Venue Magic Serial Number' title='Venue Magic Serial Number' />Parliament of Australia. Part 2 Active Voluntary Euthanasiawhen medical intervention takes place, at the patients. Natasha Cica Consultant. Law and Public Administration Group. The Northern Territory likes to think of itself as frontier. On 2. 5 May 1. 99. In doing. so, the law permits both physician assisted suicide and active. However, under the. Rights of the Terminally Ill Act. NT strict. conditions apply it is neither an unqualified licence to kill. The Act has caused a furore nationally and internationally, with. Rights. of the Terminally Act 1. The Australian Medical Association condemned the Act its then. DMX/freestyler_03.jpg' alt='Venue Magic Serial Number' title='Venue Magic Serial Number' />President, Dr Brendan Nelson, saying the legislation devalued human. The President of the Australian Federation of AIDS. Organisations, Mr Tony Keenan, welcomed it as a great achievement. In the United. States, an Oregon Right To Life lobbyist, Ms Gail Atteberry, said. Venue Magic Serial Number' title='Venue Magic Serial Number' />I believe the Northern Territory will become. Australia but of the world. In. Mr Robin Fletcher, a spokesman for the Hemlock. Society the largest pro euthanasia group in the United States. It sounds like it was well thought. The law has already survived attempts to repeal it in the. Northern Territory Legislative Assembly, and a challenge to its. Northern Territory Supreme Court. Leave is being. sought to challenge the Act in the High Court. In Federal. Parliament in September, a Liberal backbencher, Mr Kevin Andrews. MP, is introducing a Private Members Bill aimed at overturning it. This is the story of a little girl of fourteen and the ambitions of her mother whom we met at the studios of Live India TV channel on the evening of 18th June. Playback Designs imagines, creates and manufactures the highest performance, highest resolution, jitter free digital playback systems available for the most. All articles on ShatteredTranquility. We welcome citations and references to our work, but. Karol Madera, psychotic, criminal, fraud, military impostor, ham radio operator. Why comedian Jim Davidson hates the Cornwall venue hes due to play. The opinionated comic is celebrating 40 years in showbiz but he still doesnt understand. Love makes people do dumb stuff. But there are practical, easy steps we can take to maintain our privacy during romantic relationships, and changing one simple. The You Are Number 6 trope as used in popular culture. When a character has a number as a name. Usually this carries dehumanizing implications. This can be. The Commonwealth has the power to enact its own legislation. Territory law under section 1. Constitution. The Federal Bill has the personal support of the Prime Minister. Mr John Howard, although he will be allowing Liberal Members of. Parliament a conscience vote. The Leader of the National Party, Mr. Tim Fischer is adopting the same approach. It has been reported. Leader of the Opposition, Mr Kim Beazley personally. ALP will also have a. No one has yet used the Territory legislation. This paper, the second in a four part series on euthanasia. Northern Territory legislation in the wider national. Netherlands, England, the United States. Canada. Under English common law, a doctor is prohibited from taking. A. doctor who administers a pain killer to a terminally ill patient in. However, it is unclear whether Australian doctors have the same. No doctor has faced criminal prosecution here under. Under Australian homicide laws, a doctor may. South Australia is the. It appears to. have followed the English common law lead. The Netherlands has a unique approach to regulating active. It is often. held up as a jurisdiction in which euthanasia has been. This is not an accurate description of the Dutch. Active voluntary euthanasia and physician assisted. Dutch Penal Code. However. doctors have been guaranteed immunity from prosecution providing. The acceptance of active voluntary euthanasia and. Netherlands is largely due to a. Dutch society since the. Calvinist sense of individual responsibility combined with a. Royal Dutch Medical Associations approval of doctors. In 1. 99. 0, the Dutch Government set up the Remmelink Commission to. The commission ordered the first. That. study found that in the Netherlands in 1. This represented. No similar studies have been done in Australia. A number of. studies however, about the attitudes, experiences and practices of. One in South Australia5. Another, of doctors in New South Wales and the. ACT6 found majority support for changes to the law to allow. In one survey of Victorian nurses, it. Sixty five per cent of the nurses. Another study of Victorian nurses8 involved in. However, 5. 0 per cent favoured law reform to enable doctors to take. This paper is the second in a series discussing the Australian. For the purposes of these papers, euthanasia is divided into. This paper discusses the Australian law relating to the second. Comparison is. made with the approaches to active voluntary euthanasia developed. Netherlands, the United. States of America, England and Canada. The law in relation to the first category, passive voluntary. The law in. relation to the final two categories, passive involuntary. A patient has no legal right to insist on medical intervention. A competent patients common law right to bodily. This restriction. Thus a patient cannot compel an unwilling doctor. Even if a doctor wishes to accede to a patients request to. In every. Australian jurisdiction, except the Northern Territory,1. For the purposes of. Australian law, none. It is useful to examine three different situations in which a. Situation One The patient is in excruciating pain and asks the. Situation Two The patient wants to die and asks the doctor for. Situation Three The patient wants to die and asks the doctor. Situation One The patient is in excruciating pain and asks the. English courts have stated that the criminal law will not. In such a case the law characterises the patients. Such a decision may properly be made. The rule has also been articulated as follows If the first purpose of medicine, the restoration of health, can. This legal principle will not protect a doctor from criminal. The principle appears to be confined to situations. In addition it does not. A doctor will be exposed to. A court is more likely to. An important case illustrating the application of this legal. English case of R v. Cox. 1. 8 The case. Nigel Cox, a consultant. Lilian Boyes. Ms Boyes was 7. Dr. Coxs patient for thirteen years. She was suffering from rheumatoid. As a result she was in acute and. During the last few days before her death, she repeatedly. Dr Cox to end her life. He reassured her that her last hours. He injected. her with a potentially lethal dose of potassium chloride, a drug. She died within minutes. Dr Cox was prosecuted for attempted murder. The jury at. Winchester Crown Court found him guilty as charged, and the trial. Professional disciplinary proceedings were also taken against Dr. Cox. The Professional Conduct Committee of the General Medical. Council admonished Dr Cox for his conduct in this case, describing. The Professional Conduct Committee nonetheless. Dr Cox. The. health authority who employed Dr Cox, however, refused to allow him. These. included the requirement that he receive further training in. Judas Priest Jugulator Rar. Any or all of the following rationales may underpin this. English law to the legal prohibition against. The philosophical doctrine of double effect. This doctrine. originates in Roman Catholic moral theology. Applying this. doctrine, the doctor who acts intending to achieve a primary effect. Acting with the intention to relieve pain is in accordance with. These rationales have been criticised as relying on illogical. It has been argued that all these rationales. It has been further claimed that this leads to. One commentator. states this claim as follows Everything ultimately turns on what the doctor claims he was. As long as he uses the right verbal formula and. Knowing. how to play the game becomes the crucial determinant of criminal. When the crime is murder, this can hardly be satisfactory. The current state of the law endorses, indeed entrenches. We all know what you are doing, but use the magic. Im doing this to relieve your pain and all will be well. Alternatively, the law encourages casuistry, as those who are. Fear. of prosecution is of course eminently desirable when designed to. But when it is neither the means. The claim that the legal authorisation of unintentional deaths. The claim nonetheless.