse after the flyer started circulating his electorate with his details inside, making some readers believe he was the author.

He said he was disgusted with the campaign and could see why constituents were confused.

The flyer has also been sent to Mordialloc, Cranbourne, Invanhoe, Carrum and Macedon - all held by Labor - as well as Shepparton, held by independent Suzanna Sheed and Ripon, where Liberal Louise Staley sits.

Right To Life President Margaret Tighe stood by the campaign, saying international assisted dying schemes are unsafe and can lead to people being killed without their consent.

"It's not mischievous," she told AAP.

"You shouldn't kill people just because they're sick or they want you to kill them."

The government hopes to introduce legislation to parliament that would allow terminally ill Victorians to choose when they die, in accordance with strict guidelines including that they have less than 12 months to live.

Mr Andrews changed his mind on assisted dying after watching his father's terminal battle with cancer.

Read more from the original source:

Anti-euthanasia flyers hit Vic Prem's seat - The West Australian

LISTEN TO TLRS LATEST PODCAST:

By Rob Shimshock

A University of Chicago professor argued in support of euthanasia of extremely sick or deformed newborn, according to a Thursday report.

Jerry Coyne, an ecology and evolution professor at the university, made the case in a Julyposton his personal blog, reportedThe College Fix.

If you are allowed to abort a fetus that has a severe genetic defect, microcephaly, spina bifida, or so on, then why arent you able to euthanize that same fetus just after its born? asked Coyne in his post.

I see no substantive difference that would make the former act moral and the latter immoral, continued the professor. After all, newborn babies arent aware of death, arent nearly as sentient as an older child or adult, and have no rational faculties to make judgments (and if theres severe mental disability, would never develop such faculties).

Coyne cites Princeton University philosopherPeter Singerand argues that such newborns lives should be terminated not only with the withdrawal of care, but also via injection, provided the doctors and parents consent.

After all, we euthanize our dogs and cats when to prolong their lives would be torture, so why not extend that to humans? reasons the professor. Dogs and cats, like newborns, cant make such a decision, and so their caregivers take the responsibility.

Coyne believes that religion distinguishes between humans, cats and dogs, deeming the former group special. He believes that when religion vanishes, as it will,so will much of the opposition to both adult and newborn euthanasia.

The Daily Caller News Foundation reached out to Coyne and the University of Chicago for comment, but received none in time for publication.

euthanasianewbornUniversity of Chicago

Read the original post:

University Of Chicago Prof Argues For Newborn Euthanasia - The Libertarian Republic

Famed evolutionary biologist and author Jerry Coyne has penned an article arguing in favor of the euthanasia of severely disabled newborns.

Mr. Coyne, a professor emeritus of ecology and evolution at the University of Chicago, argued in a post on his personal blog that the parents of infants who have horrible conditions or deformities, or are doomed to a life that cannot by any reasonable light afford happiness, should be able to legally kill the child in the U.S.

In his article, Mr. Coyne sides with Princeton University professor Peter Singer, who has faced backlash over the years for promoting public policy that would legalize the killing of severely disabled infants.

Philosopher Peter Singer has argued that euthanasia is the merciful action in such cases, and I agree with him, Mr. Coyne wrote. If you are allowed to abort a fetus that has a severe genetic defect, microcephaly, spina bifida, or so on, then why arent you able to euthanize that same fetus just after its born? I see no substantive difference that would make the former act moral and the latter immoral.

After all, newborn babies arent aware of death, arent nearly as sentient as an older child or adult, and have no rational faculties to make judgments (and if theres severe mental disability, would never develop such faculties), he continued. It makes little sense to keep alive a suffering child who is doomed to die or suffer life in a vegetative or horribly painful state. After all, doctors and parents face no legal penalty for simply withdrawing care from such newborns, like turning off a respirator, but Singer suggests that we should be allowed, with the parents and doctors consent, to painlessly end their life with an injection. I agree.

He added, After all, we euthanize our dogs and cats when to prolong their lives would be torture, so why not extend that to humans? Dogs and cats, like newborns, cant make such a decision, and so their caregivers take the responsibility.

