Journal articles on the topic 'Euthanasia – Law and legislation – Macau'

Abstract Euthanasia or "sweet death" is a topic that has sparked numerous debates throughout history. In Albania, the right to life is protected by Article 21 of the Constitution of the Republic of Albania. Regarding the individual's right to die in Albania, both forms of euthanasia, the passive and the active one, are considered criminal offenses and are punishable by law. The problem lies in the fact that such a definition is not found in the Albanian legislation, but such actions are considered as criminal by the interpretation of the law. In this topic we will study the perception of Albanians regarding euthanasia and whether the Albanian legislation should include this form of soft death or not. The protection of life in the country should take the dimensions of a sustainable protection. For this reason, in addition to the positive effects of improving life protection that derive from the application of the entirety of the various criminal justice programs and policies, also including the recent amendments to the Criminal Code of the Republic of Albania, a concrete and continuous protection should be provided in support of the right to life. I have always drawn a debate on this issue, which deals with the fundamental human right, with the most sacred right, that of life.

The aim of this article is to analyze the epistemological study of euthanasia, as well as provides the general description of euthanasia in the historical development of the country and legislation. Euthanasia being a socio-legal phenomenon has very ancient historical roots. However, euthanasia has been highlighted as a scientific research object only at the end of the nineteenth century; thus, euthanasia has been classified as an independent scientific approach. In the history of state and law attitude towards euthanasia phenomenon can be divided into four main periods which coincide with global stages in history of mankind. Each of these stages had specific traditions concerning the issue of this kind of ending one’s life.

If a person is suffering from some illness or disability and wishes to end their We the lawought to facilitate rather than frustrate that choice argues Graham Oddie in this article. Hepoints out the inconsistencies in current medical practice, and the gross disparity between the practice and the letter of the law. In dismissing many of the commonly raised objections to calls for reform of the law permitting euthanasia he makes a strong case for consistency in our approach to the right to die and patient autonomy.

AbstractNon-voluntary passive euthanasia, the commonest form of euthanasia, is seldom mentioned in the UK. This article illustrates how the legal reasoning in Airedale NHS Trust v Bland contributed towards this conceptual deletion. By upholding the impermissibility of euthanasia, whilst at the same time permitting 'euthanasia' under the guise of 'withdrawing futile treatment', it is argued that the court (logically) allowed (withdrawing futile treatment and euthanasia). The Bland reasoning was incorporated into professional guidance, which extended the court's ruling to encompass patients who, unlike Anthony Bland, were sentient. But since the lawfulness of (withdrawing futile treatment and euthanasia) hinges on the futility of treatment, and since the guidance provides advice about withdrawing treatment from patients who differ from those considered in court, the lawfulness of such 'treatment decisions' is unclear. Legislation s proposed in order to redress the ambiguity that arose when moral decisions about 'euthanasia' were translated into medical decisions about 'treatment'.

The issue of euthanasia presents a contact area of ethics, law, and politics. This text provides a contribution to the expert public debate on the introduction of euthanasia into Serbian legislation. It does so first by clarifies the term - euthanasia (as a right to die with dignity). Further, it considers the obligations of other persons that arise from this right and the conditions under which they present a restriction on personality rights. By citing examples from the fields of ethics and law, the text states that the distinction between active and passive euthanasia is in fact a product of inadequate deliberation during the implementation of this differentiation.

AbstractAfter the turbulent years 2002, 2003 and 2004 the Belgian health law seems to have reached calmer water. Indeed, after a quiet 2005, 2006 does not seem to have much to offer either. However, as will be shown in this article, this may be a wrong impression. There is a growing uneasiness with two important pieces of legislation that have been approved by Parliament in 2002: the act on euthanasia and the act on the rights of patients. This has resulted in debates and discussions that may finally lead to new legislation in the coming years.

Moral stress is a major concern in veterinary practice. Often, it is associated with the challenges in end-of-life situations. Euthanasia, however, is also meant to bring relief to animal patients and their owners. The reasons for the moral strain euthanizing animals causes to professional veterinarians need to be further clarified. This article investigates “euthanasia” from a philosophical, legal, and practical perspective. After introducing relevant aspects of euthanasia in small animal practice, the term is analyzed from an ethical point of view. That includes both a broad and a narrow definition of “euthanasia” and underlying assumptions regarding different accounts of animal death and well-being. Then, legal and soft regulations are discussed with regard to the theoretical aspects and practical challenges, also including questions of personal morality. It is argued that the importance of ethical definitions and assumptions concerning euthanasia and their intertwinement with both law and practical challenges should not be neglected. The conclusion is that veterinarians should clarify the reasons for their potential discomfort and that they should be supported by improved decision-making tools, by implementation of theoretical and practical ethics in veterinary education, and by updated animal welfare legislation.

Domestic and world opinion is gradually changing towards the idea of tolerating or even legalising active euthanasia. The implications of this are examined using Foulke's concept of the ‘levels' in group discussions. Psychiatrists have a unique experience in using the statutory mental health legislation, in addition to the ordinary law, to regulate medical care. A new ‘special defence’ is suggested, to be enacted by Parliament, intended to justify, but also designed to control, deliberate acts of medical euthanasia.

In 2016, a law came into force in France granting terminally ill patients the right to continuous deep sedation (CDS) until death. This right was proposed as an alternative to euthanasia and presented as the ‘French response’ to problems at the end of life. The law draws a distinction between CDS and euthanasia and other forms of sympton control at the end of life. France is the first country in the world to legislate on CDS . This short report describes the particular context and underlying social values that led to this piece of legislation, and explores its meaning in the wider French context.

<p><em><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: medium;">End of life law and policy reform is the subject of much discussion around the world. This paper explores the pathways to permissive legal regimes that have been tried in various common law jurisdictions. These include legislation, prosecutorial charging guidelines, court challenges, jury nullification, the exercise of prosecutorial discretion in the absence of offence-specific charging guidelines, and the exercise of judicial discretion in sentencing. In this paper, I describe these pathways as taken (or attempted) in five common law jurisdictions (USA, UK, Australia, New Zealand, and Canada) and reflect briefly on lessons that can be drawn from the recent experiences with law reform in Canada. Through its bird’s eye view, it highlights the remarkable number and variable nature of past attempts at law reform and suggests a shifting tide. It debunks some common myths that have either limited or stymied reform in the past. Finally, it illuminates jurisdictional similarities and differences and lessons learned by those who have gone before so as to inform choices about pathways to pursue for those who will seek to advance a law reform agenda in the future.</span></em></p>

BackgroundIn Belgium law prohibits euthanasia at the end stage of dementia when patients are no longer able to formulate their will. The number of applications for euthanasia based on dementia is low, but patients and their relatives are searching for access to euthanasia.AimThis study assessed the opinions of GPs facing requests for euthanasia in patients with dementia.Design & settingA cross-sectional survey was performed in general practice. Flemish GPs were invited by email to participate in the study.MethodGPs were reached through the regional GP association and the online survey was open for 4 weeks. The data were then anonymised, analysed, and interpreted. The outcome of interest addresses opinions of Flemish GPs regarding euthanasia in patients with dementia.ResultsA total of 113/308 doctors participated. It was found that 69% agreed that euthanasia in patients without dementia is more acceptable than in patients with dementia. When patients with dementia had concomitant diseases, 59% stated that euthanasia was more acceptable than when patients were ‘healthy’. It was also found that 56% agreed the euthanasia law needs adjustments towards patients with dementia. Legal adjustments were supported more by GPs of a younger generation. Non-religious doctors were twice as likely to be in favour of legal adjustments than their religious colleagues; 51% believed that the ability of patients to repeat their will is essential; while 72% of GPs feared pressure from relatives to follow the declaration of will.ConclusionThe Belgian GP has an open attitude towards euthanasia for patients with dementia. There was a willingness to perform euthanasia as the stage of dementia worsened and in cases of terminal conditions. Debate, education, and experience will influence opinion and the legislation process.

