skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Death isn't an easy subject to talk about for many people. Our society, particularly in Australia, lives almost in denial of death. Wanting to intervene in almost any circumstance to save a patient even when the intervention itself will only prolong suffering and turn the last weeks and days of a persons life into major traumatic events. Instead of dying peacefully, saying goodbye to loved ones and finally passing away knowing all has been laid to rest, they end up in hospitals with a team of doctors trying everything to keep them alive even when they know they're dying. I can't think of a more unpleasant place to go than in an ICU with lights on 24 hours a day and noise everywhere.
I do of course have experience with this. I myself spent time in ICU last year and I can tell you now I absolutely hated the place. It was unfriendly, cold, scary, at a time when I was at my most vulnerable and needing familiarity and a warm setting. I didn't even know how I got there. Being in a coma on a ventilator for 3 days I think, all up it took me about a week to realise that I was actually in hospital. Was hallucinating so badly thought I was at home. It would've been horrible to die there, not knowing where I was or why I was there. But I was still not even 50 yet and so I can understand and agree that it was the correct choice to proceed with ways to save my life and set me on the road to recovery. I mean hey, look at me now, still alive and kicking. Doctors all amazed and pleased at the shear strength of my recovery and almost near normal functions throughout my body despite being so close to death only last year. When it's used right and it works, modern medicine is a marvellous thing.
Problem is it seems it's not always used right. My wife's (although she too was under 50) was a completely different case. She had been on extremely strong painkilling medication for 30 years, along with over 30 operations at the local hospital. Her insides were all giving up, everything failing. She was dying. In our case however we managed to get some form of peace in her last months by having the conversation together about what exactly her wishes were from a certain point on. She'd had a heart attack and stroke close together, and I took the opportunity to broach the subject in reply to one of her questions about something, can't remember now. But I do recall asking her about the heart attack, and if she had another one did she want the paddles again and be bought back? The answer was no, and we got her on the DNR list that all the nurses carry around with them and she was referred to Palliative Care.
The thing is that we knew a bit about hospitals after all her years associated with them, and what the reality was with her. Unfortunately many people don't, and end up getting massively invasive and traumatic treatments when they're already dying. I'm so glad I was able to help my wife die as peacefully as possible under the circumstances, she certainly deserved that. As we all do.
Was reading a transcript about all this, and interestingly when doctors themselves are dying they refuse treatment at the end, a lot more than people outside their profession.
Annie Guest: Despite some doctors prescribing aggressive end-of-life treatment, they often don't accept it for themselves. The phenomenon of doctors dying differently to the rest of us has been examined by Dr Ken Murray, who is from the Department of Family Medicine at the University of Southern California.
Ken Murray: We don't tend to avail ourselves of the full-on onslaught of medical technology at the end of life that we see happening to patients so frequently.
Annie Guest: Why do doctors tend to seek less end-of-life care than the rest of us ordinary patients?
Ken Murray: Because they don't think it's of any value. We have been through it so many times with so many people. We understand the technology and what those limitations are that we know where to draw the line where the average person doesn't know.
Annie Guest: These are pretty confronting and controversial assertions. What scholarly evidence is there to support your arguments?
Ken Murray: For example there was a fantastic article just a few years ago and it looked at all the medical graduates at Johns Hopkins University, for 40 years I think, asking them questions about end-of-life, and if they had a terminal illness would they want various interventions. And it laid it all out. For example, would they want CPR if they had a terminal illness, and 90% of them said no. Whereas, with the general population there are a whole series of studies in the 25% range that would say no. So, you see this huge dichotomy.
Annie Guest: The medicine the doctors are rejecting could be described by some as futile treatment, but it's a contentious term.
Peter Saul: The most accepted definition I would say at the moment is treatment which has small benefit and high burdens. That is to say that the burdens imposed by the treatment heavily outweigh any benefit that you can expect.
Annie Guest: There is a lot of concern in the medical community about the term 'futility'. Does the terminology undermine the debate?
Peter Saul: I think it does. I actually don't like the term personally. I think that it has this…I don't know whether people know this word, but a parentalistic or paternalistic feel to it, you know, it's our decision that something is futile, it sounds almost pejorative. So if you asked me for an alternative I would say 'medically ineffective', to talk about our end of it, and to talk about the family's end of it, 'unwanted'.
