Neil, what is the source of the 85% statistic?

Good article.

It would be the one done by Newspoll on behalf of Dying with Dignity NSW, wouldn't it? The methodology has not been mentioned in newspaper reports, however it was said that the poll was of 'adults'. Sample -probably a telephone poll by area code with respondents identifying their age. However those most affected by euthanasia policy are seniors (say age 50 and up) and it would have been more reasonable to have surveyed that group, the large group most affected, which was not done.

A fear is that the availability of euthanasia might encourage a future government to restrict the availability of palliative care and other needed care for all seniors. Tony Abbott the LNP leader introduced that possibility in a debate on euthanasia. Given that successive federal governments have failed to fix the broken aged care system, Mr Abbott's warning ought be heeded.

What Australians should want is to treat seniors fairly and decently, ensuring they are no longer subjected to the discrimination that presently applies to the aged and that adequate aged care is available, which is not presently the case. The availability of euthanasia can be part of that, but to make euthanasia the priority without fixing the aged care system is putting the cart before the horse.

"" .. to make euthanasia the priority without fixing the aged care system is putting the cart before the horse."

Well said, Cornflower. Optimal palliative care must the primary aim.

I would be concerned if "the availability of euthanasia might encourage a future government to restrict the availability of palliative care and other needed care for all seniors."

For Tony Abbott to introduce that possibility in a debate on euthanasia seems churlish.

Neil - you give no indication of precisely what it is you that you want. If it is argued that euthanasia is a human right then logically it must be available to all human beings. That is essentially Nitschke's view, that euthanasia should be available on request to anyone who asks for it.

Is that what you are pushing for too? (Is that what 85% of the population say they are wanting?)

You really ought to make your position clear.

I agree that the most exposed under current practices are members of the medical professions (nurses and doctors), though I am unaware of anyone being taken on for murder or manslaughter in recent times - can anyone help with an example? Sanctioning patient-led end of life decision-making seems like a most humane way to give those who want that control some dignity at the end of their life. I support that right but wonder how the legislation will be able to overcome the myriad grey zones that will inevitably pop up. I also wonder how compliance will be measured and how insurers of medical professionals will respond - e.g. by refusing to offer cover to anyone who participates?

It's interesting to note the difference between putting our pets out of their age-related misery and our own kind.

When we take the dog or cat which has reached its use-by date down to the vet. he dispenses the sleeping draught and we go home sad but feeling that we have done the right thing for the animal we loved so much.

We don't have to fill in forms to prove that we don't want to put the dog down because it chewed the corner off the carpet or that it is costing too much in medical bills or that it passes wind under the breakfast table. Our motives are not questioned by anyone!

But put the human animal into the 'death with dignity' equation and all hell breaks loose!

We human animals are a sorry lot!

http://www.dangerouscreation.com