SummaryUK law on assisted suicide and euthanasia is very clear: it is unlawful. However, there have been successive proposals for changes to legislation in this area (in England and Scotland) and a series of individual challenges to current legislation in the courts. This article does not seek to debate the profound ethical arguments that surround this emotive subject, but instead to portray how the law, through court judgment and legislative proposals, has wrestled with opposing views, particularly over the past decade or so, as the impact of the Human Rights Act has presented unique challenges. Some of our closest European neighbours have diverse legislation that could influence our own legislature, and, from across the Atlantic, the Oregon Death with Dignity Act is being mirrored in proposals to change the law in the UK.Learning Objectives•Be able to recognise the impact of the Human Rights Act on challenges to legislation relating to assisted suicide.•Understand proposals for statute.•Appreciate how certain other countries legislate in this area.

The present paper examines the occurrence of matters relating to the ending of life, including active euthanasia, which is, technically speaking, illegal worldwide. Interest in this most controversial area is drawn from many varied sources, from legal and medical practitioners to religious and moral ethicists. In some countries, public interest has been mobilized into organizations that attempt to influence legislation relating to euthanasia. Despite the obvious international importance of euthanasia, very little is known about the extent of its practice, whether passive or active, voluntary or involuntary. This examination is based on questionnaires completed by 49 national representatives of the International Association for Suicide Prevention (IASP), dealing with legal and religious aspects of euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide, as well as suicide. A dichotomy between the law and medical practices relating to the end of life was uncovered by the results of the survey. In 12 of the 49 countries active euthanasia is said to occur while a general acceptance of passive euthanasia was reported to be widespread. Clearly, definition is crucial in making the distinction between active and passive euthanasia; otherwise, the entire concept may become distorted, and legal acceptance may become more widespread with the effect of broadening the category of individuals to whom euthanasia becomes an available option. The “slippery slope” argument is briefly considered.

AbstractOn September 22, 1998, California Governor Pete Wilson signed Senate Bill 1785 into law, dramatically affecting the entire California animal sheltering community. Dubbed the "Hayden law" by the animal protection community after the bill's sponsor, it represents the state of California's attempt to legislate a solution to both the companion animal overpopulation problem and the friction between the agencies trying to end it. The persistence of the bill's primary supporters, a Los Angeles veterinarian and a UCLA law school professor and the overall lack of opposition to it helped SB 1785 sail through the California legislature. Because of the scope of the bill and the immense cost of implementation, its passage shocked many in the sheltering community. This case study highlights the consequences of legislation that was crafted based on worse case scenarios and over which there was little collaborative effort. It concludes with suggestions that might be useful to other states contemplating similar such legislation.

AbstractOn September 22, 1998, California Governor Pete Wilson signed Senate Bill 1785 into law, dramatically affecting the entire Califomia animal sheltering community. Dubbed the "Hayden law" by the animal protection community after the bill's sponsor, it represents the state of Califomia's attempt to legislate a solution to both the companion animal overpopulation problem and the friction between the agencies trying to end it.The persistence of the bill's primary supporters, a Los Angeles veterinarian and a UCLA law school professor and the overall lack of opposition to it helped SB 1785 sail through the California legislature. Because of the scope of the bill and the immense cost of implementation, its passage shocked many in the sheltering community.This case study highlights the consequences of legislation that was crafted based on worse case scenarios and over which there was little collaborative effort. It concludes with suggestions that might be useful to other states contemplating similar such legislation.

Abstract The article looks into the case involving Fabiano Antoniani, who, following a major road accident, was left tetraplegic. Marco Cappato drove him to a Swiss clinic where Mr. Antoniani took his own life by self-administration of lethal pentobarbital sodium. Cappato was put on trial, but the Italian Constitutional Court urged the Parliament to decriminalise assisted suicide in extremely serious cases. From a comparison with other European countries, approaches range from restrictive (banning both active euthanasia and assisted suicide), to entirely permissive. An intermediate approach only entails a ban on active euthanasia. It would be desirable to uniformise the diverse national statutes on a European level, which would make it possible for everyone to receive assistance towards ending their suffering, with limitations to incurable cases to be medically verified, and at the end of a path designed to ensure that patient freedom of choice is upheld at all time.

A patient who is suffering from terminal illness and an incurable condition has the possibility to propose to end his/ her life by lethal injection or suspending the medical treatment. This practice is known as euthanasia. Euthanasia is forbidden because it is categorized as homicide and consequently the perpetrator is punishable by criminal law. This reviewdiscusses (1) How is euthanasia legislation in Indonesian positive laws (2) How is euthanasia viewed from human rights perspective (3) How euthanasia is eligislated and conducted in some European countries. To analyze the afore mentioned problems, the writer conducts research by legal normative approach which is implemented in the thorough study of written regulation, official documents and related literatures. The writer finds tha Euthanasia is regarded as criminal act in Indonesia because it is a form of crime against life which stipulated in the Article 344 of the Indonesian Criminal Code (Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Pidana/ KUHP):”Anyone who takes life of others which is clearly done with an intention is punishable by imprisonment for maximum twelve years”. The Declaration of Human Rights has stipulated the “right to life” which is fundamental and inherent in the nature of human being, universally acknowledge and an eternal endowment from The God. However, there are no any stipulations on-- the right to die and therefore euthanasia is a violation of human rights and against the principle of believing in one God. But, the right to die is already stipulated in some laws of developed countries, such as some countries in Europe