Annie Guest: But Dr Saul says patients and families must be helped to understand the full ramifications of what it is they want or don't want. Increasingly the recipients of such treatment are older people with co-morbidities, that is, more than one life-limiting problem, such as heart and kidney diseases. Most ICU patients are aged over 65, according to a 2009 study in the Critical Care and Resuscitation journal.more
I think the answer is obvious. Be educated and realistic about the situation. Know what the results of major surgery or treatment will be, know how it will affect the quality of whatever life is left. What's the outlook for the remaining weeks or days? If people actually knew the outcomes of such aggressively treating people when they're dying probably many more of them would also refuse treatments as the doctors do at the end of their lives.
This is the best we can do without euthanasia.
This is pretty funny man. A flickr slide show of Greenpeace banners and signs put up at the headquarters of John West in Australia. Or the direct link to the flickr set.
It looks really good I thought. Certainly a stunt but gets the message across. I note the police turned up there, but evidently no person was attacked with capsicum spray, tasered, kicked, handcuffed, with 4 tonnes of cops holding them down in the process.
Here's the flyer they handed to John West Staff.
The coroner is utterly scathing of the police in this full report on the coroner's office website.
http://www.coroners.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/agdbasev7wr/_assets/coroners/m401601l4/curti%20decision%2014%20nov%202012.pdf
According to Kim, Cooper only had his forearms on the lower back. Once again, he
claimed to recall very little, and to have seen almost nothing (despite the evidence of
other police) and to have been ‘focussing’ only on the leg. He appeared to make no
genuine effort to give truthful evidence. The term ‘focussing’ was used suspiciously
often by those police whose evidence was unhelpful or worse. Between those
officers, there was a similarity of wording and an apparent inability to remember that
which did not assist some of them in acceptance of their truthfulness or
independence.
....................
Sergeant (now Inspector) Cooper’s evidence was so self-contradictory, self-serving
and obscure that it hardly bears narrating. Frankly, given that he was the most senior
officer involved, both his actions during the event and his attempts to exonerate
himself and blame more junior officers afterwards, are little short of contemptible. He
was unable to explain the constant difference between his version of events, and
that of other officers and what was shown by Tasercam footage other than personal
difficulties and ill health.
.........................
On one hand, he said that he had no power to stop other officers, whilst on the other,
he said that he did have the power to tell them to stop tasering. Cooper denied
knowledge of the wording of the Taser SOPs, saying that he had never been
provided with the relevant document. When Counsel Assisting put to him that he had
failed to take command of the situation and control junior officers, and failed to stop
or minimise the use of Tasers and OC spray, Cooper disagreed. His evidence bore
almost no credibility.
.......................
In summary, Professor Alpert disagreed with the views of all officers, including Davis
that the police actions during these events, particularly the use of Taser in drive stun mode whilst Roberto was on the ground and handcuffed, were justified, or in
accordance with the prevailing SOPs and training.
...........................
In the pursuit, tasering (particularly in drive stun mode), tackling, spraying and
restraining of Roberto Laudisio Curti, those responsibilities were cast aside, and the actions of a number of the officers were just that: reckless, careless, dangerous, and excessively forceful. They were an abuse of police powers, in some instances even
thuggish, as described by Mr Gormly. Mr Hamill’s analogy with the character in
Joseph Heller’s Catch 22, screaming ‘Help, Police!’ as a cry for help against police
action is searingly apt. Roberto’s only foes during his ordeal were the police. There
was no victim other than Roberto, no member of the public who suffered an iota from
his delusionary fear. Certainly, he had taken an illicit drug, as has become all too
common in today’s society. But he was guilty of no serious offence. He was
proffering no threat to anyone. There was no attempt by police to consider his mental
state. He was, in the words of Mr AlShayeb, “just crazy”. Left alone, there is not a
shred of evidence that he would have caused any harm, other than to himself.
.....................
Probationary Constable Barling’s wild and uncontrolled use of the drive stun mode
suggests that he had no such understanding, despite only recently having
undertaken the Taser course. A few of the other Constables seem to have thrown
themselves into a melee with an ungoverned pack mentality, like the schoolboys in
‘Lord of the Flies’, with no idea what the problem was, or what threat or crime was
supposedly to be averted, or concern for the value of life.
