Related Articles

6 Comments

  1. 1
    Avatar

    Scott

    Hang on. Before the outraged freedom of speech people rock up, you don’t think that inviting a known Euthanasia advocate (who is a Urologist at the end of the day) to talk about Palliative care is a bit wrong? In my opinion, the Palliative care specialists have every right to feel aggrieved…

    To me, the RACP is just rectifying the original error by the Lead Fellow who invited Dr Syme to speak.

    Speaking of which, if these guys continue to be activists for Euthanasia, they should really give up their medical titles. Medical Doctors hold such trust in our society that having such a person agitate (and, allegedly, provide medication) for assisted suicide is debasing the profession in my view.

    Reply
  2. 2
    Avatar

    KennyB

    Actually I would have though a Urologist had a particularly relevant disciplinary insight into late life/end of life conditions that can afflict patients.

    But that’s nothing compared to you very obvious bias against the very idea of euthanasia. The entire point of this article is that the “old guard” of the profession is the one part of it obstructing essential discussion, including the legal ramifications for medical and paramedical professionals who might one day have to deal with the issue and may or may not have their own ethical issues with it.

    Censorship isn’t about simple minded opinion like yours, it’s about the suppression of ideas, which is what you’re promoting.
    It’s one of the core definitions of fascism. But that seems to be standard for Australian discourse on serious ideas these days.

    Reply
  3. 3
    Avatar

    Marion Wilson

    Easing the burden of the dying process, which is what palliative care claims to do, is very close to making available the choice of reducing the span of the burden of the dying process.
    If Scott has no objection to whatever burden of dying fate doles out to him that should be his choice but when he dictates that I may not choose to reduce the span of the burden of my dying he is demanding a control of my body to which he is not entitled. Palliative care doctors must be aware of the needs of the dying and their pleadings should not be overridden.

    Reply
  4. 4
    Avatar

    Liamj

    Don’t be insulted Dr Syme, be grateful that the RACP leadership has so clearly demonstrated its theocratic constipation to the membership. That membership now must choose whether to take the necessary purgative, or to stick to being faecally replete.

    Reply
  5. 5
    Avatar

    Norman Hanscombe

    A Crikey site concerned about free speech / censorship / professional standards?
    Praise the Lord.

    Reply
  6. 6
    Avatar

    hilary linstead

    A woeful lack of imagination and insight

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

© 2015 – 2020 Croakey | Website: Rock Lily Design

right-share-menu

Follow Croakey