The language of the article is misleading:

<<If we're arguing for a 'right-to-die'>>
<<That there can be no 'right-to-die' seems to have escaped the thinking of all concerned>>
<<How can there be a 'right' to something that, by our very existence, will come to us all>>

No, of course there is no such "right to die", but we are not asking for rights - we demand that our freedom to die not to be taken away in the first place by that involuntary body called "state".

<<Should we ever forget that freedom to do certain things also implies a freedom from having certain things done to us>>

Again, the author confuses between freedom and rights. The freedom to do certain things is natural and doesn't imply anything. The latter is a feeble human attempt to grant us a "right".

<<Leyonhjelm calls it 'individual freedom' and 'the right to die at the time of our choosing'. That last slogan and its many variations in use by the pro-euthanasia and assisted suicide lobby are modified for public consumption>>

Indeed, the last "slogan" is poorly-worded: government currently robs away our partial freedom to die at the time of our choosing ("partial" because we could anyway die at any time without choosing so), so it's not about some "right to die" which we never got, nor ask for, but about demanding that our natural/God-given freedom not be taken away.

To make things clear, I am not of the pro-euthanasia lobby - in fact, I personally oppose euthanasia, but I oppose even more the state's violent attacks on our freedom to live as we wish, including to die as we wish.

<<World Suicide prevention Day>>

Let the author go ahead and prevent suicide among his friends. I am not one of them because the author is a violent person who believes that he as a right to control my life. The only things which the author may legitimately prevent me from doing are either such things that may hurt himself, or when acting with permission as somebody-else's proxy, such things that may hurt that person.

Very impressive rational argument, that really destroys the rectal fortitude of the pro euthanasia debate.
Maybe we should be arguing for ways for the elderly to spend their kid's inheritance, on a really good time?
A good time that would end the need to feel lonely or unwanted, or a burden!
Most of the real reasons, why some of the elderly want to get out before that inevitable date with destiny, none of us can avoid and too soon for most!?
Not even if we possessed all the world's wealth, can we buy just a second more!
The pro death debaters, need to look at this from a different angle.
Namely, what needs to be done to improve the quality of patently diminished lives.
So that we don't get too sick, tired or just plain lonely or seemingly unloved!
And all very possible and or doable, with the right mental attitude; the only thing we actually have any real control over.
What if those billions of believers are right, and reincarnation is a fact? And that we have to keep coming back until we have paid our unforgivable Karmic debt?
And an untimely termination just means we have to come back and start all over? What then?
If there's no easy way out? What then?
I'd imagine a reincarnated Hitler or Stalin would likely be the most vociferous protagonists on the side of voluntary euthanasia!
And with possible good reason, given the Karmic debt people like that must have accrued!
To reach unto the kingdom of heaven ye must be born again; and so as ye sow, so also shall you reap!
What could be more perfect justice than that?
And how differently would we treat each other and our shared planet, if we but believed it!?
Ask yourself; if an english speaking Aussie bloke, who came out of a long coma, speaking perfect mandarin; and certainly didn't learn any of it in this lifetime!
Then which lifetime did he learn it in?
Pretty conclusive don't you think?
Rhrosty.

The old slippery slide! But why stop at preventing people from choosing to die with dignity? There are, after all, many other decisions that people make during their lives which have serious long-term effects on themselves and others, and there's no reason to think that these should be spared government intervention. When two people want to get married, for instance, should they just be allowed to go ahead and DO it, or should they -- as Paul presumably thinks -- be vetted for it by a panel of responsible experts, presumably including church authorities? Buying a house, starting a new job -- mistakes and potential disasters galore could surely be avoided if Paul and his associates could be persuaded to muck in for the common good and give us a Yea or Nay on every major life decision.

I for one look forward to the day when the concept of a 'responsible adult' is recognised as absolute nonsense, and no activity of any consequence is allowed to take place without being signed off by Big Brother. That, surely, is a 'slippery slide' we can all look forward to!

The fact of the matter is that in and of itself ordinary bodily life, if fully felt and understood, is essentially horrific, especially as one gets older or suffers from the almost unlimited kinds of disabling and/or degenerative diseases.

Furthermore, our "culture" including its dominant Christian religion has very little, if any, understanding of what death requires of us while we are alive, even in the midst of the best years of our lives.

Believing in "jesus" and all the rest of the hyped "hopefulness" associated with Christianity makes not the slightest jot of difference to any of that.
And no one goes to "heaven" or meets "jesus" when they die.

Each and every one of us could suddenly drop dead or be snuffed out via some kind of accident (or bomb) in the next moment.
What difference would believing in "jesus" make in such a circumstance?
Quite obviously none at all.

In fact you very quickly become reborn into essentially the same confused unconscious state/disposition that you were in in the last years/weeks/days/hours/minutes/seconds of your life.

The lives of most people become progressively wretched as they grow old even in "advanced" Western countries - "all the lonely people, where do they all come from".
Many/most such people do not have either family and friends to care for them as their bodies disintegrate. Nor do they have the necessary financial resources to pay for palliative care, which is always expensive.
Consequently the lives/bodies of such people becomes progressively degraded and even brutalized when they become part of the system, either in hospitals or anywhere else.

So in the face of all of that horror perhaps committing suicide is a very rational, even intelligent act.

Assisted suicide, when a person is facing imminent death via natural causes anyway, is just and humane.

If a person is not facing imminent death via natural causes, then assisted suicide, rather than the seeking of help, is unjust and inhumane.

My comments refer solely to the person giving the assistance, and NOT the actual person committing the suicide.

I wish I could contribute a longer, more detailed post, but I'm in the middle of traveling right now.

If anyone has seen assisted suicide, very few would advocate it.
First the inmate is led from the cell, strapped to a chair, and then an intravenous drip is inserted.
Then the three potions are introduced into the vein, with the anesthesia introduced first.
This allows the one being killed, to hopefully, occasionally escape any suffering; then the other lethal substances are introduced.
And in around ten minutes the process is concluded.
And this is the same concoction doctor death administers, to patients who wish to end their lives?
Recent advances in DNA testing, have proven the innocence of dozens waiting to be murdered by the state, in death row!
So we can expect the killer concoction to become more readily available for general use, given the state can no longer rely on sworn evidence to convict the guilty; with subsequent reduced demand.
Neither should doctors be obliged to help those, who's real problem is depression or loneliness, however troubling that may well be, and often seemingly harder to bear, for the individual, than dribbling dementia!
There is a slippery slope here!
And none is effectively being denied taking or ending their own lives, UNASSISTED AND BY THEIR OWN HAND!
As a former emergency worker, I've taken many to hospital, where their "cries for help" were finally heard.
Contact years after, when everything has turned around, including numerous so called terminal illnesses, has seen people full of life, love and energy, and absolutely aghast with their intended decisions!
It is a slippery slope, from which there is no return, once the killer concoction enters the veins.
The unconscious simply can't turn around and say, hang on a minute, I've changed my mind!
Moreover hardly a week goes by, when the medical profession learns how to cure this or that formerly terminal illness!
Rhrosty.