Problem setting. Increasingly, European countries are legalizing euthanasia nationally. At the same time, this issue is a circle for scientific debate, as some experts believe that it is a natural human right that can be disposed of at its discretion. Others emphasize that no one can interrupt a person’s life, even herself. In order to summarize all positions and to determine unanimity on certain aspects of euthanasia, it is necessary to refer to the provisions of the European Convention of Human Rights, which in art. 2 proclaims the right to life and the case law of the European Court of Human Rights, which has argued for the possibility of a “right to die” as part of the right to life. The purpose. Analysis of the legal position of the European Court of Human Rights regarding the possibility of applying the euthanasia procedure, exploring the prospects of introducing this procedure into the national law. Analysis of recent research and publications. The problem of euthanasia is a matter of debate in the scientific community. This topic was researched by А.В. Malko, AS Nikiforova, O.V Khomchenko, I.O Koval, O.M Mironets, O.A Miroshnichenko, Yu.S. Romashova, K. Basovskaya, Yu.M. Rybakova, O.M Shchokin, S.V Chernichenko. Article’s main body. In science will distinguish 2 types of euthanasia - active and passive. Active euthanasia involves actions aimed at ending the life of a sick person, for example, by administering a lethal injection. Passive euthanasia involves discontinuation of medical care for a patient at his will, which in the future leads to death. Considering the issue of passive euthanasia, the European Commission concluded that it could not be interpreted art. 2 of the Convention as such, which gives the right to death, but everyone has the right to dispose of his life by giving appropriate instructions in the event of an incurable disease.. The issue of the “right to die”, the right to active euthanasia has been resolved in the case of Pritty v. The United Kingdom. The European Court of Human Rights in this case was not convinced that the “right to life” guaranteed by Article 2 of the Convention could be interpreted negatively. As for Ukraine, euthanasia in our country is being prosecuted and considered a crime. In particular, according to the Fundamentals of Healthcare Legislation, medical professionals are prohibited from taking deliberate actions aimed at ending the life of a patient who is terminally ill to end his or her suffering. The Civil Code of Ukraine contains a similar warning about the prohibition to deprive a person of his life at his request. Conclusions.The European Court of Human Rights does not consider that the content of art. 2 of the Convention it is possible to derive the “right to die”. This right does not come from the right not life, is not an independent right, can not be a fundamental right, to which all the guarantees of art. 2 of the Convention. With regard to passive euthanasia, the ECtHR does not, in fact, prohibit it; it proceeds from the human right to dispose of one’s life. Speaking about the introduction of the euthanasia procedure in the national legal order, the ECtHR did not give a clear assessment on this issue. In fact, the ECtHR has taken the position that it is not entitled to assess national legislation in terms of introducing effective mechanisms to protect their citizens’ right to life.

ObjectivesIn 2015, the Province of Quebec, Canada passed a law that allowed voluntary active euthanasia (VAE). Palliative care stakeholders in Canada have been largely opposed to euthanasia, yet there is little research about their views. The research question guiding this study was the following: How do palliative care physicians in Quebec position themselves regarding the practice of VAE in the context of the new provincial legislation?MethodsWe used interpretive description, an inductive methodology to answer research questions about clinical practice. A total of 18 palliative care physicians participated in semistructured interviews at two university-affiliated hospitals in Quebec.ResultsParticipants positioned themselves in opposition to euthanasia. Their justifications were framed within their professional commitment to not hasten death, which sat in tension with the value of patients’ autonomy to choose how to die. Participants described VAE as unacceptable if it impeded opportunities to evaluate and alleviate suffering. Further, they contested government rhetoric that positioned VAE as a way to improve end-of-life care. Participants felt that VAE would diminish the potential of palliative care to relieve suffering. Dilemmas were apparent in their narratives, about reconciling respect for patient autonomy with broader palliative care values, and the value of accompanying and not abandoning patients who make requests for VAE while being committed to neither prolonging nor hastening death.ConclusionsThis study provides insight into nuanced positions of experienced palliative care physicians in Quebec and confirms expected tensions between an important stakeholder and the practice of VAE as guided by the new legislation.

Pressure to permit voluntary euthanasia and/or physician-assisted suicide is mounting in several jurisdictions around the world. The state of Oregon, which legalised physician-assisted suicide in 1997, provides valuable guidance on the feasibility of effective regulation. The Oregon experience provides the focus of this article. The article comprises two parts. Part I critically analyses the Oregon Death with Dignity Act and evaluates the adequacy of the legislative safeguards. Part II examines the implementation of the Death with Dignity Act. It outlines the significant official findings since physician-assisted suicide was legalised, and calls attention to worrisome aspects and identifiable trends. It then provides an overall assessment of the legislation in light of the available empirical data.

This article is aimed at identifying of legal framework and ethical problems of euthanasia in two of the five BRICS countries belonging to the Anglo-Saxon system of law - India and South Africa. In this format, the article analyzes the approaches of these countries that create patterns of admissibility of euthanasia, its potential and ethical and legal basis for today, based on analytical reflections on the information gathered from sources and literature from the list of sources and literature. The relevance of this research is due to the fact that a number of approaches to legislation and the judicial acts under study can be useful in finding answers to similar questions related to euthanasia on our, Russian legal order. The analyzed ethical and legal experience is reflected both in historical (1986, 1996, 2011) and in new (2015, 2018) judicial acts. Thus, this study serves to fill the existing gap. The author’s results are presented in the identified partial similarity of approaches based on adherence to the Anglo-Saxon system of law, and differences in the understanding of the grounds for the permissibility of euthanasia. The theoretical and practical significance of the results obtained is determined by the fact that Russian readers will be provided with up-to-date scientific information about the state of the Indian and South African approaches in the field under study, which in practical terms will contribute to understanding the gap (or lack thereof) with the approaches of Russian researchers and practitioners (lawyers, etc.).

AbstractThe free movement provisions enable EU citizens to follow their own ethical preferences by going to a Member State that has made a different ethical choice from their home Member State. However, UK citizens who have assisted suicide or euthanasia abroad could be criminally prosecuted on their return to England. This possibility of a criminal prosecution constitutes a restriction on free movement. Nevertheless, the free movement provisions have so far not been used to challenge the English prohibition of euthanasia. The aim of this article is to show that, based on its ultimate aim, free movement law does have a legitimate role to play in ethical issues. The internal market is based on a principle of recognition, which forces Member States to engage with regulatory choices made by other Member States. This also applies to ethical issues. Member States are not required to justify the existence of different ethical choices. However, if they decide to restrict free movement, they have to be able to show that these differences in fact exist. This approach achieves a balance between the right of citizens to make their own ethical choices, and the ability of Member States to protect their legislation on ethical issues.

Abstract:The issue of assisted suicide for those with a “fulfilled life” is being hotly debated in the Netherlands. A large number of Dutch people feel that elderly people (i.e., people who have reached the age of 70) with a “fulfilled life” should have access to assisted suicide. Citizens have therefore requested Parliament to expand the existing legislation that governs euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide. The Dutch constitution does not permit national legislation to be incompatible with higher international (human rights) law. An analysis of the case law of the European Court of Human Rights shows that a person’s right to decide on the time and manner of his or her death should be regarded as an aspect of the right to privacy. Although no positive obligation has been imposed on parties to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms to facilitate suicide, they may do so, provided that certain conditions are met.

Resumo: A Eutanásia em sua tradução Literal significa Boa Morte, e é um tema muito discutido na sociedade atual. Muitos acreditam que seja um ato de misericórdia para com o paciente que está sofrendo, outros que é um crime contra a vida. A proposta é que este trabalho estude e trate da Eutanásia, mais precisamente sobre o direito à prática da Eutanásia. Abordar-se-á no presente trabalho, a atual legislação e o anteprojeto (Projeto de Lei nº 236/12) do Código Penal, tipificando autonomamente a Eutanásia, por ser essa uma conduta revestida de sensibilidade e piedade, mas que apresenta uma série de pontos controversos, polêmicas e dúvidas. Aborda em seu principal escopo o direito sobre a vida e sobre a morte, quando e quais direitos devem triunfar, e razões, favoráveis ou contrárias a aplicabilidade da Eutanásia bem como aborda os conflitos constitucionais envolvendo tal tema no Brasil e quais são as possíveis soluções para tais conflitos. Além disso, há o estudo de quais países foram os pioneiros na legalização do instituto da Eutanásia, os motivos que levaram a essa legalização, os resultados provenientes da tipificação da Eutanásia nesses países e como podem servir de exemplo para que outros países sigam o mesmo caminho. Foi realizada pesquisa bibliográfica em livros, revistas e artigos para a realização do presente trabalho. Abstract: Euthanasia in its literal translation means Good Death, and is a much discussed topic in today's society. More crimes are an act of mercy towards the patient who is suffering, others that is a crime against life. The proposal is this work of study of Euthanasia, more precisely for the right to practice Euthanasia. The current legislation and draft law no. 236/12 of the Penal Code will be approached in this work, typifying autonomy euthanasia, because this is a program that is sensitive and pitiful but presents a series of controversial points, controversies and doubts. It addresses, in its main scope, the right to life and death, when and those that fall into the triumph, and the reasons, favorable or contrary to an application of euthanasia, as well as its constitutional approach such conflicts , the legalization of the euthanasia institute must be taken seriously, the reasons that lead to this legalization, the results of the euthanasia typing, and the possibility of serving the example for the other countries follow the same path. The research was bibliographical in books, magazines and articles for the accomplishment of the present work.