Mr. Coyne, an atheist, said that while the subject of infanticide is highly controversial today, the practice will one day be widespread once religion predictably vanishes from the earth.

He concluded saying that while withdrawing care may be legal, it sometimes can cause more pain and suffering for the child than would a life-ending injection.

Mr. Coyne later told conservative website The College Fix that hes working on a longer article that will delve into the topic further. In a post Wednesday, he expressed intrigue that many religious and right-wing websites have reported on his comments.

Am I famous now? he asked.

Read more:

Jerry Coyne, famed evolutionary biologist, argues killing of disabled ... - Washington Times

A plan to establish a parliamentary inquiry into end-of-life legislation in WA may be debated in August.

End-of-life options: Mandurah MP David Templeman will bring on a parliamentary debate in WA on the introduction of euthanasia legislation. Photo: Nathan Hondros.

Morley MP Amber-Jade Sanderson is a supporter of euthanasia and has moved a motion calling for a parliamentary inquiry into end-of-life laws. Photo: Supplied.

Western Australiais one step closer to legalising euthanasia,after Mandurah MP David Templeman said a plan to establish a parliamentaryinquiry into end-of-life legislation would bedebated in August.

Mr Templeman, who is also the government ministerresponsible for which laws are debated, said the move could mean euthanasia legislation may be introduced as early as next year.

A motion to establish an inquiry into end-of-life choices was put on the notice paper in June by Morley MP Amber-Jade Sanderson.

It called for a committee to examine the need for laws in Western Australia to allow citizens to make informed decisions regarding their own end-of-life choices.

Mr Templeman said the committee, which would be made up of eight parliamentarians, would deliver its report by June 30, 2018, allowing any recommended end-of-life legislation to be debated by the years end.

An inquiry would allow the public to make submissions and Mr Templeman said he hoped it would also run public hearings.

From my personal point of view, this debate is well overdue and it is important that parliament considers it through a select committee because that process will allow the public to actually have input, he said.

Consistently, polls and surveys have shown that over 80 per cent of West Australians believe there needs to be laws in place that address end-of-life choice, or euthanasia.

Mr Templeman said he anticipated the public debate about euthanasia would involve strongly held views, but called on both sides to be respectful.

The discussion has to be done in a respectful and dignified way, but it is time for this issue to be debated and Im very keen to see the select committee get up, he said.

Im very keen, from a personal perspective and as member for Mandurah, to hear peoples views when that select committee is established and to hear what people think.

In March, Health Minister Roger Cook signalled his support for legalising euthanasia, while Greens MP Robin Chapple said he would work with LaborsAlannah MacTiernan to introduce legislation.

Morley MP Amber-Jade Sanderson, who put the motion calling for an inquiry into euthanasia laws on the notice paper, with Premier Mark McGowan. Photo: Supplied.

Mr Templeman said his personal view was supportive of dignity in dying legislation, but he was cautious about how a law would be implemented.

I suppose where I have caution is in what exactly that legislation looks like and the strict terms of when you actually arrive at assisted dying, he said.

Thats why Im really interested in this debate taking place, because I want to hear points of view.

Obviously, Ive been supportive of a form of euthanasia legislation for some time and welcome my constituency telling me what they think.

The last time WA parliament debated euthanasia legislation was in 2010 when a bill was defeated 24 votes to 11 in the upper house before it could be considered by the lower house.

The move to bring on the issue in WA comes as the Victorian parliament prepares to consider legislation after conducting its own inquiry into euthanasia.

The Victorian model was developed by a panel of experts andwould mean a request to die could only come from a patient of sound mind and could only be approved by a panel of doctors.

New offences would be created to prevent abuse.

The Victorian legislation has the support of the Victorian government, but it is understood any Western Australia legislation would be introduced as a private membersbill.

Premier Mark McGowan recently said he supportedeuthanasia but would prefer for MPs to exercisea conscience vote on the issue rather than toea party line.

