Who are the the vulnerable in the euthanasia debate? Well we all are. At some point we all will experience depression, a cancer diagnosis, the death of a dearly beloved or a long held dream, or almost unbearable loneliness.
The article is very well researched and extremely cogent. People who express a wish to die are usually calling for help, or someone empathetic to simply listen, while they unburden.
Doctors are trained to save lives rather than end them; and, the improvement in palliative care and pain alleviating drugs is nothing short of remarkable.
I know just how hard it is to watch someone suffer and slowly die. At these times I ask myself, what would I have for myself?
And given I survived multiple spinal fractures, heat stroke, pneumonia, multiple P/E's to both lungs and DVT's in three limbs.
It is an informed query?
Even so, my quality of life is fair to middling; and I believe, I still have many worthwhile things to contribute; therefore, I am pleased to be still alive, even though through the very slow recovery process, I went as low as one can go!
Had I accessed, a champing at the bit, Doctor death at that very low moment, I would have never lived to regret it!
Anyway, the very idea of assisted suicide is entirely abhorrent in someone trained to save lives! Moreover, any decision based on an entirely emotional response, is invariably the wrong one!
Capishe? Rhrosty.

>>how do we learn to care better?<<

By permitting euthanasia when it is appropriate.

Forcing people to endure horrific suffering simply because we've got it into our heads that invisible sky daddy is sovereign over an individual's body and mind rather than the individual themselves does not show caring or compassion or Christian virtue. Quite the opposite actually: it shows a sadism so vicious and ugly that I'd recommend Paul visit a psychiatrist and have them administer a PCL-R test.

Torture isn't just illegal: it is very very wrong. It is so wrong that a lot of people oppose it outright. Other people see a little more grey area - but even those who think it is okay to waterboard terrorist suspects because they might spill the beans on their plans are still going to draw the line at torturing the terminally ill because sky daddy said suicide is sinful.

Which is what this is really all about isn't it Paul? After all which is more abusive to elders: allowing them to die a dignified death at the time of their choosing or forcing them to live on in suffering until nature takes its course? So your opposition to euthanasia obviously isn't based only on concern for the well-being of the elderly: you're quite happy to see them abused it doesn't conflict with your philosophical views regarding suicide.

Which you're quite welcome to hold BTW. I'm guessing you're from a Catholic background like myself and I am familiar with their teachings on the sinful nature of suicide. Euthanasia laws won't force you to abandon these beliefs: it will still be every man's God-given right not to commit suicide just like it always has been. All we are asking is that suffering people who don't have capacity or the inclination to jump off a bridge be allowed the choice - not the obligation - of having a doctor end their in a painless and dignified manner. Seems fair enough doesn't it?

Cheers,

Tony

The vulnerable are people like Mr Rossiter of Perth, who was trapped
in his own body by his circumstances and denied a choice about the
matter by our system. Basically that is torture IMHO and the option
we gave him, was the choice to starve himself to death. Hardly
compassionate.

No wonder that thousands of oldies are joining Exit and are making
sure that when the law is an ass, its time to take things into their
own hands and plan ahead. Those who don't, can land up being
tortured by our system, as was Mr Rossiter and others.

This debate always comes back to the same old same old:
If I as an advocate of voluntary euthanasia do not insist on you taking the option, why do you as opponents of voluntary euthanasia insist the I may not have the option?
All we are really asking is that you get out of our way, as we are more than willing to get out of yours.

It's interesting that the opponents of both euthanasia and gay marriage are now doing their best to appear as advocates of sweet reason now their more aggressive tactics have failed. 'Just think about it a little, and you'll see it's wrong. Don't see it? Obviously you haven't thought enough!'

It's nice to see them gradually giving ground, but it's a shame about the nauseating condescension that goes with it.

"... people who receive news of a diagnosis of cancer were 12.6 times more likely to commit suicide than people of a similar background who were cancer free ..."

Why do you think that is? Because they are frightened they might suffer uncontrollable pain or loss of autonomy and dignity? Of course many feel they should take their lives while they still have that option!

It's understandable when diagnosed with a terminal disease, you may think you need to top yourself while you still have the ability to do so. A local man did just that. Diagnosed with treatable (not terminal) bowel cancer, he shot himself in the head.If only he'd been told if it came to a point in his treatment where he wanted that option, he'd be able to choose it, he may well have tried the treatment first.

As indicated by your own stats, you ADD to the stress of terminally ill patients giving them no option but to end their lives prematurely.

In Oregon,most patients who have PAS approved don't even fill the prescription and most who do don't take the barbituate. Knowing they have an 'out', if they need it, provides an important psychological boost which sustains most people - it LOWERS suicidal ideation.

For those who do decide to hasten their death, it's a well-considered choice taken after consultation with their doctor and family. VE and PAS are most often used by people with terminal cancer - most often in the last few days or hours of their 'natural' lives.

Between 1997 when PAS became legal in Oregon, and 2009, 460 Oregonians chose to hasten their deaths using a legally prescribed drug. Uptake is incredibly low - 19.3 deaths per 10,000 and the recipients of the prescriptions are overwhelmingly white, middle-class, and well-educated.

People are not making hasty decisions. They are making intelligent, well-considered decisions based on their personal experience and values.

You, Paul, are free to make your own decisions based on your personal religious values. You have no right to interfere with the end of life decisions of me and my family.