It is almost unbelievable that someone who quite obviously imagines they are an extremely caring person themselves can recommend that we continue to deny what should be the elementary right of self determination in this matter.

The bill as proposed may not cover everything the majority of the people would like, but at least it is a start. I hope that this will be a free vote when it comes to the vote and that all MP's will vote according to the views of the majority of their constituents and refrain from voting for religous prejudices.

The Chapple Voluntary Euthanasia Law should be passed by the WA parliament because over 80% of WA voters ,according to the latest NEWSPOLL ,believe dying people should have the right to end their sufferring by this method .Politicians should not let pontificating priests or others bully them into opposing the right that most of us want at the end of our lives.

Dickybird, Rama,

Then I hope that the issue of advanced Alzheimer's will not come up on this thread, since it's way outside the boundaries of one's effective decision-making and personal autonomy :)

Erik. I've had a look at your site "Towards Good Lives" and understand that you have great convictions, but I must ask you this question. Is your condemnation of euthanasia swayed by your religious beliefs.

I ask because there's no mention of any religious affiliation at your site and I think it's only fair for anybody reading this OLO article to have all the facts before commenting on your piece.

Killing our old people is not nice. We did not bring ourselves into this world, but we were surrounded by love and care. I hope our dying will be surrounded by love and care and not lethal injection.

Nohj said.... "Killing our old people is not nice. We did not bring ourselves into this world, but we were surrounded by love and care. I hope our dying will be surrounded by love and care and not lethal injection."

I'm sure not many people would want to "kill" our old people and the author wasn't talking about only "old people." This is about the availability of euthanasia for people of sound mind who, having considered all the alternatives, believe that dying with dignity is preferable to withering away and despite the authors fears, I'm certain that safeguards can be put in place to eradicate poorly thought out decisions.

And Nohj, "hope" is all we have when there's nothing else left. Should I reach old age and become dependant of somebody else for my care including the total indignity of having my soiled incontinence pads changed by a stranger, trust me, I won't want to be here either. I'd much prefer to go with the help of a simple injection at a time of my choosing, but oh no! The do-gooders and the religious right wing won't allow me to go peaceably, so it looks like that when my time has come, I'll have to take the risk that the method I've chosen to exit this world will work as planned and not make the situation even more intolerable.

Loudmouth Of course Alzheimers is bound to be brought up. However Alzheimers is a slow onset disease and sufferers have plenty of warning. They must specify exactly what they desire and when they desire it to occur and this "statement" should be accompanied by a certificate of current competence. They must do this early on as soon as possible. If they fail to do this then there is nothing to be done to help them - they will be compelled to go through the "palliative caring system" to the end. Is that so bad ? It is only a penalty for not having made provisions in good time
Nohj Euthanasia should always be self administered even when there is medical assistance available. Killing our old people is not nice - quite agree but almost irrelevant as even in the case of Alzheimers sufferers help is only required to fill the glass and proffer it with the warning that this glass is being given to you according to your previous instructions.

Frightening and sickening to read such selfish projection from one author.

May I suggest the burden of proof lies with the author to provide evidence that his alternatives - as socially crippling and terrifying as they are - do not already exist.

Indeed - they do in abundance.

It is not the act that is needed. It is the Choice. Those given it often do not pursue the relief of suicide.

Alternatively, those denied it die under the yolk of arbitrary and puerile demands given false import to satisfy the self-oppression of others.

All the arguments by Erik Leipoldt showing how external factors and poor judgement may influence someone to wish to take their lives, does not reduce the right of those of sound mind to take control of their bodies and lives.

The appointment of a panel of suitably qualified and caring people is perfectly capable of determining whether a person is of sound mind and has carefully considered the options. No one is considering a dIY free for all scenarios.

Considering that able bodied people commit suicide due to extreme loneliness, that this must be a terrible situation for a quadriplegic. However, as the source of the misery is unlikely to ever go away, the suffering of the individual (all be it from something other than the disability) is real.

Whilst not trying to advocate euthanasia for depression, it cannot be ignored as a contributing factor.

Yes, Dickybird, you're spot-on - EARLY in the onset of Alzheimer's, not (as I tried ineffectually to stress) when the condition is too advanced. Choice and being of sound mind - not on any other basis. And surely people intending to end their own lives should be strongly advised to seek counselling first. After all (at least from this atheist's point of view) once the deed is done, that's it: no more life, our one and only life, finished, gone, zip.