Follow Nathan Hondros on Twitter

See the rest here:

Euthanasia: Western Australian parliament to consider end-of-life legislation - Barossa & Light Herald

UTAH -

It's one of the hardest decisions you can make: knowing when it's time to put your pet to sleep.

For the Coates family of Farmington, Utah it was very sad when their dog, Zoey, got sick. The family decided to take her to the vet to be euthanized.

Last fall, Zoey, a boxer breed, started having seizures. The dog also had a large mass on her side. The family thought it was cancerous and that it was slowly taking her life.

Tawny Coates, Zoey's owner, said her family had been through a very hard time over the past year. Her husband robbed a bank, the family lost their home after he went to prison, and then the family dog got ill.

"This felt like a final stab." Tawny Coates said. "Like it was just one too many things. I knew it was going to be what pushed my kids to their breaking point."

On November 29, 2016, Coates asked her father to do what she could not: take Zoey to Bayview Animal Hospital in Farmington to be euthanized.

Six months later, she thought her family was ready for a new dog just like Zoey.

"I knew we wanted a boxer," Tawny Coates said. "I knew a boxer would help my son heal."

She started looking online and came across a rescue page for boxers. It was there, in the photos, that she saw an image she will never forget.

"I see the Boxer Town rescue page and I'm like, 'That looks like my dog.' Then I thought, 'I'm crazy,' but I click on it anyway and zoom in and say, 'No, that's my dog!'" Coates said.

Read more here.

Read more:

Family asks veteran for euthanasia, finds out dog adopted out - KOAA.com Colorado Springs and Pueblo News

A University of Chicago professor argued in support of euthanasia for extremely sick or deformed newborns, according to a Thursday report from The College Fix.

Jerry Coyne, an ecology and evolution professor at the university, made the case in a July post on his personal blog, reported The College Fix.

If you are allowed to abort a fetus that has a severe genetic defect, microcephaly, spina bifida, or so on, then why arent you able to euthanize that same fetus just after its born? asked Coyne in his post.

I see no substantive difference that would make the former act moral and the latter immoral, continued the professor. After all, newborn babies arent aware of death, arent nearly as sentient as an older child or adult, and have no rational faculties to make judgments (and if theres severe mental disability, would never develop such faculties).

Coyne cites Princeton University philosopher Peter Singer and argues that such newborns lives should be terminated not only with the withdrawal of care, but also via injection, provided the doctors and parents consent.

After all, we euthanize our dogs and cats when to prolong their lives would be torture, so why not extend that to humans? reasons the professor. Dogs and cats, like newborns, cant make such a decision, and so their caregivers take the responsibility.

Coyne believes that religion distinguishes between humans, cats and dogs, deeming the former group special. He believes that when religion vanishes, as it will,so will much of the opposition to both adult and newborn euthanasia.

The Daily Caller News Foundation reached out to Coyne and the University of Chicago for comment, but received none in time for publication.

Follow Rob Shimshock on Twitter

Connect with Rob Shimshock on Facebook

Send tips to [emailprotected].

Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact [emailprotected].

Go here to see the original:

Prof Argues For Newborn Euthanasia | The Daily Caller - The Daily Caller

As I read of medical aid in dying proponents opposition to Dr. Harvey Schippers referring to the treatment of people with disabilities under the Nazi regime, I was reminded of a criticism by a member of the audience when I made similar comments during a presentation long ago.

In that presentation I talked about the role played by the practice of eugenics in the history of disability. I was told in no uncertain terms that it was unacceptable for me to have spoken of the killing of people with disabilities in Nazi-controlled Germany. Why? Because, here in Canada, there might be people of German origin in the audience who would be offended by such comments! To my critic, the issue was taboo! I disagreed. Postwar Germany has never held such views. The German people have worked diligently since the Second World War to ensure that the Nazi atrocities toward people with disabilities, embedded as they are in history, will not be repeated.

