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.