It is good to see rational comment on this subject in OLO.
I would go further though. If at a time of one's life when one is rational but feels inclined to make a decision to end it all, why shouldn't one have the right to do so?

It is the medical, religion and political industries that have made all this so complicated. Leave the medicos out of this. They are just one more complicating factor, easily corrupted under the right circumstances and should therefore have no inputs into the matter at all. Nebutal should be available by choice and one doesn't need a GP to be involved in that simple exercise.

Then one needs to take the grafting religious enterprises out of the loop. There would be politicians voting on legislation such as this who would be motivated firstly by a comfortable life, then religion beliefs and the dictates of years of medieval thinking.
We have also allowed politicians to control our lives to such an inordinate extent. One is forced to ask, who are they? Why should they make a judgement on our choices to live or die. What has got to do with them?
The same with families. If the conditions described above are met, rational, sensible, coherent, witnessed, notarised, whatever is required, they need no involvement at all but could be told when it is imminent, or not. Entirely up to the person involved.

As an atheist who has already willed that I am to be removed from my home and cremated, no visitors, on-lookers and certainly no religious mumbo-jumbo or service, it will all be very simple.

If these comments seems logical to readers, rational in content and free of any external influences, of which I can assure you, what else is needed?
We are supposed to live in a free country. Let us extend such freedom to the right to choose one's time and place to die, regardless of health and physical disposition. Keep the grafters out of the business of dying.

That is real freedom and one's personal democratic right!

Very well said, Leigh, and I wonder how often the law would be applied? I suspect it would be very costly to administer and deliver very little if any benefit.

Yes, we have an issue as personal as suicide or assisted suicide, and some think we need bureaucracy to manage it. I cannot think of a personal issue where bureaucracy is less welcome, except perhaps abortion.

Leigh <" 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.""

No Leigh, this is not quite the way it is! There is only so much morphine a GP can order at one time, and the chemists can legally only dispense a certain amount of narcotic pills or medicines at a time.
So no one is able to 'give as much as he/she wants", unless they obtain a supply illegally.

Most friends or relatives of dying people are not comfortable giving morphine injections either, so they need to rely on nurses or doctors to give it.
Medical staff are restricted by law to only give proper dosages of narcotics- usually not enough to 'kill' them outright!
Euthanasia is not legal yet.

The medical profession does work within guidelines, but are known to 'stretch' these rules at times, especially if the patient is in alot of pain.
Unfortunately, some people are under the impression that palliative care will ensure we die a painless death.
We don't see many painless deaths unfortunately.

Anyone who does not want voluntary euthanasia for themselves has only to note this in their 'living will' and we will make sure that they live on to the bitter end.
Just leave the rest of us alone to make our own choice

"Sacred" means, as far as I can tell, "I think this is really important but I can't give you any sensible reasons why." I would like to think that atheists have moved beyond that level of thought and are prepared to give defensible reasons as to why they value the things they do.

Despite the pious platitudes spoken and written about human life, it's quite clear that our masters can and do value other things much more -- motor transport and victory in Afghanistan, to name just two. It's hardly earth-shattering, then, to claim that relief from acute pain and distress might be more important to someone than their chance to appear as a statistic in the next census. As for the 'slippery slope' -- a good part of rational government and legislation involves setting limits that are fair and reasonable, and there is no reason that can't be done in this case as in many others.

Suzeonline,

You don't seem to know anything about the administration of morphine other than by injection and, while I can't prove that LITERALLY 'thousands' of people are relieved in the way I mentioned, I do know for certain that a close relative of mine died peacefully just the way I said, at home, in the company of his wife of 50 years. Short of naming people who would not wish to be named - thanks to our archaic, inhumane laws - I cannot reveal exactly what I do know.

But, I can assure you that help is available, for those requesting it; the elderly father of a friend of my family was relieved of his suffering, permanently, this very day in a public hospital. At his request.

You are right about palliative care.

If you had any imagination, you would that what a well-known doctor and advocate of dignified death publicly admits he does to help people certainly goes on in private. Not everyone wastes time waiting for politicians to decide their fate.

On ABC radio there was an interesting case about woman who lived in the US and was diagnosed with mesothelioma.

She had around 2 million dollars worth of treatment that maybe prolonged her life for a few more weeks.

In the UK mesothelioma is classified as untreatable, so there is no chemo therapy etc.

Perhaps this is a radical example, but where there is money to be made in treating the untreatable, money wins. Regardless of the effect on patient welfare.

The commentator who was talking about her friend, wondered if her friend would not have been better being treated in the UK rather than the US.