.....................
No thought whatsoever was given to Roberto’s mental state. According to the
evidence, at no stage did he act aggressively, to any member of the public or officer,
other than to struggle wildly to escape the pain he was experiencing from being
tasered, drive stunned, sprayed and lain upon by ‘half a ton’ of police officers (as
Ralph described it). As all the civilian witnesses, and a few officers, told the court, at all times Roberto was merely trying to get away. No one had told him he was under arrest, or why. We now know that he was almost certainly in a psychotic state of paranoia and fear, but this did not translate into any violence other than his need to flee. While not all uses of force by Police were excessive, the attempted arrest of Roberto involved ungoverned, excessive police use of force, principally during the final restraint.
The police officers now listed, should in my strong view, be referred for possible
disciplinary action in relation to their actions during the pursuit and restraint of
Roberto.
Inspector (then Sergeant) Gregory Cooper
Cooper’s failure to maintain any objectivity, or sensible leadership, quite apart from
the unreliability of his evidence, is abhorrent. His evidence in the main is rejected.
The evidence of the AFIDs establishes that Cooper first fired his Taser from the
western side of Pitt Street. Apart from being ineffective, it was a random act for no
reason, as was his second cycling while Roberto was fleeing. His only purpose in
deploying his Taser seems to have been to effect an arrest. His statement that he
believed Roberto to have a knife is in stark contrast to every other witness, and hints
at deliberate self-justification. Pushing his entire weight on the back of a man prone,
who was handcuffed and had just been tasered was hardly the action of an
experienced, senior officer. He allowed excessive use of force by junior officers. It
appears that Cooper only sought to stop or limit the use of Taser when officers
started to be affected.
Much more in the PDF
It's there for all to see now.
BTW, it was only yesterday that the 5 officers had their tasers taken off them in lieu of further training, until then they were on full duties roaming with the tasers, much to the distress of Curti's family.
Sergeant Cooper has since then been promoted to inspector.........
There is something very very wrong with the NSW police.
This is a shocking statistic, and shows the utter madness of parts of Australia's welfare system. Maybe it wouldn't be so bad if those at the bottom didn't have to bash their head against a bureaucratic wall every step of the way just to get fuck all payments that sometimes don't even cover the rent.
This isn't an argument about comparing those deemed as poor in Australia with the poverty that exists in 3rd world countries, this is an argument about fairness and what sort of society we want here in Australia. At the moment it's grossly unfair.
THE richest fifth of households receive nearly half of all the wages paid in Australia but also get about 12 per cent of all government handouts, new research by the Bureau of Statistics shows.
The findings not only highlight big income disparities across the community but raise questions about the scale of "middle-class welfare" flowing to well-off families.
........................
But maybe the most revealing finding was the amount of government assistance being transferred to high-income households. The preliminary results showed the richest quintile of households received about 12 per cent of social assistance benefits while the next highest quintile got 11 per cent.
..........................
Many high-income households qualify for the childcare rebate, which is not means tested, and the private health insurance rebate.
Read more
Or to put it even more clearly, the top earning 40% of households in Australia, get 23% of all Australia's welfare payments. That is a staggering figure. I had no idea it was that high.
There's not the slightest justification for people such as I to go through all we have to go through to get the little we do, when there is 12% of welfare money going to the most well off in the community. There's no justification not to use that 12% and target the lowest earners who really need that money. This is about having enough money for food, clothing, housing, electricity, phone, bla bla, you know, those basic sorts of things that we all take for granted. It's not about wanting a smart phone, a bigger better telly, private insurance, a holiday, a car, or caviar. It's simply about having enough money to live off.
If these well off people want to have private health insurance, send their kids to private schools, put their kids in a child care centre instead of hiring a private nanny for the day, that's all fine and dandy. But they should pay for it. The gov should not be giving money to people who don't need it, especially when it's at the expense of the poor.
The GFC appears to be never ending right now. Things aren't going to get better any time soon in Europe or the US. Surely now is the time to look at welfare money in the cold light of day. The whole system needs a shake-up.