I cannot believe that opposition to Schippers comments is based either on denial of those Nazi realities or on sensitivities such as those mentioned above. As Catherine Frazee notes in her recent response to the opposition to Schipper, the Nazi euthanasia program is part of the history of her life as a disabled person, and it is also part of the history of the medical profession. She reminds us that those who would forbid us to speak of this history or who would police our speech as strident and unwelcome can only fuel doubt about whether its lessons have been learned.

If, indeed, some of us are reluctant to heed those lessons of the Nazi era in Germany, perhaps we could look at the lessons offered by our own history of eugenics. For a relatively recent example of euthanasia, according to Drs. D.P. Girvan and C.A. Stephens in an article (paywall) on the surgical management of a specific serious medical condition, 27 newborn babies were left to starve to death at Torontos renowned Hospital for Sick Children in the 20-year period ending in December 1971. They all had the medical condition, for which the standard and only treatment is immediate surgery. They did not receive the surgery. In the same period, in the same hospital, 120 other newborn babies with the same serious medical condition did receive the standard surgery, and 67 percent of those babies survived. The difference between the babies who were given the privilege of life through the necessary surgical intervention and the babies for whom euthanasia was seen as the appropriate solution was that the 27 babies who were euthanized had Down syndrome.

In an even more recent example, in 1983, Dr. Nachum Gal was charged with first-degree murder and eight additional charges in the death of a 16-hour-old baby in an Edmonton hospital. The babys parents were given to understand that their daughter had died because of brain damage resulting from lack of oxygen at birth. When it became known that Gal had ordered the injection of an abnormal and massive dose of morphine the child died soon after receiving it an inquiry was held. Tissue or blood samples were not taken at the time of the babys death, and Judge Carl Rolf decided that without that information it was not possible to determine the cause of death, even though the medical examiner had altered the cause from birth asphyxia to morphine intoxication. In any case, by that time, Gal had safely returned to Israel, whose government refused to extradite him to face charges.

The fact that public acceptance of the notion of euthanasia for people with disabilities was not automatic was long ago recognized in the standard medical texts, such as Tredgolds Textbook on Mental Deficiency (originally published in 1908 and used for much of the past century in most of the Western world including Canada). In the 1963 (10th) edition of this textbook, the pros and cons of euthanasia are in the chapter titled The Prevention of Subnormality, where Tredgold suggested that probably most people would agree that it would be better were there no defectives, but that did not mean that public opinion would condone actively destroying them all. Significantly, Tredgold made what today seems to be an utterly shocking and unacceptable distinction between high grade defectives [who] are capable of enjoying life, forming loving relationships with others, and of performing useful work and low-grade defectives whose care and support, whether in their own homes or institutions, absorb a large amount of the time, energy and money of the normal population. Tredgold further opined that these low-grade defectives could not be employed to any advantage, and many of them are utterly helpless, miserable, deformed, repulsive, unlovable and unloving. Suggesting that it might be time for society to consider whether euthanasia should be permitted at the request of a parent or a guardian, he noted that many clinicians believe that it would be an economical and humane procedure were their existence to be painlessly terminated, and that this would be welcomed by a large proportion of parents.

In Canada possibly for the reason Tredgold cited, that public opinion might not tolerate the deliberate destruction of people with intellectual disabilities, but nevertheless to our collective shame sterilization and segregation were the preferred solutions to dealing with the societal problem of people we now recognize as having intellectual and developmental disabilities. Appalling as it is, our own history is well documented. Pretending such practice did not exist or trying to stifle its telling is cowardly, to say the least. It happened!

If recorded history is not sufficient, perhaps a personal example might help. My son has Down syndrome. He was born in 1964 (the year after the appearance of Tredgolds 10th edition). At the funeral of his dads oldest friend, we were introduced to the son of another former high school classmate, who was a doctor. The doctor immediately asked our sons age and, unsuspectingly, I told him. Ahh, was the response, just before amniocentesis [was introduced]! In other words, Ahh! Born just before you would have been free to abort him! While the graveside of a dear friend was hardly the place for me to give the response that was demanded by that shocking comment, I will forever regret my failure to do so.

