Policy on Abortion & Euthanasia
The thing people do not realize about euthanasia is that it is already legal. Instead of talking about whether euthanasia should be legal, people should be talking about how we can make it so that people who do not want to be killed are not killed. Currently, people are being euthanized in Australia against their wishes.
One way that people are being euthanized is that doctors are pronouncing them dead when they are still breathing and have a pulse. The legal definition of death should include not breathing and not having a pulse. But the legal definition of death is if you are unconscious and a doctor says you are dead. If you are at a hospital, and are unconscious or asleep, a doctor can legally pronounce you dead. Then, since you are dead, you have no rights, so he can legally give you a lethal injection as though you are a dog, and then you really will be dead.
The other way that people are being euthanized is that they have a guardian appointed. The guardian consents on the person’s behalf to the person committing suicide. The person is then given drugs so he or she can hardly move, and is tied down to a bed. The person is not given any food or water for about three days, and dies of dehydration.
You might think, “This could not possibly happen to me.” There you would be wrong. If you have an accident, an ambulance will take you to a public hospital. You will be assigned a Health Department doctor. Your family might not be contacted, or might not have the presence of mind or the funds to get a second opinion.
Your doctor might think to himself, “This fellow is an organ donor, and if we can pronounce him dead, we can give his organs to half a dozen other people.” Or your doctor might be one of those “Angel of Death” psychopaths who are into killing patients. Such a person could go undetected at a government hospital for years. As we know, government hospitals are very competently run; just read any newspaper.
You might think that, since you are intelligent and capable, it would not be possible to appoint a guardian to manage your affairs. The two most common reasons for appointing a guardian are that someone has dementia or is intellectually handicapped. If you are sixty years old or more, you are “fair game” to be diagnosed with dementia. Legally, you have dementia if a doctor says you have dementia.
Similarly, the legal definition of intellectually handicapped is if a doctor says you are. You might have a university degree, and might have passed an intelligence test only the other day, but a doctor can write a letter saying you are mentally retarded, and have you locked in a gulag. Yes, there are gulags in Australia! If you didn’t know that, well now you do!
There is a racket going where you get one of your relatives locked up in a gulag, so that you can get the use of his or her assets. You need to hire a firm of solicitors specializing in family law. They will bill you for a fee of about ten percent of your relative's assets. For example, if your relative has ten million dollars, then you will be charged one million in fees. This money will be donated to the Labor Party.
The Labor Party will receive a letter from the solicitor, saying that the clients whose names are attached have each donated a hundred dollars. The names will be taken from a telephone book. In return for paying this fee, the lawyers will get a doctor to write a medical report on your relative saying whatever the lawyer wants the report to say. Then your relative will be locked up in a gulag, and given drugs so as not to be able to oppose what is being done.
Each State and territory has a guardianship tribunal. They have different names in different states. These tribunals operate in the manner of the Russian revolutionary tribunals of the 1920s and 1930s, or of an Irish Republican Army court-martial. The members of guardianship tribunals are guys like Alan Jones. They sincerely believe that intellectually handicapped people should be sewn up in a sack and thrown into the sea. Having intellectually handicapped people die of dehydration also works for them.
A hearing by a guardianship tribunal to lock someone up for five years seldom takes more than half an hour, while a hearing by a proper court to lock someone up for five years would take weeks. Under a United Nations Convention, the accused person has to be represented by a lawyer. Usually the prosecutor also acts as the defence counsel, which is not allowed by the U.N. Convention. In his or her capacity as defence counsel, the prosecutor always consents on the person’s behalf to his or her being locked up for five years.
Each State has an agency called the “Public Guardian” or some equally silly name. The function of this agency is to rid the State of “useless mouths”. These agencies are run by psychopathic female lawyers who are disciples of George Bernard Shaw and his book, “The Intelligent Woman’s Guide to Socialism”. In this book, which is found in many Labor Party homes, Shaw advocates killing disabled people and the British landed gentry. The current generation of female lawyers has grown up on this extremist nonsense.
In their annual reports to Parliament, these agencies have reported euthanizing ten percent of their clients a year. This does not include clients who die from operations that the doctor has botched on the “Public Guardian’s” instructions. All female clients of the “Public Guardian” are routinely sterilized. Usually clients are told they have cervical cancer, although in fact they do not have cancer, and they are told they need to have a hysterectomy for their cancer. If a client did get cervical cancer, the “Public Guardian” would instruct the doctor not to treat it.
As might be expected, clients of the “Public Guardian” have relatives who are not happy about the treatment of their loved ones. These relatives have gone to the media and accused the “Public Guardian” of murdering their loved ones. Media magnates such as Rupert Murdoch are also disciples of George Bernard Shaw, and so have made it appear, in slanted newspaper articles, that relatives whose loved ones have been murdered are ignorant rednecks who do not appreciate the limitations of modern medicine.
We say, “Where there is smoke, there is fire”. Why would so many people accuse these “Public Guardians” of murder if it was not true? When the truth finally becomes known, it will turn out to be worse than we have suggested here.
Just as people who are very much alive and well are being murdered, so it is the same with unborn children. An unborn baby 38 weeks after conception and one week before birth is just as much a person as a newborn baby. Once again, doctors can make assertions about the mother's medical condition without the assertions needing to be true. Mothers are being given “carte blanche” to kill their unborn children.
If we are elected, the law will be changed so that it does not rubberstamp the opinions and assertions of rogue doctors. Anything which amounts to killing a human being will need a court order. Killing an unborn child more than 13 weeks after conception will need a court order. The withdrawal of life support will need a court order. Killing a person who is allegedly in a persistent vegetative state will need a court order.
We will introduce a private member’s bill to regulate the killing of people and to say what evidence is needed before a person can be killed. We will prohibit the killing of patients who are supposedly in a persistent vegetative state unless the court has heard from two neurosurgeons who have examined the patient. We will prohibit killing an unborn baby more than 13 weeks after conception unless the court has heard from two obstetricians.
We will prohibit the appointment of a guardian unless there is evidence given that the person has said or done anything to be considered mentally incompetent. The evidence must include DVD interviews between the patient and the doctor where the patient shows signs of being demented or mentally retarded or otherwise mentally incapacitated. Written medical opinions will be inadmissible in evidence.
Our private member’s bill will include safeguards, such as the United Nations requirement for a lawyer to be appointed to represent the person. This requirement will be met by having a “Counsel Assisting the Court” chosen by the person or their next of kin. The safeguards of a criminal trial will apply. The next of kin will need to be informed. For an abortion after 13 weeks, the mother’s husband will need to be informed, or if there is no husband, the biological father and the mother’s parents.
The earliest recorded instances of euthanasia in Australia were in the Second World War, where Australian soldiers would kill their wounded mates to prevent them falling into the hands of the Japanese. When soldiers came home from the War, and saw relatives dying of cancer, they naturally thought why should they not do the same thing.
There was a recent case of a man who was convicted for bringing his father’s service pistol to the hospital where his father was dying of cancer. His father then shot himself. This is quite different to what the “Public Guardian” is doing. We see nothing wrong with this, and will give the son a pardon.
Even this form of euthanasia is open to abuse. There are rogue doctors who would encourage their patients to kill themselves, and provide their patients with poison, if they thought they could get away with it. Any sort of euthanasia should involve a court hearing. The patient should be able to change his mind at the last minute and not go through with it. The death should occur under police supervision. All this we have put in our private member’s bill, which we will introduce even if we have only one candidate elected.