There are two types of Euthanasia, active and passive.

Passive euthanansia occurs where people die whilst on waiting lists, failure to rescue and by making medical care difficult to get.

Over the last two decades federal and state governments in the cost cutting to the public health sector and the reduction in available public hospital beds, have engaged in passive euthanasia.

It goes without saying that you are absolutely right. How dare anyone tell me what I can do with my life based on their own distorted religious views that I do not accept. It is a tenet of an individual's right to end his/her life whenever he/she chooses as long as he/she is of sound mind and is certain that their life is no longer acceptable due to pain and suffering that cannot be alleviated. These qualifications are already accepted by Exit International.

It has been suggested that euthanasia will develop into something more than an individual right to die. This is just a smoke screen to frighten people into believing the safeguards are not adequate just to see their own beliefs are adopted. I wonder how many people have cursed the ones trying to keep them alive against their wills.

The terminally ill should have at their disposal - either self administered or by assistance, enough powerful pain killers - generally narcotic, as required to adequately control their suffering. If this means 'overdosing' resulting in coma and respiratory failure then so be it.

I agree that the so-called management of the dying here in Australia leaves much to be desired. It is not only the suffering of the patient but that of family and other loved ones who are forced to either watch and share the pain or flee the scene. The latter choice depriving the dying of the comfort of their nearest and dearest in their last days.

Indeed animal owners ARE prosecuted if found to have animals in agonised dying condition and fail to put them out of their misery.
How much more pressing the case for allowing similar assistance to individuals who make an informed choice to be assisted from this life when suffering becomes unbearable?

RIP Angelique Flowers. Your story was heartbreaking. I hope you have made it to a better place.

A law purporting to criminalize a particular behaviour is null and void if juries are not willing to convict people for that behaviour. Whatever the law says, whatever the judge says, whatever the facts are, if the jury returns to the courtroom and says "Not guilty," that is the end of the matter, and no further action can be taken against the defendant or the jurors. If a minority of jurors cannot persuade the others to acquit, they can still force a mistrial, and the expectation of repeated mistrials will force the prosecution to give up. (It is precisely in order to facilitate such action that the law gives us the right to be judged by our peers. Why else would the law entrust the task to a bunch of ordinary citizens untrained in making findings of fact?)

Therefore, if the legalization of a particular behaviour has wide public support but insufficient support from politicians, those who support the legalization of that behaviour would be well advised to educate prospective jurors -- i.e. the people at large -- on their power to nullify laws.

N.B.: I make the above remarks, not as a supporter of legalizing anything in particular, but as a supporter of jury nullification in principle (see http://archive.grputland.com/2009/05/jury-defence-against-bad-laws.html). But, as a matter of interest, I am on record as supporting jury nullification for the purposes of protecting whistleblowers (http://tribune.grputland.com/2010/03/juries-can-already-protect.html) and upholding the presumption of innocence against legislation purporting to reverse the onus of proof (http://tribune.grputland.com/2010/04/unprintable-remarks-on-presumption-of.html and http://www.opednews.com/articles/The-worst-drug-criminals-a-by-Gavin-R-Putland-100326-623.html).

While ever we have Prime Ministers who go to Church each Sunday Morning and politicians who grovel to religious institutions in order to attract the Christian or Muslim vote, etc., we will never have euthanasia.

That some doctors assist euthanasia (although it involves a risk of prosecution) is commendable. But it shouldn't be necessary.

If the world could rid itself of all religions, then commonsense would prevail and the world wouldn't be so divided!

David,

I agree with all you have said.
Had a lengthy response to this post but went out of the site to check some detail and of course it was gone when I returned. A very poor website and risky to move in and out of. These kind of things were corrected years ago but not here, so it seems. This matter has been raised many times.
But well said. You can't criticise poor old Abbott for his stance. As a practising Catholic he knows no better that to do what he is told by Rome. People mindlessly subservient to religion should not be allowed to serve as politicians. You cannot serve two masters.
As for Rudd, he is weak and feeble-minded over a subject that has 80% of support in this country and it is his disregard and rudeness in not bothering to respond to Angelique's video that will be his undoing. Too arrogant by far.
Keep the letters coming. Perhaps one day someone will stand up to the self-serving churches in the country. They are an anachronism in 2010.