This article is a theological reflection written four months after the death, at age 80, of Nedra Faye Hathaway, mother to co-author Karen and mother-in-law to co-author Jim. Nedra chose to end her life on October 24, 2016, over a year after being diagnosed with pancreatic cancer, almost eleven months after major surgery to remove her pancreas and four months after learning the cancer was still present even after eighteen chemotherapy treatments. For many years Nedra, an Oregonian, had been a proponent of the right to die with dignity. She had supported Oregon’s approval of “Death with Dignity” law. Different states refer to this as physician-assisted suicide, right to die, or euthanasia. After moving to California to reside with her daughter and son-in-law, Nedra was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer, a diagnosis that eventually led to the conclusion that she had only months to live. After choosing to participate in California’s newly approved End of Life Option Act, Nedra agreed to contribute as part of an educational panel to support the Act. She wowed the participants of the Program. She expressed her strong belief in her right to make end-of-life decisions, appreciation for programs such as the one in which she was participating, her desire to see more states adopt Death with Dignity legislation, and her personal gratitude to each of the professionals who volunteer to support patients who make choices like hers. She also said, “I recognize there is a difference in supporting me in this process and agreeing with me at every turn in the road.” Following her participation on this panel nothing more was said to her by family members, initially uncomfortable with her decision, about taking her end-of-life medication. In the end, on a legal level, the family found that, with Nedra, they supported the adoption of “right-to-die” legislation by additional states. While they do not think that the choice she made will be the best choice for every person and every family, they acknowledge that simply having the right to choose the time and place of her death brought Nedra comfort; simultaneously, the family found themselves hoping they would have the same right regardless of which state they lived in.

Modern processes of globalization taking place in the field of law are a great challenge to the idea of human nature, which is recognized in Ukraine as the highest social value, as well as to the concept and essence of law itself. In our opinion, this is a threat on a global scale and necessitates the search for an adequate response to the threat from the scientific and technical process in the field of biomedicine, both for the natural (physical) existence of man and the preservation of his moral identity. In fact, these foundations have become the prerequisites for the development of the science of bioethics. Bioethics studies controversial and ambiguous issues and proposes a humanitarian examination, which aims to assess the arguments in favor of the development of human creativity, health and prevention of premature death, and arguments in favor of preserving human identity in its spiritual and physical integrity. The purpose of the article is to study the essence of controversial bioethical problems, the reasons for their occurrence and prospects for solving these problems. human, manipulation of stem cells and others. Bioethical issues usually include the ethical issues of abortion; contraception and new reproductive technologies (artificial insemination, surrogacy); conducting experiments on humans and animals; obtaining informed consent and ensuring patients' rights; determination of death, suicide and euthanasia; problems in relation to dying patients (hospices); demographic policy and family planning; genetics (including problems of genome research, genetic engineering and gene therapy); transplantology; health equity; human cloning, manipulation of stem cells and others. These issues related to the progress of genetics, genomics, pharmacology, transplantation, biotechnology, cloning are becoming increasingly important as a direction of international law in the context of ensuring and protecting human rights. IN legal literature indicates the formation of "biolaw", "bioethical legislation", "bioethical human rights". Thus there is a combination of possibilities and purposes of medicine and law. In our article, we have explored only some of these issues, which are currently the most relevant, debatable, and therefore require detailed analysis. These include, in our view, the legal status of the embryo, therapeutic and reproductive cloning, abortion, the use of assisted reproductive technologies and organ transplantation. In order to adequately cover these issues, we compare the rules of law governing these debatable issues with the views of church representatives and scholars on these issues. We also proposed changes that need to be made to the legislation of Ukraine so that the rules of law governing these issues meet the moral and ethical principles. As a conclusion is marked, that as bioethics as science dealing with survival combines in itself biological knowledge and general human values, then it is possible to consider natural human rights, her honour and dignity morally-legal principles of bioethics, a self right and law must become on defence of that, in particular, with the aim of providing of natural (physical) existence of man, and maintenance of her moral identity. Keywords: human rights, moral, bioethics, abortion, reproductive technologies, cloning.

The increased demand for meat from wild animals for human consumption, as an alternative protein source, brings with it the need for research that demonstrates the quality of such product. The technical information about the meat from collared peccaries still needs studies and aiming to collaborate with the already existing knowledge, this research had as its objective to provide subsidies for evaluation of the sanitary quality of the meat from collared peccaries. Twelve animals were used, six males and six females, aged four to five months, from the breeding stock of the Federal Rural University of the Semi-Arid and, after euthanasia by a slaughter technique used in goats, the meat samples were collected through sterile swabs at the locations of the hind leg, loin, belly and axilla of each animal, totaling 48 samples. The maximum mesophilic count found was 1.9 x 103 CFU/ml, the total coliform and thermotolerant coliform counts were below the one determined in the legislation for meat from domestic animals, however, through biochemical tests, the presence of E. coli from the biotype 1 and biotype 2 was found, in seven and six samples, respectively. Search results for Salmonella spp. were negative in all samples and, as for Staphylococcus spp., only one sample had the count above the level allowed by law. The contamination load related to the bacteria E. coli proved to be high, making 13 samples unfit for consumption. Regarding the other data, the meat from young collared peccaries showed a low contamination load.

In order to examine the object of research, and both to achieve the goal of research and to ensure the completeness, objectivity, reliability and persuasiveness of the results, the author used a set of general and special methods that are peculiar to legal science. In particular, the origin and long historical path of development of certain human rights were studied with the help of the historical method. On the basis of system-structural method there has been formulated the general structure of the study; with the help of dialectical method the author has analyzed the provisions of law and case law on the pecularities of the right to die. The analysis of the legislation of foreign countries has been provided using comparative legal method, which have made it possible to recall their positive experience in terms of analysis of the right to death. This article reveals the scientific approaches of researchers to determine the nature of death, the right to die, the right to a dignified death, to identify features thereof and to provide distinction between them. The paper analyzes ways to protect the right to die. Part of the work is devoted to the analysis of the law enforcement practice of the European Court of Human Rights on the possibility and expediency of the existence of certain criteria for restricting the right to life. Based on the study, it has been concluded that death and the right to die, the right to die and the right to a dignified death are correlated as primary and secondary, i.e., the right to die includes all these concepts. They cannot exist without each other. In different countries they are interpreted differently, but the main feature thereof is the free will of a person, who has an incurable disease, to die. It has been argued that the term right to a dignified death is the most appropriate to use. It has been noted that a significant number of foreign countries provide for the right to die and euthanasia.

