Nanny knows best: Right-to-die ad banned from Australian TV
Why can't people be allowed to hear all sides of a political issue? This is gross censorship
"An advertisement which calls for a government re-think on euthanasia cannot be shown on Australian television following a "last minute" backflip by a classification body.
Pro-euthanasia advocate Dr Philip Nitschke was informed of the revised position of CAD (Commercials Advice) this afternoon. Filming for the ad was completed earlier this week.
The ad, which was to be shown as part of a $60,000 advertising spend, was scheduled to air across several Australian cities in late-night TV slots from Sunday.
"This has really gutted our program and we're pretty annoyed," Dr Nitschke said. "It has happened at the last minute ... We only went ahead with the project after we received CAD approval. The ad agency wouldn't have even embarked on this without that approval."
Dr Nitschke said he was in talks with the Council of Civil Liberties in a bid to have the decision overturned. "This is an attempt to stifle the debate about this vexed issue," he said.
SOURCE
4 comments:
As long as the government controls censorship outside of national security there will always be confrontations like this.
Anyone who has not sat beside a dying person can't understand that those dying lost all funcionality long before you arrived at the bedside. Many people have been stripped of the right to die in dignity for no just reason. To attend such a death is heartbreaking.
All that is needed is that hospitals allow a terminal patient the right to decide when enough is enough. It has nothing to do with politcs or religion. They have no right to interfere. To do so is the ultimate violation of human rights.
"It has nothing to do with politcs or religion."
No, but it does have everything to do with the political power of insurance companies who will drain every cent up until your very last breath, and then some.
As long as you're worth more alive to the government in projected tax income than you cost them in things like pensions and state sponsored healthcare, you're allowed to live.
When that balance becomes negative, you're terminated, some life saving treatment will suddenly be "too expensive" or simply happen to have a waiting list for it that's longer than you've got left to live.
"We only went ahead with the project after we received CAD approval."
It seems pretty clear-cut. If the ad company received approval from CAD, then CAD should be liable for expense if CAD later revokes approval. UNLESS part of the CAD approval process to which the ad company agreed allows for revocation of approval, in which case the ad company is screwed. It's not rocket science.
Post a Comment