It has taken many lifetimes of pain, insult and unhappiness for the persistent abuse of people with disabilities to be recognized and their rights enunciated in Canada. For people with disabilities, euthanasia has long been an issue of concern.

The abuse they have experienced is not restricted to euthanasia, sterilization, institutionalization or selective prenatal destruction, nor is it just certain doctors who inflict it. As Catherine Frazee points out, People with disabilities have suffered violence and harm at the hands of doctors, parents and caregivers. Subtler but still pervasive harm has been done by the indifference of much of society to the social and personal well-being of people with disabilities, which has led to their historical exclusion from formal education, employment opportunities and, in general, living a normal lifestyle. In todays autonomy-focused society, this indifference makes people with disabilities particularly vulnerable. Frazees reference to the Nazi euthanasia program is a timely reminder of this for all of us.

We cannot let a political argument about our selfish personal desires to choose when and how we die with medical assistance detract from the imperative to respect the inherent vulnerability of people with disabilities in this context.

Photo: Shutterstock/Nick Starichenko

Do you have something to say about the article you just read? Be part of thePolicy Optionsdiscussion, and send in your own submission.Here is alinkon how to do it.|Souhaitez-vous ragir cet article ?Joignez-vous aux dbats dOptions politiqueset soumettez-nous votre texte en suivant cesdirectives.

More:

Canada has its own history of euthanasia - Policy Options

We care about suffering, but after careful consideration of the complex issues involved, we have concluded that changing the law would NOT be the solution.

Contrary to a common myth, the debate is NOT about whether an individual should be able to end their own life.

The debate is about whether one person should be allowed to intentionally end, or help end, the life of someone else.

The ultimate choice would actually lie with the other person, not the person who dies.

People can already end their own lives. They could do so by refusing life support, resuscition or further treatment, or by deliberately ending their own life (suicide). Suicide is not a crime. However, we encourage anyone with suicidal thoughts to seek support from Lifeline.

Assisted dying, aid in dying and end of life choice are all euphemisms for assisted suicide and voluntary euthanasia. These practices are illegal due to Section 179 of the New Zealand Crimes Act, prohibitingthe aiding and abetting of suicide. The debate is about whether there should be exceptions to this clause whether some peoples suicides should be aided, even though other peoples suicides are to be prevented. The debate is about whether there should be these two classes of people. The debate is about whether the State (the government and its systems) should condone and facilitate the suicides of some its citizens.

Euthanasia-Free NZ is concerned that the legalisation of assisted suicide would contradict and undermine suicide prevention.

The Scottish Parliament rejected assisted dying legislation for the effect assisted dying would have on suicide prevention, among other reasons.

Another common myth is that a law change would be a personal choice, affecting only the person and their doctor. We disagree.

Criminal law would change for all of New Zealand. The law is the conscience of society. What gets legalised, gets normalised. The law sends a powerful message to all of society and especially to the next generation, who may grow up not knowing anything different. What kind of society do we want to leave for future generations?

The legalisation of voluntary euthanasia and assisted suicide would affect all of society, including those who dont want such an end-of-life option for themselves.

Currently our society accepts that people need to be cared for until their natural death, even if it costs money. If legal assisted suicide would become an option, staying alive would become optional too. Because death would be cheaper than care and treatment, there would be pressure on people to choose the cheaper option.

The mere existence of legal assisted suicide as an option would put pressure on people to choose it. If they dont choose it, they would effectively choose to be a financial burden on society when they dont have to. The so-called right to die would become a duty a die. There would be subtle pressure on elderly, disabled and ill people to do the right thing and free up health resources for the young and the able-bodied. Such pressure may increase over time.

We are convinced that no safeguards would be safe enough to protect people from subtle, or not so subtle, pressure to request death. The people who would be most at risk are people who are elderly, disabled, mentally ill, in abusive relationships or emotionally vulnerable people.

Here is a summary of other reasons why our organisation warns against the legalisation of assisted suicide and voluntary euthanasia.

See original here:

Euthanasia-Free NZ: Opposing Assisted Suicide / Assisted ...