‘Individual actions, which may ostensibly be seen as for humane purposes, can have inimical consequences for a whole category of people.’ This is one of the concluding comments in the affidavit from Not Dead Yet Aotearoa (NDYA) in the Lecretia Seales court case (Wicks and Hunt, 2015), and it is the starting point here. The community of disabled people and their interests is the focus of this article, which elaborates on some of the probable consequences of changing the law to legitimise euthanasia or assisted suicide.

No religion is recognized in Indonesia that allows euthanasia to be carried out. Because indeed an action in English called mercy killing or murder based on mercy can also be said to be contradictory to its name, where in carrying out the manifestation of mercy it is precisely what is done is to take the life of man, the gift of the Almighty and should be respected and guarded. Formulation of Article 344 of the Criminal Code concerning euthanasia has a weakness, among others: The existence of elements: at the request of the person himself expressed with sincerity, which makes it difficult to prove and prosecute. Article 344 of the Criminal Code is about active euthanasia, whereas the law of passive euthanasia is not regulated. Delict euthanasia is an ordinary offense, and is not an offense, so it is demanded the tenacity and sharpness of the investigating apparatus and investigators to reveal whether an act of euthanasia has been committed.

<p>Abstract<br />This article aims to determine withholding of life support in terminal patients and the protection right of life in terminalpatients. This research uses method a literature review juridical-normative, by analysis the legislation directly and reference-law. The result of this research is the withholdingof life support is a passive euthanasia, which can shorten the patient’s life indirectly. This can be done in accordance with the regulation of the Minister of Health No. 37 of 2014. The implementation of withholdingof life support by doctors is also contrary to the code of medical ethics.<br />Keywords:Withholding life support; patient terminal; the protection of the right to life</p><p>Abstrak<br />Artikel ini bertujuan untuk mengetahui penghentian bantuan hidup pada pasien terminal dan perlindungan hak hidup pada pasien terminal. Penelitian ini menggunakan metode penelitian telaah pustaka yang bersifat yuridis-normatif, dengan melakukan analisisperaturan perundang-undangandan melalui refrensi-refrensi hukum. Hasil dari penelitian ini adalah penghentian bantuan hidup merupakan euthanasia pasif, yang dapat memperpendek kehidupan pasien secara tidak langsung. Hal ini dapat dilakukan sesuai dengan Peraturan Menteri Kesehatan Nomor 37 Tahun 2014.Namun pelaksanaan tindakan penghentian bantuan hidup yang dilakukan oleh dokter bertentangan dengan Kode Etik Kedokteran.<br />Kata Kunci: penghentian bantuan hidup; pasien koma; perlindungan hak hidup</p>

The 85 year old woman still had a strong German accent. She had, she told me, been living in Australia since the end of the war when she arrived as a refugee from Germany. Now Helga wanted help, wanted to attend my free euthanasia advisory clinics, wanted to get access to lethal drugs so that she could control the time of her death. I gave her an appointment for the next Sydney clinic, and hung up. I met her a few weeks later and she told me her story; how it was that she had come to this point. As a 22 year old Jewish woman, she was studying medicine in Warsaw when war broke out. When the Nazis invaded Poland, she found herself and her 2-year-old child incarcerated in a concentration camp, separated from her husband. Her expression was flat and detached as she described how her child had died, but how she, because of her youth and fitness, had been able to work and survive those war years. In Europe, at liberation, she found herself alone, her husband dead and with no-one else from her family alive. She travelled to Australia, and had worked for the next 35 years in a Sydney clothing factory. She was not terminally ill. In fact, by any conventional measure, she was not ill at all -- just someone who wanted to know she could peacefully end her life at the time of her choice. She asked me for the drugs she wanted. "Barbiturates", she said, "something that will give me control..." I raised my hands, stopping her in mid sentence. "Can't do it", I said, "it's against the law to assist in a suicide. And you're not even ill -- to help you would be to take extreme risks". It was her turn to stop me. "Risks!" she exclaimed, with more than a hint of sarcasm, "I'll tell you about real risks in life". She continued. "Do you think I'd be asking you for help if I'd been able to finish medicine? Do you think I'd be coming to you, begging for help? And I'm not after that much, I just want what I would have had, if life had been different. What I want is what you've got, something that will allow me to control the time of my death." This month, I described the story to medical and nursing staff in a Perth hospital. I wanted to use Helga's story as an example of one of the groups of people who are increasingly attending my euthanasia advisory clinics. In a clinic series, run in August/September of this year in four Australian cities, 44 patients were seen, 57% of whom were not terminal, and 12% (five patients) were not ill at all, but simply wanted to have the piece of mind that comes from having access to peaceful lethal drugs. In December this year, a second run of clinics will be held across Australia and another 34 patients will be seen. Slowly the profile of a typical clinic attender is being compiled. The results are encouraging; a seeming paradox. Those who are able to get help and obtain what they want, information, drugs, advice etc., immediately become less anxious. A preoccupation, a concern that many of them have had for months, sometime years, evaporates when they are put back in control. The terminally ill feel better, their quality of life improves, they can relax more, and they probably live longer. This then is the paradox: access to good euthanasia legislation, or in the absence of this, the chance to obtain advice from these euthanasia clinics, does not lead to the premature deaths of the terminally ill. Access to clinics results in the sick living longer, better lives. And patients like Helga, people who simply want to know they have control over this most important decision, benefit from the peace that comes when this need is met. Surely these are results of which a medical professional should be proud. Unfortunately, my opponents do not see it this way. Groups that purport to care for the rights of patients continue to oppose the clinics and to lobby the various medical boards for my deregistration. In three states, challenges have been made from such bodies as 'Right to Life', 'Coalition for the Defence of Human Life', 'Trust', and of course the 'Australian Medical Association'. Plans for a comprehensive series of free clinics in locations that will include Hobart and Perth are now in place for the year 2000. Whether they survive or not is yet to be seen... Philip Nitschke, MBBS, PhD. Darwin, November 1999. Citation reference for this article MLA style: Philip Nitschke. "End." M/C: A Journal of Media and Culture 2.8 (1999). [your date of access] <http://www.uq.edu.au/mc/9912/end.php>. Chicago style: Philip Nitschke, "End," M/C: A Journal of Media and Culture 2, no. 8 (1999), <http://www.uq.edu.au/mc/9912/end.php> ([your date of access]). APA style: Philip Nitschke. (1999) End. M/C: A Journal of Media and Culture 2(8). <http://www.uq.edu.au/mc/9912/end.php> ([your date of access]).

