runner, I assume you are religious and I would just like to point out that religious people have no monopoly on compassion. The stolen generation and sick cultural genocide imposed on the Aboriginal people was motivated by church "compassion". And what of the "compassionate" priests who time and time again rape societies most innocent members? And what of "The Army of God" with their campaign of murder and bombings against innocent people in America? Please take you delusional moral superiority elsewhere.

Now to your points:

"No doubt many would be thrilled to collect their inheritances earlier than they once thought possible"

Do you have a mother? A father? Do you actually believe this would be a common problem? What sort of sick view of humanity do you possess? In any case, well designed laws would greatly reduce this risk.

"Euthanasia is plainly about men and woman who want to play god"

News flash runner, we live in a secular society. Not everyone believes in your god nor should they have to believe in your fundamentalist craziness. And on playing god, what are priests anyway, who is the pope? Does he not play god by dictating gods word? Give me a break.

Keep your religion to yourselves. I don't tell you what to believe so don't try and impose your beliefs on me. If you don't want abortions, don't have them. If you want to suffer in old age, suffer. Just don't impose Christianity's fetish for suffering on others.

When will "Right to Lifers" actually embrace "Right to a dignified end"?

If "God Giveth" and "God Taketh Away" then some people sure suffer during the process, and GOD sure takes people in the most undignified ways.

But didn't Jesus "Allow himself to be crucified"...OMG Do Christians have it wrong again? Is this "Euthanasia for a purpose?"

Euthanasia is a simple system to implement.

Once a patient has given approval (and they were capable of giving such approval)

1. The patient must be seen by TWO seperate Doctors privately who are NOT known to the family or patient and have NEVER treated the patient. A social worker or nurse could be provided for support.

2. The seperate medical information is then collated and assessed by a THIRD Doctor. If any one of the 3 descents (on medical grounds ONLY)then the patient should not be euthanised.

3. These Doctors have the obligation to set a re-assessment date if the patient deteriorates further.

4. If all 3 Doctors agree then a sensible concoction of drugs (NOT just Morphine) is given to the patient enabling a peacefully dignified passing.

This would ensure that ONLY people who wished this choice could be assured that the decision was being taken on medical grounds and people like Runner wouldn't have to worry about the money.

'The Pope’s arrogant statement that the ill should pray to find “the grace to accept, without fear or bitterness, to leave this world at the hour chosen by God” '

Yes, the doctrine of suffering - that somehow enduring suffering will prepare for the alleged afterlife.

"We cannot, as a civilised society, continue to let people suffer when they are in the most desperate of situations."
Indeed we cannot, and a majority of Australians agree with this.
It was a shock to read that Mr Rudd ignored what must have been a heart-rending plea from Angeline Flowers. This, and his refusal to allow time to debate the inquiry of Senator Brown into assisted death diminishes the prime minister.
My submission to the Senator's review emphasized that any debate must be inclusive of all severely ill Australians. Some who have suffered the cruelties of a severe mental illness for years, or even decades, are as much in need of help to end their lives peacefully as are those who are dying painfully from a severe physical illness.
After my daughter's second suicide attempt (the first from cuts to her wrist, necessitating microsurgery, the second from a drug overdose) she said to me "I couldn't ask you for help, they'd get you for murder." Three years later, her suffering overcoming her ability to cope with so diminished a life any longer, she placed her head on a railway track and finally, the hard way, found peace.
No person should either have to die violently,alone, or live until their incurable disease kills them, enduring agony in the process.
We, with our leaders acting as such, must become the humane and rational society we like to think we are.

Good article.
The real issue I believe is: Why is such a popular issue "controversial" if 80% of Australians want it? What is so powerful about the other 20% that they can derail the wishes of the vast majority?
If the issue was one of shared outcomes (ie. A new public building) then I could understand and allow a minority view of "no" to prevail. However when the minority view dictates to a majority without a shared outcome then it is simply inappropriate. "Get out of my lounge room" is not an inappropriate reaction to such an invasion of rights. ("Get the f%$# out of my house or I'll...!!" is also appropriate in my view.)
We have many cases where a small group feels it is OK to dictate to the masses: We already have prohibition of anything but the "approved" substances of alcohol, caffeine, and nicotine...which causes a massive $Billion dollar black economy and a permanent bent police force. We will soon be having secret internet censorship, approved by the religious minority on both "sides" of politics.
The religious mindset seems hell-bent on creating fear and reducing the freedoms of anyone not scared. I find the arrogance of the approach (Hi runner!) quite disturbing, as is the ignorance and intelligence of the practitioners. Being ignorant of the lifestyles of others is no sin, but the *arrogance* of their "one size fits all" world-view is getting a bit scary!

In the past, most people were born and died
at home. Births and deaths happened when they
happened, often without medical intervention.
If a baby was too premature or defective, or if
a seriously ill person was dying, there was little
the family doctor could do about it other than to
offer comfort.

Today, most people are born and die in hospitals
under the supervision of medical personnel who
sometimes decide to keep them alive long beyond
the point at which they would normally have died.
Patients can be hooked up for days, months, or
years to machines that sustain their lives, and
this step may be taken even if they are in constant
pain or even if they are permanently comatose.
Therefore, technologies that were intended to save
people from unnecessary death may actually have the
effect of depriving them of a dignified death.

We have to put pressure on our State and Federal
MPs - for the changes that we want to see made,
otherwise nothing will change.