14 Apr 2016, 10:45 a.m.

Bob Hawke reveals he has an 'arrangement' with his wife should he "lose his marbles".

Former prime minister Bob Hawke says he has an 'arrangement' with wife Blanche d'Alpuget should he lose his presence of mind. Photo: Tim Bauer

Former prime minister Bob Hawke has revealed he supports voluntary euthanasia. Photo: Simon Bennett

The illegality of euthanasia in Australia is "absurd" and politicians are too cowardly to fix it, former prime minister Bob Hawke says, while also revealing an "arrangement" with wife Blanche d'Alpuget should he lose his mind.

With a federal election campaign possibly weeks away, the vexed issue of assisted suicide has been lobbed back into the national consciousness courtesy of a podcast by broadcaster Andrew Denton and the strong support of Labor's longest-serving prime minister.

"It's just an unarguable case," Mr Hawke told ABC Radio National on Thursday. He said there were no ethical grounds for forcing people in terrible pain to "suffer and suffer and suffer" on quasi-religious moral grounds.

"I can see no logical or moral basis for such an absurd position."

The 86-year-old acknowledged he had newfound passion for the issue but said he had always been in favour of euthanasia, which is legal in several European countries. Assisted dying, in which a physician can facilitate the means of death for use by a terminally ill patient at a time of their own choosing, is legal in some US states.

Both forms are illegal in Australia, although for a brief period in the 1990s the Northern Territory legalised euthanasia. The Commonwealth then overrode that legislation, but there is currently a bill before the Senate that would restore those powers to the territories.

But Mr Hawke was cynical about the political will to legalise euthanasia in Australia, particularly when it came to MPs in marginal seats.

"Politicians, by and large, are not the bravest of creatures," he told Denton's podcast, Better Off Dead.

"Their first concern is saving their seat and they don't want to do anything that's going to lose them votes."

Mr Hawke also reflected on his personal circumstances, saying he had an "understanding" with his wife Blanche d'Alpuget that "something" would be done if he ever lost his presence of mind.

"Something I could not stand would be to lose my marbles. If that were in fact to happen, then something is done about it," he said.

"I don't expect it to be a pillow pressed exuberantly over my nose, but I'm sure that she could organise something with a family doctor."

Polls consistently show the overwhelming majority of Australians support euthanasia, with the figure running at 75 to 85 per cent. But similar to the issue of same-sex marriage, a sizeable chunk of voters - many motivated by religion - are vehemently opposed.

"The fact that you've got a significant number who don't like it is enough for a lot of politicians to say, 'I don't want to get involved,' " Mr Hawke said.

Labor MPs are granted a conscience vote on euthanasia, and in the past so have those in the Coalition.

Also speaking on Radio National on Thursday, politicians from both sides supported a closer look at the issue.

Cabinet Secretary Arthur Sinodinos said it was "certainly worth exploring further", while shadow treasurer Chris Bowen said "the time has come".

Opposition Leader Bill Shorten's office would not say whether Labor would take a specific policy on euthanasia or assisted suicide to the election.

Any proposed model for legal euthanasia would only apply to terminally ill patients who are deemed to be of sound enough mind to make an informed decision.

In most cases it would be a matter for older Australians, though Mr Hawke noted that it need not be limited to the elderly.

"A 15-year-old can be in a position where he's got very limited life expectancy and the only certainty is excruciating pain," he said. "The principle is generally valid, I believe."

Mr Hawke acknowledged there were genuine concerns about the possibility of family members expediting the death of a relative to get their hands on an inheritance.

But he also disagreed with the contention of some euthanasia sceptics that say Australian legislators would be unable or unlikely to design a framework that is safe and workable.

"I don't think there's any ground for that apprehension," he said.

Follow us on Twitter

The story 'Absurd': Bob Hawke blasts lack of political will to legalise euthanasia first appeared on The Sydney Morning Herald.

Read the original here:

'Absurd': Bob Hawke blasts lack of political will to legalise euthanasia - Armidale Express