David you say that: “Euthanasia is about individual choice and dignity”.

On that basis I take it that you support anyone being given access to euthanasia for any reason. After all, if it is only a matter of it being an individual’s choice, on what basis could you or anyone else say that a person should be refused euthanasia, whatever their state of health may be?

Presumably you would fully support Philip Nitschke’s famous , or perhaps infamous, claim that euthanasia should be available “to anyone who wants it, including the depressed, the elderly bereaved, the troubled teen . . . This would mean that the so-called ‘peaceful pill’ [euthanasia pill] should be available in the supermarket so that those old enough to understand death could obtain death peacefully at the time of their choosing.”

There is a program titled "Respecting Patient choices" basically it is about putting in place an advanced care plan and mapping out what medical treatment is acceptable by the patient.

At some point in time in the future, society will have to come to terms with the limitations of the human body and accept there are points where to continue to treat is futile.

Euthanasia, a humane and rational cause.
Indeed, and, poll after poll, a majority of Australians agree.
I am shocked that Mr Rudd/his office, made no reply to what must have been a heart-rending plea from Angelique. A further point to be noted regarding our Prime Minister and his ethical values.

I made a submission to Senator Brown's inquiry into the subject of assisted death. The fact that no time has been made available for its debate is deplorable. Why, in this matter, do we have fewer rights than our pets?

Such a discussion must include all Australians, including the 3% who suffer from severe and incurable mental illnesses ( schizophrenia, bipolar 1 and severe clinical depression). The general stigma which attaches to this group from the Prime Minister down to some ordinary citizens must not be shown in this debate.

A person dying from a malignancy whose pain is uncontrolled has no greate right to euthanasia

The same people who swallowed the lie that Mr Rudd believed gw to be the biggest moral dilemma of the century would now have us believe that Nitshcke’s actions are all about compassion and dignity. What a load of garbage. No doubt many would be thrilled to collect their inheritances earlier than they once thought possible. The lying academics who claimed that abortion was about the poor girl who is raped are still not satisfied with babies at 7 and 8 months being murdered. And of course this also is about compassion in their own eyes. Euthanaaia is plainly about men and woman who want to play god. By all means let them take their own lives but to fail to protect the most vulnerable will be another crime worst than the holocaust as shown by the way we slaughter our babies for convenience sake. Our society is becoming sicker as we embrace the priesthood of men like Nitshcke.

"Our society is becoming sicker as we embrace the priesthood of men like Nitshcke."

Better than being "embraced" by runners men of the priesthood.

runner, you categorise people with a view about one thing (eg gw) as having the same view about another (eg. euthanasia). You confuse abortion with euthanasia. You seem to confuse abortion with late-gestational killing.

Different issues have different aspects to them.