I blame both major parties for this BTW. Howard did enormous damage to the whole welfare system by targeting the well off with welfare to buy their votes for years before he lost office, and Labor seems either too gutless or incompetent to address the issue other than tinkering at the edges. As with the GFC, I can't see anything changing anytime soon. But this really sucks man.
This was on the ABC last night. A 14 year old boy in northern NSW, after being capsicum sprayed and tasered once, is tasered again on the ground on his knees. This is shocking and disturbing.
I gotta go for a drink man, feeling a bit upset after watching that.
Not a good morning. I get so involved with some of this. Reading that "Broken Rites" site earlier too and some of the cases of sexual abuse by the Catholic church. ... Think I'll just have a break for a while.
*Update*
Fuck, what an intense morning. First off came Pell blathering about the unfair media treatment of the Catholic church even when "Broken Rites" made it clear that 90% of the complaints about sexual abuse were from the Catholic church. I spent about half an hour reading some of the experiences of the abused at the Broken Rites website, where one of the things I read was of a Catholic priest who raped a brother and sister quite young only a few hours after their father's funeral (I had to get up and make coffee, stop reading at that point). Then came the coroner giving her findings on the death of Mr Curti, who died when they went right over the top, and beyond what even a fit young man's body in his early 20's could withstand, and killing him. Fuck! The inquest is going after the 5 police, saying they should front up to disciplinary action, as well as referring their behaviour to the Police Integrity Commission (this is a case I've been following closely as I suffered two broken ribs by the cops about 2 years ago after I swore at them). Then came suddenly and without warning that last video, recent, of a 15 year old boy at the hands of the police with their fuckin weapons. That was the video that got me. I related with the 14 year old, crying in despair at the mercy of the thug cops. This 14 year old (above video) cring for his dead mother who died when he was 7. His life shattered, a train wreck, and having to deal with WTF is happening to me now? Why are the cops doing this to me? That fuckin cry from the soul.... That's was what got me...
The NSW coroner is currently handing down her findings into the death of Brazilian student Roberto Laudisio Curti at the hands of the NSW police. It's still going on, but so far it's looking very bad for the cops. Live tweets on the ABC site from the coroner court;
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-11-14/coroner-hands-down-findings-in-curti-inquest/4370892
A coroner handing down findings into the death of a Brazilian student tasered by police in Sydney's CBD has recommended that five officers should face disciplinary action.
Coroner Mary Jerram investigated the death of Roberto Laudisio Curti, who was died after being chased and tasered by police in March.
She says the actions of some of the officers involved in the incident should be referred to the Police Integrity Commission.
And she said some of the police "threw themselves" into the confrontation "like schoolboys in Lord of the Flies". more
From SBS:
The NSW Coroner investigating the death of a Brazilian student repeatedly tasered by police in central Sydney has recommended five officers face disciplinary proceedings.
Delivering her findings into the death of Roberto Laudisio Curti at Glebe Coroner's Court on Wednesday, State Coroner Mary Jerram said the actions of some officers involved excessive force and were "in some instances even thuggish".
She also recommended that police review their use of tasers, training procedures for the use of the weapons and whether they should be issued to probationary officers.
She was scathing in her criticism of some officers, saying at times their evidence bore no credibility and was self-serving and misleading. more
This from ninemsn:
The NSW Coroner investigating the death of a Brazilian student repeatedly tasered by police in central Sydney has recommended five officers face disciplinary proceedings.
Delivering her findings into the death of Roberto Laudisio Curti at Glebe Coroner's Court on Wednesday, State Coroner Mary Jerram said the actions of some officers involved excessive force and were "in some instances even thuggish".
She also recommended that police review their use of tasers, training procedures for the use of the weapons and whether they should be issued to probationary officers.
She was scathing in her criticism of some officers, saying at times their evidence bore no credibility and was self-serving and misleading.
........................
Two officers repeatedly drive-stunned Mr Curti, or applied the Taser directly to his bare body at the same time, while others used up to three cans of capsicum spray to subdue him while he lay handcuffed on the ground, the inquest heard.
Most officers said they did not hear Mr Curti wailing, calling out "help" or "what did I do?" as they tried to restrain what many of them described as his "superhuman strength".
