Alex Perrottet should be congratulated for raising the difficult issue of 'quality of life.' As the population continues to age, difficult questions surrounding the end-of-life and the 'quality of life' will continue to be confronted.

What is 'quality of life'? Is it merely the degree to which pleasure and satisfaction are derived by the individual on a day-to-day basis? Or is there an intrinsic value to life in the way we bring hapiness to the lives of others, and contribute towards making the world a better place?

The secularist, materialist first-world society would say 'quality of life' is simply about satisfaction. And yet, throughout the history of time, there has been a deeper search for true meaning and lasting hapiness. Any society that simply says that life is only worth living if the individual is satisfied is living on a level of superficiality and meaninglessness.

Hi Steve,

I'd be interested to see your response to this article http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=2781 which differs from the Perrottet article.

Graham Young

Hi Graham,

I reckon there's a fair bit of truth in both the articles. Both seem to recognise the obvious difficulties of chosing who is to make the end-of-life decisions - the doctors, family of judges.

I agree with White and Willmott that there must be some point where the patient reaches a stage where treatment is futile. I don't think Perrottet was ever suggesting that patient's should be kept alive for 10, 20, 30 years. I think the point Perrottet was making is that there must be a genuine respect for the value of human life irrespective of the 'utility' of the person, and that family should play a role in the end-of-life decision making.

It'd be interesting to hear the perspectives of family members who've had to go through such difficult times. Surely the decision of a judge in a far away court would seem harsh, no matter what the circumstances. Albeit there is great difficulty in ensuring that the family act 'reasonably' in their decisions. However I think a balance must be reached (and this does appear to have happened in the Messiha case) where the legitimate interests of the family must be weighed against what is considered reasonable and also respectful of the intrinsic value of human life.