In Australia the “intimacy” of citizenship (Berlant 2), is often used to reinforce subscription to heteronormative romantic and familial structures. Because this framing promotes discourses of moral failure, recent political attention to sexuality and same-sex couples can be filtered through insights into coalitional affiliations. This paper uses contemporary shifts in Australian politics and culture to think through the concept of coalition, and in particular to analyse connections between sexuality and governmentality (or more specifically normative bias and same-sex relationships) in what I’m calling post-coalitional Australia. Against the unpredictability of changing parties and governments, allegiances and alliances, this paper suggests the continuing adherence to a heteronormatively arranged public sphere. After the current Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard deposed the previous leader, Kevin Rudd, she clung to power with the help of independents and the Greens, and clichés of a “rainbow coalition” and a “new paradigm” were invoked to describe the confused electorate and governmental configuration. Yet in 2007, a less confused Australia decisively threw out the Howard–led Liberal and National Party coalition government after eleven years, in favour of Rudd’s own rainbow coalition: a seemingly invigorated party focussed on gender equity, Indigenous Australians, multi-cultural visibility, workplace relations, Austral-Asian relations, humane refugee processing, the environment, and the rights and obligations of same-sex couples. A post-coalitional Australia invokes something akin to “aftermath culture” (Lambert and Simpson), referring not just to Rudd’s fall or Howard’s election loss, but to the broader shifting contexts within which most Australian citizens live, and within which they make sense of the terms “Australia” and “Australian”. Contemporary Australia is marked everywhere by cracks in coalitions and shifts in allegiances and belief systems – the Coalition of the Willing falling apart, the coalition government crushed by defeat, deposed leaders, and unlikely political shifts and (re)alignments in the face of a hung parliament and renewed pushes toward moral and cultural change. These breakdowns in allegiances are followed by swift symbolically charged manoeuvres. Gillard moved quickly to repair relations with mining companies damaged by Rudd’s plans for a mining tax and to water down frustration with the lack of a sustainable Emissions Trading Scheme. And one of the first things Kevin Rudd did as Prime Minister was to change the fittings and furnishings in the Prime Ministerial office, of which Wright observed that “Mr Howard is gone and Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has moved in, the Parliament House bureaucracy has ensured all signs of the old-style gentlemen's club… have been banished” (The Age, 5 Dec. 2007). Some of these signs were soon replaced by Ms. Gillard herself, who filled the office in turn with memorabilia from her beloved Footscray, an Australian Rules football team. In post-coalitional Australia the exile of the old Menzies’ desk and a pair of Chesterfield sofas works alongside the withdrawal of troops from Iraq and renewed pledges for military presence in Afghanistan, apologising to stolen generations of Indigenous Australians, the first female Governor General, deputy Prime Minister and then Prime Minister (the last two both Gillard), the repealing of disadvantageous workplace reform, a focus on climate change and global warming (with limited success as stated), a public, mandatory paid maternity leave scheme, changes to the processing and visas of refugees, and the amendments to more than one hundred laws that discriminate against same sex couples by the pre-Gillard, Rudd-led Labor government. The context for these changes was encapsulated in an announcement from Rudd, made in March 2008: Our core organising principle as a Government is equality of opportunity. And advancing people and their opportunities in life, we are a Government which prides itself on being blind to gender, blind to economic background, blind to social background, blind to race, blind to sexuality. (Rudd, “International”) Noting the political possibilities and the political convenience of blindness, this paper navigates the confusing context of post-coalitional Australia, whilst proffering an understanding of some of the cultural forces at work in this age of shifting and unstable alliances. I begin by interrogating the coalitional impulse post 9/11. I do this by connecting public coalitional shifts to the steady withdrawal of support for John Howard’s coalition, and movement away from George Bush’s Coalition of the Willing and the War on Terror. I then draw out a relationship between the rise and fall of such affiliations and recent shifts within government policy affecting same-sex couples, from former Prime Minister Howard’s amendments to The Marriage Act 1961 to the Rudd-Gillard administration’s attention to the discrimination in many Australian laws. Sexual Citizenship and Coalitions Rights and entitlements have always been constructed and managed in ways that live out understandings of biopower and social death (Foucault History; Discipline). The disciplining of bodies, identities and pleasures is so deeply entrenched in government and law that any non-normative claim to rights requires the negotiation of existing structures. Sexual citizenship destabilises the post-coalitional paradigm of Australian politics (one of “equal opportunity” and consensus) by foregrounding the normative biases that similarly transcend partisan politics. Sexual citizenship has been well excavated in critical work from Evans, Berlant, Weeks, Richardson, and Bell and Binnie’s The Sexual Citizen which argues that “many of the current modes of the political articulation of sexual citizenship are marked by compromise; this is inherent in the very notion itself… the twinning of rights with responsibilities in the logic of citizenship is another way of expressing compromise… Every entitlement is freighted with a duty” (2-3). This logic extends to political and economic contexts, where “natural” coalition refers primarily to parties, and in particular those “who have powerful shared interests… make highly valuable trades, or who, as a unit, can extract significant value from others without much risk of being split” (Lax and Sebinius 158). Though the term is always in some way politicised, it need not refer only to partisan, multiparty or multilateral configurations. The subscription to the norms (or normativity) of a certain familial, social, religious, ethnic, or leisure groups is clearly coalitional (as in a home or a front, a club or a team, a committee or a congregation). Although coalition is interrogated in political and social sciences, it is examined frequently in mathematical game theory and behavioural psychology. In the former, as in Axelrod’s The Evolution of Cooperation, it refers to people (or players) who collaborate to successfully pursue their own self-interests, often in the absence of central authority. In behavioural psychology the focus is on group formations and their attendant strategies, biases and discriminations. Experimental psychologists have found “categorizing individuals into two social groups predisposes humans to discriminate… against the outgroup in both allocation of resources and evaluation of conduct” (Kurzban, Tooby and Cosmides 15387). The actions of social organisation (and not unseen individual, supposedly innate impulses) reflect the cultural norms in coalitional attachments – evidenced by the relationship between resources and conduct that unquestioningly grants and protects the rights and entitlements of the larger, heteronormatively aligned “ingroup”. Terror Management Particular attention has been paid to coalitional formations and discriminatory practices in America and the West since September 11, 2001. Terror Management Theory or TMT (Greenberg, Pyszczynski and Solomon) has been the main framework used to explain the post-9/11 reassertion of large group identities along ideological, religious, ethnic and violently nationalistic lines. Psychologists have used “death-related stimuli” to explain coalitional mentalities within the recent contexts of globalised terror. The fear of death that results in discriminatory excesses is referred to as “mortality salience”, with respect to the highly visible aspects of terror that expose people to the possibility of their own death or suffering. Naverette and Fessler find “participants… asked to contemplate their own deaths exhibit increases in positive evaluations of people whose attitudes and values are similar to their own, and derogation of those holding dissimilar views” (299). It was within the climate of post 9/11 “mortality salience” that then Prime Minister John Howard set out to change The Marriage Act 1961 and the Family Law Act 1975. In 2004, the Government modified