The coroner also referred the actions of the officers to the Police Integrity Commission.
She said they had been swept up by "an ungoverned pack mentality, like schoolboys in the Lord of the Flies".
Ms Jerram said taking down Mr Curti involved "a frenzy of officers" most of whom were inexperienced and some "behaving out of control". more
The Brazillion family is going to take court action to make the relevant cops accountable and to pay for their crimes. I dunno if it's true but I'd heard through the grapevine that these people have money. I hope so. I hope they make these cops fuckin pay man. Maybe that'll actually make the gov think if it's going to cost them money in compensation.
But more than that. I hope they fuckin go to jail for what they did. Their jail time, on top of costing the state gov bazillions, would be a turning point in policing in NSW; it would change the way they treated us mere citizens, and it would make people like me feel vindicated for hating them. I was bashed by them, but had no money. I hope the Brazillions do have money. This fuckin needs to happen.
Fuckin hell, is this guy for real? He can't be serious.
On Tuesday a defiant Cardinal Pell welcomed the announcement of a national royal commission into abuse and said he believed it would help decipher real claims from ''significant exaggeration''.
''We'll answer for what we've done,'' Cardinal Pell said, adding that he expected to be called to give evidence. ''We're not trying to defend the indefensible.''
But he hit out at what he described as a ''campaign'' by the media and ''general smears'' against the Catholic Church.
Read more
He sounds like some whinging politician who ignored his constituents for years and facing bad polling because of it, then blames the media for the polls. It's one of the oldest cop outs in the book. Honestly for someone to come out with that, I don't consider at all that he actually believes it, but rather it's simply a strategy to blunt the criticism against the Catholic church. And in using such a strategy he's treating the general public such as I with derision and contempt; assuming that we're all dumb fuckin sheep. Politicians use that line all the time when they're having a bad run.
It's also treating those people who have been sexually abused by his church worse even than he's treating the general public. I can't imagine how I'd feel if I was a victim of abuse by the Catholic Church, only to have the Cardinal of Australia go on the telly and claim it didn't happen as it's a media beat up. Any victims who may be reading this, you certainly have my sympathies here.
I'm not a Catholic (just in case anyone hadn't realised that by now!) so I don't take much heed in anything they've said over the years. I mean the whole bloody church is stuck in the Middle Ages as far as I'm concerned and entirely irrelevant to modern life. One particular thing in the church that needs an overhaul is what's been in the firing line of late here. This is what the law in NSW says if someone tells you they've been fucking around with kids.
Under the NSW Crimes Act, a person must disclose knowledge of a sexual assault or risk being charged with concealing a serious indictable offence, but priests are one of a small class of occupations that cannot be prosecuted unless the Attorney-General consents.
Read more
Why the hell are priests virtually immune from prosecution? The law needs changing. IMO you can't have a religion practising here that has a system in place that breaks the law. It's simply using church dogma to hide abuse. Since when does being in a religion make it OK to break the law, and such a serious law as well? NSW Premier Barry O'Farrell, himself a Catholic, made this comment in State parliament yesterday:
''But I struggle to understand … that if a priest confesses to another priest that he's been involved in paedophile activities, that that information should not be brought to police,'' he said.
Read more
So anyway, let us pray .... look what the real story is, from people who've spent years investigation sexual abuse within religious organisations here. "Broken Rites" has been in the news a bit last couple of days. I've never heard of them. So looked them up.And who do I find in a picture right smack dab in the middle of the home page? None other than Cardinal Pell himself, in his younger days though, before he became a Cardinal.
In the photo, Catholic priest Gerald Ridsdale (left) walks to court, accompanied by his support person (Bishop George Pell, then an auxiliary bishop in Melbourne), when Father Ridsdale was pleading guilty to his first batch of criminal charges in May 1993.
But no bishop accompanied the victims, who felt deserted by the church hierarchy. Therefore, Broken Rites quickly became Australia's main support group for church-abuse victims. more
Oh look, there's that bloody media again, making all this up and demonising the Catholic church unfairly... Looks like Pell has a bit of a name for himself with these abuse victims.
