I was just about to sign a petition in favour of same-sex marriage outside Central when......

[LizzyTinKnicks]

I'm not sure of the legal principles, but perhaps the ACT govt was rash to try to legalise same-sex marriage, when it is not within state or territory govts' powers to do this. Australia has a written constitution and a federal form of government, that strictly defines the powers of both the central government and the states. I assume that the High Court has simply confirmed that this is an issue for the Commonwealth, not the states?

 

Yes that's pretty much it- states simply don't have the power to legislate as marriage is a federal issue, so it was a foregone conclusion really. However it's still a win for marriage equality as the court effectively confirmed that 'marriage' could legally include same-sex marriages, it's just down to parliament to sort it out.

[LizzyTinKnicks]

if you're not in a relationship that makes it possible to do it naturally then I reckon you should have to accept that and get on with life without them. Whether you'd make good parents or not is irrelevant IMO.

 

So by that logic IVF for hetero couples who can't conceive naturally for whatever reason is an abomination and shouldn't be allowed?

[docboat]

So by that logic IVF for hetero couples who can't conceive naturally for whatever reason is an abomination and shouldn't be allowed?

 

Well, it is a drain on health services, is far from an essential service, and as such it is probably detrimental to a collapsing health service trying to meet other urgent needs. I think we should try the "Oregon Experiment" in Australia to see just what we, as a nation, think is essential and funded.

[Incata]

Well, it is a drain on health services, is far from an essential service, and as such it is probably detrimental to a collapsing health service trying to meet other urgent needs. I think we should try the "Oregon Experiment" in Australia to see just what we, as a nation, think is essential and funded.

 

What was/is the "Oregon Experiment"?

[LizzyTinKnicks]

Well, it is a drain on health services, is far from an essential service, and as such it is probably detrimental to a collapsing health service trying to meet other urgent needs. I think we should try the "Oregon Experiment" in Australia to see just what we, as a nation, think is essential and funded.

 

Whether it should be provided on public health or paid for privately is a COMPLETELY separate issue to whether morally it should be 'allowed' in the first place, and you know it.

[Paul1Perth]

So by that logic IVF for hetero couples who can't conceive naturally for whatever reason is an abomination and shouldn't be allowed?

 

I'd go along with that too. Just unfortunate, that's life.

[docboat]

What was/is the "Oregon Experiment"?

 

The Oregon Experiment was an exercise in ... Oregon. Basically the population was asked to scale, in order, their perceptions of essential services. Community discussions first, then people placed in order where they thought the most essential medical actions/procedures were to be placed. Where would you put - say, and appendicectomy on the list? Above or below a limb amputation? Above or below a caesarian section? The state budget was a defined amount, and procedures/actions would be funded according to the list, but at the cut-off point - the budget limit - those below that point were either not funded by the state, or funded privately by the patient.

 

The groups making the rankings were divided into two: clinicians and general public. The reason being that there was a difference in perception between the two groups. The public, for example, saw a heart transplant as more needed, while clinicians thought that an anti-smoking campaign would give more bang for the buck.

 

I think the project never really got much traction, but it was an interesting exercise in public health and health system management.

[docboat]

Whether it should be provided on public health or paid for privately is a COMPLETELY separate issue to whether morally it should be 'allowed' in the first place, and you know it.

 

I would want to leave the morality question completely out of the equation. Nobody's business is it, what others morality is.