The misrepresentation of facts is quite incredible. “Legalising euthanasia is completely unnecessary” “All Australians...... can choose any method they like”. The facts are that the best methods (Nembutal) and the best ambience, in the presence of friends and family, are banned by law. The suppliers of the Nembutal and the friends and family who might have liked to be present can and have been prosecuted.
Next “Proposed euthanasia laws overturn a fundamental legal principle - that no one may legally take the life of another in our society”. Wrong. New laws must confirm the right of each individual with respect to their own lives. Doctors are only required to certify that the individual is of sound mind and in some cases to assist in setting up the means. They should not and do not need to be the one to press the switch.
Finally “no one will benefit from voluntary euthanasia laws”. Everyone gains. From those who suffer from any debilitating disease, through those who gain infinite reassurance that they can depart when they choose and to even the “religious” who make such a fuss, would benefit as they can say to St Peter at the gates “Look how good I am and all the suffering I went through according to your instructions – I demand some bonus points”

On abortion – all that can be said is that there are far too many animals of one species (humans) already occupying infinitely more than their fair share of the world and so anything that reduces their population, without causing distress except to those suffering peculiar inhibitions, has to be very welcome. Regrettably the method that nature will provide to deal with the overpopulation, which is eventually inevitable, is usually starvation and disease, and will be infinitely more unpleasant.
Perhaps the whole article is spoof !! Read http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=9826 The basic attitude IN THIS is all for individual rights – just the opposite here

Although I support legalisation of euthanasia, some of these replies remind me why our family doctor opposes it through concerns about the inhumanity of some who would support it for others for their own secondary gain.

Maybe Mum and Dad could live another ten to twenty years of quiet contentment after a life of denial to raise their brood, but hey, what about the 'cost' of letting them live in that big empty house when their are more 'deserving' Gen X's who could take it over, huh?

Something very nasty enters the euthanasia debate when the economics of providing medical treatment and caring for the aged is given as a reluctant reason (yeah, right!) for encouraging them to end their days. Many of these 'dispensable' older people continue to make a more positive contribution to the community than their whining, ego-centric critics who envy their meagre assets and implacably refuse to deny their own lustful appetites to obtain the same.

Then there are the loonies who support euthanasia for others because they are revulsed by mankind. If we are to believe them why are they still above ground themselves?

Yes, I sure can see some reasons why our caring GP has reservations about euthanasia, because it is London to a brick that she is often embarrassed by the impatient and greedy relatives who somehow pop up to 'assist' their 'loved' ones late in life and demand audience with Mum's GP to 'interpret' for her, while assuring the doctor that Mum is becoming a bit of a 'worry' living by herself and can't 'something' be done?

There is abundant evidence of a growing lack of empathy and sensitivity for the aged, as can be seen from the apparent lack of public concern for abuses in nursing homes where inmates might not be turned in their beds or even fed. In view of the particularly nasty and unthinking intergenerational jealousy that is about, of course there will be a large section of the community who would ease the pain of the suffering but hold back through fear of what they might unleash.

It all comes from a materialistic hegelian determinism as epitomized by brother Squeers and ilk.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8630135369495797236#

Loudmouth - You really should desist from labelling others. My son is a Liberal politician as was my deceased husband and generally on this topic, we are, and were all in agreement. I live in many worlds and many ideologies. You should try it sometime. Parochialism is for dummies.

Cornflower, thanks - let's hope that there aren't similarly 'sincere' and brow-wrinkling debates about the 'obligations' of adult offspring to 'interpret' their parents' diminished mental state to lawyers ('power of attorney') as well as doctors ('press the button'). As an old bugger myself, your comment is a timely warning to cash in and spend whatever I have as soon as possible: the Tour de France looks good this year.

Protagoras, I'm aware that many Greens are second-preference Liberals, and that there are strands in both sets of ideologies which devalue human life - ironically, one strand, among many, in favour of Mother Earth over humanity, whatever it takes, the other in favour of the Market over society, whatever it takes). Sorry if I picked the wrong horse :)

Joe

Author Rhys Jones comes across as someone who has never seriously looked at any of these issues in any depth. The article appears as if he scribbled up some mindless thoughts and then constructed these into an article.

If Rhys Jones wants us to believe that he is sincere and cares about how people die by saying that people are “perfectly entitled to end their own lives” and that “They can choose any method they like”, then why oh why is Jones not speaking out against the ban of The Peaceful Pill, a book by Australian doctors Philip Nitschke and Fiona Stewart about peaceful(non-violent and painless) suicide methods. Why is he perfectly OK with people starving themselves to death or throwing themselves from rooftops out of desperation, instead of offering them the soft, good death that euthanasia is? Very, very barbaric an unethical!

Voluntary, active euthanasia should be a human right. Nobody in the 21st century should have to endure a slow, painful, scary death if they prefer to have their life ended in an as painless, humane way as possible, surrounded by their close family.

As for abortion, it's a woman's prerogative and a private issue.
Besides, where are the 80,000 families that are lined up every year to take people's unwanted children? Perhaps meddlesome anti-choicers can drum them up, year-in, year out.
If Jones 'really' wants to prevent abortions from happening, he should try to convince the government to improve sex education and to advocate free contraception.
He also should know that countries with the most liberal abortion laws have the lowest rates of abortions.