Hi Suzeonline,
I value your contributions to this discussion as a medical professional.
Perhaps Rhys should spend some time nursing these unfortunate patients to be able to fully understand why we need legal euthanasia in Australia.
Thanks also for outlining the stages of dementia.
My mother’s doctors (the ones involved in preparing her euthanasia papers) have recorded that my mother wants to be euthanised when she is clearly at the stage in which she’d “forget how to look after your personal hygiene, how and when to toilet yourself, how and when to eat or drink, how to use tools or utensils, how to hold conversations and how to read or write.”

Rhys, your slippery slope is imaginary, because people, like my mother, would make these decisions while still mentally able.

Squeers,
“… you're giving atheists a bad name!”
I am hoping that Rhys is not a REAL atheist : )
The way he places Da Human Zygote at the centre of the universe shows lack of understanding of the basics of evolution.

King Hazza,
Thanks, I also wanted to point out, in case people get all slippery-slopery, that assisted suicide would still be illegal under euthanasia laws, but trained doctors would be exempted. To make it clear to Rhys et al, it’s not like I could fetch my next-door neighbour some Nembutal to get rid of him and his *#%&@ng barking dog.

Protagoras,
Great post. You asked Rhys “Just what would you propose to do with the 80,000? "babies" you estimate are ‘killed’ each year in Australia” . I asked the same question at the beginning of this discussion, and I hope you have more luck at obtaining an answer than I did.

Fester,
Perhaps there's just an error in one of your sentences that confused me as it did Severin.
Did you mean to say in your (Saturday, 26 June 2010 2:59:43 PM) post, that “opponents” (instead of advocates) of euthanasia and pro-lifers need to justify why the jurisdiction of the state should override one’s autonomy?
Then what you said would make more sense.

Sigh, face it guys, I think Rhys bit off more than he can chew putting this thread to us, and has been trying to avoid most questions and try to spin or segue away from others. we've given him more than enough food for thought- let's wait for some answers.
So far, nothing- merely saying that Shadow's hypothetical person with the terminal kidney is a "stranger" and is unlikely to exist- and avoided the analogy, speaks for itself (Strangely enough, statistics show that the likelyhood of babies prevented from abortion do not reach the kind of life opportunities that we're supposedly snuffing out- which ironically validates an argument FOR abortion).
Now Protogoras has confirmed his "grotesque exaggeration" was in fact, completely true, I think we should wait for Rhys to answer Protogoras' question.

Celivia

If euthanasia legislation could solve the problems that you and others elucidate, then I agree that it would be a good thing. My problem is accepting that the legislation would work efficiently. I'd imagine that it would be a bit like organ donation: Not applicable to most, good for a few, and rejected by the remainder. Of course, organ donation and euthanasia could be made efficient processes were they compulsory under specific parameters, but this would be a violation of individual autonomy.

As I said, I like my autonomy.

Dear Fester,

You wrote: "Of course, organ donation and euthanasia could be made efficient processes were they compulsory under specific parameters, but this would be a violation of individual autonomy."

Since there has been only voluntary euthanasia and organ donation proposed you have set up a strawman.

JL Deland wrote: "I strongly support other people's right not to be involved in euthanasia or abortion and think that legislation trying to coerce people into these things is disgusting"

Dear JL Deland,

Since no legislation has been proposed in any democratic country to coerce people into abortion or euthanasia you have also set up a strawman.

No legislation has been proposed in any democratic country to coerce people into abortion or euthanasia, but much legislation has been proposed and enacted which prevents access to abortion and voluntary euthanasia.

Let's deal with facts and not strawmen.

Fester

>> As I said, I like my autonomy. <<

As do we all, hence euthanasia is, as Celivia has patiently explained, an opt-in system. You can also include in your will a provision, just to be absolutely sure, that you receive only palliative care in your final days. However, I and many others choose to act on OUR autonomy by requesting an to end unendurable pain and anguish in our final days, should palliative care no longer provide a quality of life we can cope with. No one is suggesting that you be euthanised against your will.

It occurs to me too that there's a case for euthanasia when the subject expresses him/herself of unendurable angst. This need not be mere melancholic wallowing---for which Robert Burton ("The Anatomy of Melancholy"; fascinating reading) prescribes "activity"; the Devil makes work for idle minds!---since bipolar disorder and such are considered involuntary "diseases" rather than morbid dispositions. So perhaps if the subject could depress a couple of psychiatric professionals sufficiently (providing said professionals weren't incurably enamoured with {some} life, like Rhys Jones, which would be an unfair test), with his pathological state of mind, s/he should be able to drop the ultimate trip too?

"Autonomy" is an interesting concept...?