Joe

Wow, what an unconvincing argument against voluntary euthanasia. And that from a prof in philosophy.

In your blog you introduce yourself as a quadriplegic, so it is obvious you are an expert on suffering. It would also be extremely unlikely that you would not have contemplated that death might be preferable to never again being able to freely walk down those dunes, dive into that beautiful blue surf and strike out strongly swimming through the breakers. That poignant picture of the empty wheelchair says as much.

Is there not a difference though, to a catastrophic life changing event and the suffering that that brings to the individual and to the community arround that individual, to the suffering that some individuals experience as they near their inevitable death?

The Euthanasia regulations in the Netherlands are stringently reviewed at regular intervals. It is also widely continually debated. It is so succesful that other countries are adopting them. Like overwhelmingly Catholic Belgium. Using the Netherlands as a negative example to support an opposing view on voluntary euthanasia is not a clever idea.

Facing up to an inevitable death and the journey of fear and loss a human being and the community surrounding that person go through is one issue. It needs to be kept seperate from the discussion of voluntary euthanasia and in what instances this may or may not be appropriate. To deny that involuntary euthanasia is practiced here, denies the fact that today in hospitals around Australia there are a number of Australians being hastened on to their death without their explicit say-so, request or desire.

With our medical science, with our medicines we have created the miracle of a longer life with a greater quality and dignity unimaginable 100 years ago, but the flip side is that we have now also created journeys towards death that are prolonged, protracted and in some cases unbelievably cruel.

We must face the fact that death is now rarely natural in our society. A regulation on Voluntary euthanasia empowers all those people facing imminent death. Whether it is used or not.

I just hope that opponents of euthanasia remember their twaddle when they are dying in agony - which is still possible: there is some pretty nasty pain that drugs won't do much for.

As I read it the author is suggesting that if society was more caring the desire for euthanasia would be lessened so we should leave those desiring assistance to end their lives to suffer in the lack of care that is their lot and will most likely remain their lot.

If we all drove more carefully there would be less accidents so let's ban ambulances now.

There are those who no matter how caring those around them are will wish to end their lives. There are also those who don't have the caring relationship's around them which might help and no legislation or likely social change will bring those relationships to them.

Meanwhile we as place legal roadblocks in the way of people wanting advice, support and assistance with what may well be the most traumatic and difficult decision they will ever make people die for lack of food and clean water in other parts of the world.

I've been trying to think of another human activity which is legal for the person doing it but which for which those willing to provide technical advice or practical assistance to the person undertaking the activity carries with it the risks of prosecution for our most serious criminal acts.

We leave people either unable to end a life which may have become unendurable or resorting to means which are either uncertain or likely to traumatize those most likely to find them after the event.

The author refers to "12-year-olds applying for euthanasia" I don't like the idea of any child ending their life, perhaps a legal route to that decision with appropriate support along the way would be a better option than a length of rope on a nearby tree with no-one close knowing enough to work at other options.

R0bert

Erik, I don't care what philosophical reasons you my have for objecting to euthanasia, but how dare you impose your attitudes on me and make it impossible by law for me to make a decision to end my life when I wish due to any incurable suffering I might undergo. Who are you to make me suffer in order to prolong a life that I no longer want ?

I must agree with Aime. But further, in the journey out of this life, we must be well informed about how our establishment manages palliative care. For instance, are we aware that the UK has just licensed an aerosol under tongue spray of marijuana for MS sufferers on the National Health?

This raises the issue of what may or may not be prescribed in Australia approaching a chosen or palliative care death. In Oz the practitioner may prescribe morphine. Not bad, but not the best, it has negative side effects such as a jaundice colour of the skin and a bilious gut. Whilst in the UK the practitioner may prescribe heroin. No side effects other than elimination of pain.

So, UK, marijuana and heroin. Do we imagine that Australia will license these items for prescription to the terminally ill?

The myth based wanderers and alleged carers would have us believe the palliative journey is a good one. It cannot be. As a nation we permit not the best medication to be prescribed, our constipation in the 1950s remains. Ask a representative sample of nurses, those charged with the ethic of care, not medical practitioners (do no harm) who have a completely different ethic, and the bulk of the nurses will tell you about the all too frequent indignity of a painful death.

Death is what we are talking about, death from a terminal condition, not from other disabilities, and we owe those on this path, the best, yet we do not permit it.