As OLO posters probably know, I am strongly in favour of "active" euthanasia. That is, I believe I should be allowed to request that a doctor to end my life painlessly. This would presumably involve getting a lethal injection.

However, as ever, the devil is in the details. I am sure Dr. McGee is not suggesting that anyone can walk into a doctor's surgery and say "off me doc".

So what are the PROCEDURES and SAFEGUARDS around the process? It seems to me that what we actually need are the much reviled "death panels" that some Republicans accused Obama of seeking to impose on the American people.

Such panels would need clear terms of reference. What would they be?

Another issue. What do we do if a patient is unable to give consent but has previously stated that under such circumstances he wants to die? I am thinking especially of dementia patients. I would like to leave instructions that I am to be killed (I hate euphemisms like "euthanasia") when I reach the point where I am completely gaga. How could this be done in practice?

Steve what of the dilemna when a dementia patient who has never expressed any wish to be euthanased, is not in pain, but whose medical power of attorney rests in a relative who wants to end to end the life of the patient? If we dont respect life, there is a slippery slope going down. Why even have medical care if we dont respect life?
Most people who hold the medical power of attorney for another are also often beneficiaries of the patients will so they have mixed motivations.

nohj

People who have a financial interest in the outcome should have zero input in the decision to end the patient's life unless the patient specifically mentions financial considerations in his "living will". That is why the PROCEDURES and SAFEGUARD surrounding the final decision to end a life are all important.

If I were to get Alzheimer's I would not wish to drain the finances of my children after everything that made me a human has gone.

There is more:

To me it appears obvious that that there comes a point when a patient with Alzheimer's is EFFECTIVELY brain dead. Yes the EEG will show brain activity but all cognition has ceased. The "person" is gone even though the body continues to function. I would not consider terminating the function of that body as euthanasia. It is the moral equivalent of turning off a vacuum cleaner

One difference is that 'withholding' and 'withdrawing' goes on every day of the year. Another difference is that we Australians are too set on allowing politicians to decide what we do with our own lives.

Allowing politicians to decide on whether or not euthanasia should be legalised is allowing politicians to withhold human rights. We are oh so prim and proper when it comes the the rights of foreign students, people who want to enter Australia illegally, fighting wars for the rights of people who can't or will not fight for themselves etc.

It's about time we thought about our own rights didn't even discuss the subject of euthanasia with politicians. Thousands of men and women are sent home from hospitals to die, with the advise to their spouse, "Give him/her as much morphine as he/she wants."

Enough said. Get over the 'legal' crap and realise that you can die with the same dignity as you lived without the meddling of Big Brother.

The debate of so called active euthanasia is an interesting one. While it is important to separate the DNR orders and withdrawal of life sustaining measures from actively terminating a life, I believe that in the end it will do little to help the debate. At the core of the issue are two lines of thought.

Firstly, of course is the life is 'sacred' line of thought. Is the intrinsic value of the life in question greater than the value of the quality of life in question? If someone is suffering intolerably is it right to end that life and save that person from further pain? Those who support euthanasia argue that it is, that to prolong that life and force that person to continue until nature takes its course is worse than the act of ending the life. Those who don't argue that there is nothing worse than ending a life, even for the best intentions.

Second is the spectre of 'suicide'. Suicide is abhorrent to most people, they cannot understand why someone would want to end their life. For many the idea of euthanasia is inseparable from the idea of suicide. If a patient takes pills that will kill them, are they not committing suicide? However like everything else it is not that simple, those in support say no, those who oppose say yes.

Without coming to grips with these issues, there will be no progress in either direction on this issue.

Most of the complications seem to evaporate if we can take as the basis the statement that “Each person should have the unrestricted right to decide if and when they want to depart from this life”
That is the basis. Now all that the law, the doctors, the family, carers etc etc need is to make sure that the opinion being expressed by the patient are genuine and unpressured. There is no question that normally no lethal injection is required, either an injection can be self administered as it was in the Northern Territory or even simpler a drink of Nembutal is very swiftly fatal. The only problem is with Alzheimer and other brain dead patients. Stevenlmeyer seems to have covered this point already. Provisions and Safeguards must be in place to make sure the decision was genuine and unpressured for the sake of all the other people involved. A Living Will, created by the patient, is the simplest and most straightforward method.