David may well be correct about the possibility of saving these two souls from an untimely end, but it seems to have little to do with euthanasia. I firmly believe that there are many people who should be entitled to end their suffering by self inflicted means. The recent case in which a court allowed a man to starve to death but not die peaceful and painlessly from a lethal drug is a perfect example of how ridiculous and hypercritical the law is on this subject.
It is a travesty, that we are forced to live in the shadow of the religious beliefs of our incumbent politicians. This is a classic example of religion interfering with the will of the people.

Sinner,
I'm not sure that religion has much to do with it: I've always been an atheist and probably because of that, I think of our one-life-each as incredibly valuable, not to be taken or given away lightly. Of course suicide should be decriminalised, as long as more effective counselling services are in place as well. I agree with you that this article touches lightly on euthanasia rather than suicide, but this is often the problem with discussions on this topic: they lurch from talking about suicide (somebody taking their own life) to hinting at what is close to manslaughter or worse (one person taking the life of another).

Presumably, what we are trying to grapple with is how to legally take someone's life who cannot do it themselves, a legal sanctioning of the intrusion/involvement of one person in another's personal autonomy, that of a person with full knowledge of, and agreement with, what is going to happen. Surely this rules out Alzheimer's and dementia, which these discussions so often slide into.

In other words, euthaniasia has to be restricted to the fully-agreed taking of the life of someone who is unable to take their own life, but is fully aware and has shown (somehow) that they are requesting to die. The last clause seems to be the sticking point: how a person might demonstrate willingness to the satisfaction of a subsequent police investigation or court, but not be able to carry out the act themselves ?

Joe

Euthanasia should be the right of anyone who has a debilitating illness/disablility and requests to die. No ifs and buts.

Certainly the State should put in place mechanisms that allow rational people with terminal conditions to end their life with dignity. I have motor neurone disease in my family and I personally would like the 'out' option available to me if I develop the disease and find my existence once incapacitated, overwhelming.

About 30 minutes ago too, I walked out of the my local Vet's surgery. My poor old puss after a very good and loved life suddenly collapsed and incurable heart disease was found. We held his paw and he purred as the Vet quietly put him to sleep. Human's even when they would prefer to take the option my vet said was best for my cat, are made to stay and suffer.

JL Deland
I am very sorry to hear about your cat. I hope you get another that will similarly benefit from your care and many years later, your compassion if required.

Coming from the country where we have been confronted enough by birth and death to get some valuable perspective on both, I was recently quite distressed by a (city) relative who unnecessarily extended the final hours of the teenage family cat that suffered serious spinal and pelvis trauma from a vehicle. She spent that time with her children forcibly present in the afterhours surgery while she railed against the world and her husband (for letting the cat out), demanding that the veterinarian continue conducting diagnostic tests and insisting that all manner of surgery be performed. Finally in desperation the vet had a partner attend and the woman was finally convinced to allow the wretched animal a final release.

I shudder at the possible fate of anyone close to her if they are unfortunate to suffer an awful debilitating terminal illness like cancer - her emotional needs will be likely put ahead of the patient's suffering and complete loss of quality of life. Her care, their pain.

A goal of the article is to draw our attention to the Senate committee's inquiry into suicide, where the closing sate for submissions is November 20, 2009. The author is hopeful that some of us will make a submission. In my case he has achieved his purpose and I thank him and OLO for the 'heads up'.

I would say that both the sad suicide deaths discussed in the article were caused by depression, and not a terminal disease, as is the usual prerequisite for pleas for euthanasia.

The elderly man who slit his throat was obviously very distressed, and he was not to know that some unfortunate family member would find him and probably suffer mental health problems themselves as a result.

Suicide and euthanasia are two completely different scenarios. Euthanasia is allowing another person to help you die (usually because you either physically or mentally cannot do it yourself), while suicide is the act of taking your own life.

Euthanasia should be allowed if requested while the affected person is of sound mind. I believe that Living Wills should be a prerequisite to allowing euthanasia.
There should be strict guidelines as to who, how, when and where the euthanasia will be carried out.

One problem I can see is that not all Doctors are supporters of euthanasia. You will need a Doctor to order the necessary drugs needed for a peaceful, successful death.

If your Doctor refuses, then you will need to find one who agrees.
You will then spend your last moments with someone unknown to you.
Will there end up being a few Doctors who will spend most of their time doing this job?