Fletcher: It was not physical suffering that drew them to euthanasia, it was emotional trauma.

As is the authors own emotional trauma. I knew a little girl who had a something, something neuroblastoma. despite several operations & lots of radiation & chemo, she died. In the end, only 8, she said no more, just let me go. So her parents did. We all spent the night with her pumped so full of Morphine it was leaking out of her skin.

If anyone has had enough, adult or child, they know. We should let them go.

They are at peace with going. We are not. The emotional suffering is ours not theirs. We are the ones who are being selfish.

Not long ago, childhood leukemia was a death sentence, now it is almost always cured, and the are other promising medical treatments on the horizon for any number of so called terminal illnesses, including aids.
I have to agree, that those who want to just give up,should be helped to do so, particularly where our very best has been tried and failed?
This must remain the individual's choice, not societies.
And as hard as it is, watching a loved one slip away, will always remain traumatic.
I believe current common practice is all we need, with death caused by morphine overdoses at the hands of consulting responsible Senior Doctors, formerly decriminalized by appropriate legislation.
Moreover, if there is a promising new treatment still undergoing clinical trails, that too, needs to be available and on the table for the terminally ill!
We have some powerful new pain relief medications applied as a patch, that are literally hundreds of times more effective than morphine. And easy to become addicted to.
This is why thy need to be administered by a doctor/very senior nurse, and limited to the terminally ill.
I mean, what does it matter if someone with just months, weeks or days to live, becomes addicted?
And if the comfort that it brings adds a few more months or years even, of relatively pain free quality existence, where's the harm?
And if that extended time allows a new efficacious treatment to emerge and be trialed, where the harm?
And if that new more efficacious treatment results in a cure, then the worst outcome, could be detoxing and beating an addiction? And as hard as that might be, much better than a death sentence, like that which used to apply to childhood leukemia!
We also need to inculcate optimistic thinking and coping skills from a very young age, in the entire population!
An absolute essential, if we would give those who succumb to this or that, or just the hopelessness of depression, a much better chance to completely recover, and indeed, fulfill their highest potential; and or, realize their fondest dreams!
Rhrosty.

Euthanasia is when the USA and others drop bombs on cities and kill hundreds of adults and children, I reiterate that is Euthanasia, Voluntary Euthanasia is when a person who is dying with loss of dignity, in pain and no hope of recovery and request to end their life sooner than later, I reiterate that is Voluntary Euthanasia, we must differentiate between the two. I do agree that many cancers are now curable if caught in time, HIV-Aids now through anti viral drugs taken correctly is no longer a death sentence to anyone.
Many people like myself who have had a wonderful life and now over 75 years have to question if operations for an incurable disease are necessary, and if V E was legal may prefer to end their life when it becomes unbearable a year or two earlier rather than have operations where the end result is going to be death anyway with much pain and suffering along the way.
Religion should never ever enter this domain,it is a persons choice whether adult or child,and I am sure many children when faced with an excruciating painfull death would prefer to go.
A bomb does not give you any choice, you are just plain dead whether you like it or not, with no remorse from Governments responsible for the Euthanasia.

"By definition, teenagers have not yet reached the point of full maturity. By what criteria do we measure whether a teenager has made a carefully reasoned decision, especially on something that has such unalterable consequences?"

Off topic I know - but if we accept this definition WHY are "CHILDREN" under 18, indeed as young as early teens permitted to carry pregnancies AND keep custody of the (generally) unfortunate offspring? Unalterable consequences indeed.

Any terminally ill child old enough to have some understanding of the situation they are in should be heard and consideration given to their feelings.

A word to Rhrosty - do not confuse short term (5 year) survival rates with overall cures. While most researchers claim a 5 year survival rate around 85% for the most common childhood leukaemia this reduces significantly for other types and also over 10 years to around 65-70%. Huge improvements but not exactly almost always cured. Yet!

"Such terms are open to considerable subjective interpretation. How does one measure 'unbearable suffering'? Are we happy for overworked medicos to make that decision" What the anti voluntary euthanasia brigade do not understand, which clearly includes Mal Fletcher, is that in Australia it is exactly that what happens. It is the medical profession by and large who decide that you have suffered enough, or not yet, NOT the patient. That requires laws as we had in the NT and are now available in several countries. Suffering is wholly subjective. It is a personal experience. You cannot decide for me what is unbearable suffering for me and I cannot decide that for you. Not even for children. Jayb shares a raw and painful story on just that.

And: "In a Dutch study, a considerable percentage of people requesting assisted death said they were doing so not because of unbearable suffering, but because they feared the shame and humiliation their deterioration might bring in time." Reference to this study? At the very least people got to voice their fears and concerns and it could be talked about. This is a fear that is also voiced many, many times in Australia.

What must be understood is that requesting information on assisted death does not equate with: all stops out lets hook up the patient and help them on their way

Ojnab; Killing in war, whether civilians or active participants, is NOT euthanasia. The word, used alone, implies Voluntary Euthanasia. Another term commonly used is Mercy Killing. It is the termination of a life by the active administrion of fatal chemical[s] [assisted suicide is a common example] or the withholding of life-support in order to alleviate suffering. These two types of euthanasia are always presumed to be voluntary. The latter is sometimes not voluntary but the decision is taken usually by relatives in consultation with doctors.

Involuntary euthanasia is something of a contradiction in terms because the motive for euthanasia must be the alleviation of suffering. Nonetheless it is accepted as a division of euthanasia in order to emphasise the voluntary aspect and the alleviation of suffering component. But more than likely it will be regarded as murder.