So what does this Broken Rites organisation have to say specifically in regards to the Catholic church? What of Pell's assertion that there has been "significant exaggeration", "general smears", and a media "campaign" against his beloved church? Broken Rites, who have been in existence since 1992, say this on their home page:
Broken Rites has supported victims (male or female) from the Catholic Church, the Anglican Church and the Uniting Church, as well as from smaller denominations.
About 90 per cent of the men and women who have contacted Broken Rites Australia have been from a Catholic background. more
GetUp has filmed up in north Queensland what's happening to the Great Barrier Reef. It looks pretty dismal, and not at all what you'd expect to see given the rhetoric coming out of Canberra. The federal environment minister Tony Burke is considering approving more coal mining in the area that likely will destroy much of the reef around that area in doing so, along with the tourism and the jobs that brings to the communities up there. This is the add they want to put on air up in those affected areas. It just happens there's a lot of marginal seats that the gov needs up there to win the federal election next year.
We've just come back from Gladstone Harbour, in the World Heritage Area of the Great Barrier Reef. While Federal Environment Minister Tony Burke is telling the media that his government is doing everything they can to save the Great Barrier Reef, but at the same time, they're approving - and considering approving more - coal facilities right on the reef.
This ad calls Tony Burke out. It means that he can't walk both sides of the street anymore, and voters can see exactly what he is approving. Queensland, home to the Great Barrier Reef, is also home to marginal seats at the next Federal Election - so that's where we're focusing. Chip in to help put this on the air on cinema screens and TV screens in crucial electorates: Donate here
Gillard has acted promptly to the latest round of paedophilia cases coming out of the Catholic church and has announced a full royal commission into child sex abuse within Australia. It will be all encompassing not limited to just one institution, and will take as long as is necessary to find out the truth. I'm sure there are a lot of Catholic priests presently shitting themselves right now.
Some wanted the commission to be more specific and only be to do with the Catholic church, so systemic is the abuse within it. But to get agreement from all sides of politics Gillard has made it cover all institutions. Tony Abbott, himself a Catholic, didn't want his church to be singled out and wouldn't support the commission if it was. Needless to say however I can't see it making any difference to investigations into the church. The commission will be following cases of abuse and the Catholic church has a lot of them.
Coincidentally, there were two arrests yesterday over abuse:
A Catholic brother and a former Catholic teacher have been charged in NSW over alleged assaults on children dating back to the 1980s.
Sex Crimes Squad detectives investigating allegations of abuse on an eight-year-old girl in 1985 and two 13-year-old boys in 1987 made the arrests on Monday evening and later charged the pair.
Police allege some of the incidents took place at a Catholic college and a Catholic primary school in Sydney's west.
The Catholic brother, whose charges relate to the two boys, has been refused bail and will appear at Wyong Local Court on Tuesday.
Read more
And honestly, this one in the SMH today shocked even me. How the hell could they do this to the disabled? Like I said, they have no right to claim any moral authority in our society after such horrifying, grotesque, institutionalised, and systemic child sexual abuse as this:
But he is now 54 years old, works full time as a gardener (and has done so for about 26 years), drives a car, lives in a flat on his own, is a very independent person and does volunteer work for the disabled. He is a good person and a kind person and this should never have happened to him or any other child.
The Brothers of St John of God betrayed him and all the other sexually abused children under their care. They were handicapped children, for God's sake. How low do these paedophiles go? They betrayed the trust and care we expected from them as a family.
The Catholic Church also betrayed us; it covered up this abuse and many other sexual abuses across Australia and instead protected the perpetrators and ignored the victims and the pain they suffered and are still suffering. As my brother said, it will never leave him.
These disgusting paedophile Brothers were in a position of trust and abused that position of trust under the umbrella of the Catholic Church. How many other boys were sexually abused under the care of these paedophiles at the school?
This was a criminal offence that should have been dealt with as such, but instead was covered up.
I have always wanted to take legal action to expose the Catholic Church with the sexual abuse of the disabled and intellectually handicapped children at Kendall Grange but was always very concerned about the impact it would have on my brother. The Catholic Church and the hypocritical people who protect these disgusting paedophiles have a lot to answer.
Read more
How fuckin dare these people preach to anyone about morality. They are vile.
Posts
