I dislike that the CEO of Hope,funded by the Catholic Church, is now trying to draw the disability sector into his argument. In an attempt to muddy the waters in this debate, he quotes Samantha Connor, well known in disability circles for her "one size fits all" approach. Now we are asked to accept that there is some similarity between this high achieving, high powered advocate who happens to use a wheelchair and someone in the final weeks or months of a degenerative disease. Proselytizing CEOs are the same as proselytizing disability advocates: they need to convert us all to their way of thinking. My 'hope" is that I will die peacefully and painlessly and I am afraid these people will prevent it from happening.

While I agree with your position and expressed sentiments Paul, I'd be hard placed to reject a carefully worded, do you want to kill your granny? Referendum.

While heart failure and reliance on oxygen is inconvenient. It can improve with appropriate treatment. However, some conditions never ever improve! And when the pain threshold is passed, what choice is there than up the level of pain relieving narcotics, including heroin. And if the terminally ill becomes addicted, the far lesser of two evils!

And if the pain relief eventually suppresses the life force? What of it! An extra year or two, in most cases, worth it?

Moreover, if someone is determined to end it. They'll succeed, But, need help from the sharks or callous beneficiaries, not doctors dedicated to saving life!

Even so some "doctors" may think otherwise and be more than willing to supply the lethal injection?

They and their patients need to live with and justify such a decision! And the obvious pun was intended.

A referendum would settle this matter, always providing any medico, clinic, general practise, private hospital etc, could decline such a request on ethical, agreed organisational policy or personal belief grounds!
Alan B.

"How he knows that for certain is unclear."

Presumably he knows that these people wanted to die on their own terms because they SAID so, or wrote it down and signed it. And if they were of sound mind and fully aware of the relevant circumstances at the time, there's no reason why their wishes should not be carried out.

We accept the spoken and written avowal of intent by a competent person as a basis for allowing them to choose a partner, get married, buy a house, take a job, raise children, obtain a divorce, change their gender or transfer large sums of money. There's no suggestion that the state or church should intervene in these decisions, just in case. "Are you quite sure you want to marry this person? That doesn't seem right to me."

In a civilised nation a rational decision to die by a competent person should have exactly the same weight as any other major life decision, and be carried out with the same promptitude and efficiency.

The very religious Philippines has solved this problem with relatively less stringent firearms laws, not only is it relatively easy to buy a small 32 calibre hand gun, but nothing preventing you taking yourself to the nearest rubbish tip and blowing your brains out with it.

Meaning you've ended your useless wasted life while assisting the economy, by providing sustenance scrabblers with a selection of recoverable items that can be traded for cash. Any valuables you retain, gold teeth human hair, head and pubic? The small calibre pistol, ammo (licenced dealer only) jewelry, bling, mobile phone etc.

While I can't prove it, a bullet to the brain pan delivered instantly through the open mouth is not accompanied by pain. Nor is a small calbre weapon going to make much mess. And no waste, given the victim placed no value on their life! Just ending it as quickly and easily as possible, without making a mess for others to clean up. Which in the presented scenario, accomplished by bulldozing the picked clean remains into the rest of the rejected useless worthless trash! And no burial costs to visit on the rallies?
Alan B.