the Marriage Act to eliminate flexibility with respect to the definition of marriage. Agitation for gay marriage was not as noticeable in Australia as it was in the U.S where Bush publicly rejected it, and the UK where the Civil Union Act 2004 had just been passed. Following Bush, Howard’s “queer moral panic” seemed the perfect decoy for the increased scrutiny of Australia’s involvement in the Iraq war. Howard’s changes included outlawing adoption for same-sex couples, and no recognition for legal same-sex marriages performed in other countries. The centrepiece was the wording of The Marriage Amendment Act 2004, with marriage now defined as a union “between a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others”. The legislation was referred to by the Australian Greens Senator Bob Brown as “hateful”, “the marriage discrimination act” and the “straight Australia policy” (Commonwealth 26556). The Labor Party, in opposition, allowed the changes to pass (in spite of vocal protests from one member) by concluding the legal status of same-sex relations was in no way affected, seemingly missing (in addition to the obvious symbolic and physical discrimination) the equation of same-sex recognition with terror, terrorism and death. Non-normative sexual citizenship was deployed as yet another form of “mortality salience”, made explicit in Howard’s description of the changes as necessary in protecting the sanctity of the “bedrock institution” of marriage and, wait for it, “providing for the survival of the species” (Knight, 5 Aug. 2003). So two things seem to be happening here: the first is that when confronted with the possibility of their own death (either through terrorism or gay marriage) people value those who are most like them, joining to devalue those who aren’t; the second is that the worldview (the larger religious, political, social perspectives to which people subscribe) becomes protection from the potential death that terror/queerness represents. Coalition of the (Un)willing Yet, if contemporary coalitions are formed through fear of death or species survival, how, for example, might these explain the various forms of risk-taking behaviours exhibited within Western democracies targeted by such terrors? Navarette and Fessler (309) argue that “affiliation defences are triggered by a wider variety of threats” than “existential anxiety” and that worldviews are “in turn are reliant on ‘normative conformity’” (308) or “normative bias” for social benefits and social inclusions, because “a normative orientation” demonstrates allegiance to the ingroup (308-9). Coalitions are founded in conformity to particular sets of norms, values, codes or belief systems. They are responses to adaptive challenges, particularly since September 11, not simply to death but more broadly to change. In troubled times, coalitions restore a shared sense of predictability. In Howard’s case, he seemed to say, “the War in Iraq is tricky but we have a bigger (same-sex) threat to deal with right now. So trust me on both fronts”. Coalitional change as reflective of adaptive responses thus serves the critical location of subsequent shifts in public support. Before and since September 11 Australians were beginning to distinguish between moderation and extremism, between Christian fundamentalism and productive forms of nationalism. Howard’s unwavering commitment to the American-led war in Iraq saw Australia become a member of another coalition: the Coalition of the Willing, a post 1990s term used to describe militaristic or humanitarian interventions in certain parts of the world by groups of countries. Howard (in Pauly and Lansford 70) committed Australia to America’s fight but also to “civilization's fight… of all who believe in progress and pluralism, tolerance and freedom”. Although Bush claimed an international balance of power and influence within the coalition (94), some countries refused to participate, many quickly withdrew, and many who signed did not even have troops. In Australia, the war was never particularly popular. In 2003, forty-two legal experts found the war contravened International Law as well as United Nations and Geneva conventions (Sydney Morning Herald 26 Feb. 2003). After the immeasurable loss of Iraqi life, and as the bodies of young American soldiers (and the occasional non-American) began to pile up, the official term “coalition of the willing” was quietly abandoned by the White House in January of 2005, replaced by a “smaller roster of 28 countries with troops in Iraq” (ABC News Online 22 Jan. 2005). The coalition and its larger war on terror placed John Howard within the context of coalitional confusion, that when combined with the domestic effects of economic and social policy, proved politically fatal. The problem was the unclear constitution of available coalitional configurations. Howard’s continued support of Bush and the war in Iraq compounded with rising interest rates, industrial relations reform and a seriously uncool approach to the environment and social inclusion, to shift perceptions of him from father of the nation to dangerous, dithery and disconnected old man. Post-Coalitional Change In contrast, before being elected Kevin Rudd sought to reframe Australian coalitional relationships. In 2006, he positions the Australian-United States alliance outside of the notion of military action and Western territorial integrity. In Rudd-speak the Howard-Bush-Blair “coalition of the willing” becomes F. Scott Fitzgerald’s “willingness of the heart”. The term coalition was replaced by terms such as dialogue and affiliation (Rudd, “Friends”). Since the 2007 election, Rudd moved quickly to distance himself from the agenda of the coalition government that preceded him, proposing changes in the spirit of “blindness” toward marginality and sexuality. “Fix-it-all” Rudd as he was christened (Sydney Morning Herald 29 Sep. 2008) and his Labor government began to confront the legacies of colonial history, industrial relations, refugee detention and climate change – by apologising to Aboriginal people, timetabling the withdrawal from Iraq, abolishing the employee bargaining system Workchoices, giving instant visas and lessening detention time for refugees, and signing the Kyoto Protocol agreeing (at least in principle) to reduce green house gas emissions. As stated earlier, post-coalitional Australia is not simply talking about sudden change but an extension and a confusion of what has gone on before (so that the term resembles postcolonial, poststructural and postmodern because it carries the practices and effects of the original term within it). The post-coalitional is still coalitional to the extent that we must ask: what remains the same in the midst of such visible changes? An American focus in international affairs, a Christian platform for social policy, an absence of financial compensation for the Aboriginal Australians who received such an eloquent apology, the lack of coherent and productive outcomes in the areas of asylum and climate change, and an impenetrable resistance to the idea of same-sex marriage are just some of the ways in which these new governments continue on from the previous one. The Rudd-Gillard government’s dealings with gay law reform and gay marriage exemplify the post-coalitional condition. Emulating Christ’s relationship to “the marginalised and the oppressed”, and with Gillard at his side, Rudd understandings of the Christian Gospel as a “social gospel” (Rudd, “Faith”; see also Randell-Moon) to table changes to laws discriminating against gay couples – guaranteeing hospital visits, social security benefits and access to superannuation, resembling de-facto hetero relationships but modelled on the administering and registration of relationships, or on tax laws that speak primarily to relations of financial dependence – with particular reference to children. The changes are based on the report, Same Sex, Same Entitlements (HREOC) that argues for the social competence of queer folk, with respect to money, property and reproduction. They speak the language of an equitable economics; one that still leaves healthy and childless couples with limited recognition and advantage but increased financial obligation. Unable to marry in Australia, same-sex couples are no longer single for taxation purposes, but are now simultaneously subject to forms of tax/income auditing and governmental revenue collection should either same-sex partner require assistance from social security as if they were married. Heteronormative Coalition Queer citizens can quietly stake their economic claims and in most states discreetly sign their names on a register before becoming invisible again. Mardi Gras happens but once a year after all. On the topic of gay marriage Rudd and Gillard have deferred to past policy and to the immoveable nature of the law (and to Howard’s particular changes to marriage law). That same respect is not extended to laws passed by Howard on industrial relations or border control. In spite of finding no gospel references to Jesus the Nazarene “expressly preaching against homosexuality” (Rudd, “Faith”), and pre-election promises that territories could govern themselves with respect to same sex partnerships, the Rudd-Gillard government in 2008 pressured the ACT to reduce its proposed partnership legislation to that of a relationship register like the ones in Tasmania and Victoria, and explicitly demanded that there be absolutely no ceremony – no mimicking of the real deal, of the larger, heterosexual citizens’ “ingroup”. Likewise, with respect to the reintroduction of same-sex marriage legislation by Greens senator Sarah Hanson Young in September 2010, Gillard has so far refused a conscience vote on the issue and restated the “marriage is between a man and a woman” rhetoric of her predecessors (Topsfield, 30 Sep. 2010). At the same time, she has agreed to conscience votes on euthanasia and openly declared bi-partisan (with the federal opposition) support for the war in Afghanistan. We see now, from Howard to Rudd and now Gillard, that there are some coalitions that override political differences. As psychologists have noted, “if the social benefits of norm adherence are the ultimate cause of the individual’s subscription to worldviews, then the focus and salience of a given individual’s ideology can be expected to vary as a function of their need to ally themselves with relevant others” (Navarette and Fessler 307). Where Howard invoked the “Judaeo-Christian tradition”, Rudd chose to cite a “Christian ethical framework” (Rudd, “Faith”), that saw him and Gillard end up in exactly the same place: same sex relationships should be reduced to that of medical care or financial dependence; that a public ceremony marking relationship recognition somehow equates to “mimicking” the already performative and symbolic heterosexual institution of marriage and the associated romantic and familial arrangements. Conclusion Post-coalitional Australia refers to the state of confusion borne of a new politics of equality and change. The shift in Australia from conservative to mildly socialist government(s) is not as sudden as Howard’s 2007 federal loss or as short-lived as Gillard’s hung parliament might respectively suggest. Whilst allegiance shifts, political parties find support is reliant on persistence as much as it is on change – they decide how to buffer and bolster the same coalitions (ones that continue to privilege white settlement, Christian belief systems, heteronormative familial and symbolic practices), but also how to practice policy and social responsibility in a different way. Rudd’s and Gillard’s arguments against the mimicry of heterosexual symbolism and the ceremonial validation of same-sex partnerships imply there is one originary form of conduct and an associated sacred set of symbols reserved for that larger ingroup. Like Howard before them, these post-coalitional leaders fail to recognise, as Butler eloquently argues, “gay is to straight not as copy is to original, but as copy is to copy” (31). To make claims to status and entitlements that invoke the messiness of non-normative sex acts and romantic attachments necessarily requires the negotiation of heteronormative coalitional bias (and in some ways a reinforcement of this social power). As Bell and Binnie have rightly observed, “that’s what the hard choices facing the sexual citizen are: the push towards rights claims that make dissident sexualities fit into heterosexual culture, by demanding equality and recognition, versus the demand to reject settling for heteronormativity” (141). The new Australian political “blindness” toward discrimination produces positive outcomes whilst it explicitly reanimates the histories of oppression it seeks to redress. The New South Wales parliament recently voted to allow same-sex adoption with the proviso that concerned parties could choose not to adopt to gay couples. The Tasmanian government voted to recognise same-sex marriages and unions from outside Australia, in the absence of same-sex marriage beyond the current registration arrangements in its own state. In post-coalitional Australia the issue of same-sex partnership recognition pits parties and allegiances against each other and against themselves from within (inside Gillard’s “rainbow coalition” the Rainbow ALP group now unites gay people within the government’s own party). Gillard has hinted any new proposed legislation regarding same-sex marriage may not even come before parliament for debate, as it deals with real business. Perhaps the answer lies over the rainbow (coalition). As the saying goes, “there are none so blind as those that will not see”. References ABC News Online. “Whitehouse Scraps Coalition of the Willing List.” 22 Jan. 2005. 1 July 2007 ‹http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200501/s1286872.htm›. Axelrod, Robert. The Evolution of Cooperation. New York: Basic Books, 1984. Berlant, Lauren. The Queen of America Goes to Washington City: Essays on Sex and Citizenship. Durham: Duke University Press, 1997. Bell, David, and John Binnie. The Sexual Citizen: Queer Politics and Beyond. Cambridge, England: Polity, 2000. Butler, Judith. Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity. New York: Routledge, 1990. Commonwealth of Australia. Parliamentary Debates. House of Representatives 12 Aug. 2004: 26556. (Bob Brown, Senator, Tasmania.) Evans, David T. Sexual Citizenship: The Material Construction of Sexualities. London: Routledge, 1993. Foucault, Michel. Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. Trans. A. Sheridan. London: Penguin, 1991. ———. The Will to Knowledge: The History of Sexuality. Vol. 1. Trans. Robert Hurley. London: Penguin, 1998. Greenberg, Jeff, Tom Pyszczynski, and Sheldon Solomon. “The Causes and Consequences of the Need for Self-Esteem: A Terror Management Theory.” Public Self, Private Self. Ed. Roy F. Baumeister. New York: Springer-Verlag, 1986. 189-212. Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. Same-Sex: Same Entitlements Report. 2007. 21 Aug. 2007 ‹http://www.hreoc.gov.au/human_rights/samesex/report/index.html›. Kaplan, Morris. Sexual Justice: Democratic Citizenship and the Politics of Desire. New York: Routledge, 1997. Knight, Ben. “Howard and Costello Reject Gay Marriage.” ABC Online 5 Aug. 2003. Kurzban, Robert, John Tooby, and Leda Cosmides. "Can Race Be Erased? Coalitional Computation and Social Categorization." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 98.26 (2001): 15387–15392. Lambert, Anthony, and Catherine Simpson. "Jindabyne’s Haunted Alpine Country: Producing (an) Australian Badland." M/C Journal 11.5 (2008). 20 Oct. 2010 ‹http://journal.media-culture.org.au/index.php/mcjournal/article/view/81›. Lax, David A., and James K. Lebinius. “Thinking Coalitionally: Party Arithmetic Process Opportunism, and Strategic Sequencing.” Negotiation Analysis. Ed. H. Peyton Young. Michigan: University of Michigan Press, 1991. 153-194. Naverette, Carlos, and Daniel Fessler. “Normative Bias and Adaptive Challenges: A Relational Approach to Coalitional Psychology and a Critique of Terror Management Theory.” Evolutionary Psychology 3 (2005): 297-325. Pauly, Robert J., and Tom Lansford. Strategic Preemption: US Foreign Policy and Second Iraq War. Aldershot: Ashgate, 2005. Randall-Moon, Holly. "Neoliberal Governmentality with a Christian Twist: Religion and Social Security under the Howard-Led Australian Government." Eds. Michael Bailey and Guy Redden. Mediating Faiths: Religion and Socio- Cultural Change in the Twenty-First Century. Farnham: Ashgate, in press. Richardson, Diane. Rethinking Sexuality. London: Sage, 2000. Rudd, Kevin. “Faith in Politics.” The Monthly 17 (2006). 31 July 2007 ‹http://www.themonthly.com.au/monthly-essays-kevin-rudd-faith-politics--300›. Rudd, Kevin. “Friends of Australia, Friends of America, and Friends of the Alliance That Unites Us All.” Address to the 15th Australian-American Leadership Dialogue. The Australian, 24 Aug. 2007. 13 Mar. 2008 ‹http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/climate/kevin-rudds-address/story-e6frg6xf-1111114253042›. Rudd, Kevin. “Address to International Women’s Day Morning Tea.” Old Parliament House, Canberra, 11 Mar. 2008. 1 Oct. 2010 ‹http://pmrudd.archive.dpmc.gov.au/node/5900›. Sydney Morning Herald. “Coalition of the Willing? Make That War Criminals.” 26 Feb. 2003. 1 July 2007 ‹http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/02/25/1046064028608.html›. Topsfield, Jewel. “Gillard Rules Out Conscience Vote on Gay Marriage.” The Age 30 Sep. 2010. 1 Oct. 2010 ‹http://www.theage.com.au/national/gillard-rules-out-conscience-vote-on-gay-marriage-20100929-15xgj.html›. Weeks, Jeffrey. "The Sexual Citizen." Theory, Culture and Society 15.3-4 (1998): 35-52. Wright, Tony. “Suite Revenge on Chesterfield.” The Age 5 Dec. 2007. 4 April 2008 ‹http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/suite-revenge-on-chesterfield/2007/12/04/1196530678384.html›.