Now for the old "you don't need bureaucracy to kill yourself" argument by clear antis trying to spin the issue on the "I'm only denying it because I'm stingy and this somehow affects me" facade.

To answer the question (in the vain hope that it doesn't reappear again because it's "stupid pollution" in online debates) is the margin of error between killing yourself outside the law and the options available if euthanasia drugs and procedures were legalized, which of course everyone already knows about.

Most people who would like the option to die before they start to lose serious memory or cognitive functions from say, parkinsons, aren't exactly thrilled by the options on the table, either;
1- use a knife, an (illegal) gun or rope, poison, jump off a tall building or in front of a train, and give wifey and the kids a big surprise
2- pay huge amounts of money for airline tickets (and the inconvenience of being harassed and possibly outright prevented on the flight if you appear infirm because the flight company doesn't want to get sued), in the hopes of traveling to Mexico and hope the black market death drug isn't botched (and doesn't get picked up by customs if you would like to die in Australia instead)
3- Hope the nurse is willing to starve you to death or overdose your morphine (you might get lucky).

All for the sake because a bunch of angry brainwashed busybodies made a song and dance about simply letting other people use a more humane drug to die- with, no less, so little reason they had to keep thinking up excuses of why we can't be allowed to have it, despite them not being affected at all.

It occurs to me that those who oppose euthanasia generally aren't facing terminal illness. A rather unfair bias when one side hasn't much of a stake in the game.

Listening to the radio last week regarding euthanasia in Tasmania, one commenter vigorously opposed euthanasia from a christian perspective, then qualified his position by stating he was still young and healthy but might change his mind if faced with terminal illness.

Life is one's greatest possession, no one should be able to steal it from you. You should however be permitted to give it away

rexw

And others

I agree that if one is capable of taking one's own life there is no point in involving doctors or politicians. The difficulty arises when one does not have that capability either because of advanced dementia or paralysis.

I'm afraid that is where we do need our politicians to clear up the law.

Next to being confined because of dementia my greatest fear is being starved to death because so-called "passive euthanasia" is permitted.

I really detest these silly, self-righteous &$*CK$ you cannot face up to the simple fact that we all die

Steven

"The difficulty arises when one does not have that capability either because of advanced dementia or paralysis.

I'm afraid that is where we do need our politicians to clear up the law."

How much sense does that statement make? Is it more logical than a potential human pleading with a woman not to destroy her embryo? Are you able to travel into the future, see yourself when you are so incapacitated and decide, "Yes, I think my life should end now."? Will you be the same person and does that give you the right to authorise others to end that life in the future, albeit for the best of humanitarian intentions?

Making a decision in the here and now is rightly one's own choice and requires no governance, but the notion of standing in judgement over one's self at a future point in time is illogical.

KH

What is the point of wasting money that might be better put to other humanitarian causes?

How many people do you envisage using this option annually? What would be the cost of it's administration? How willingly would people participate in legalised killings?

Euthanasia is so simple for some, but for me it poses too many uncertainties and problems.

I have been watching the American conformation hearings on T.V. and one thing is very clear, this modern generation has no idea of the power in words. Afterwards I tested what I heard on my daughter, a school teacher by profession and she had no idea what I was talking about.
A good lawyer can tie you in knots over what is spoken; case in point the reporting of news, he said, she said, what you think was meant versus what was actually said, and what was meant so do you really want to trust politicians, most who are lawyers, with life and death choices and remove your God given right of freewill and allow the law to control your will. As I think Leigh says this is not about death but about control over you and your destiny. Me I have committed my life into the Lords hand as I trust him with my destiny, for his word is true and he shall not be mocked for if you sow to the flesh you reap death but if you sow to the spirit you reap life for what you sow you reap. To fear God is the beginning of wisdom. Don't fear death as it only destroys the body and if you are on planet earth that is something we all must face for it is appointed unto All to die. Then your body goes back to the dirt it is made from and your spirit goes back to God for judgment on whose word you put first place or to put it another way, whose word you chose to believe.

Wrong Fester;

-Illogical to kill yourself before it gets really bad? Despite all the scenarios and situations we outlined so far? It's obvious your trolling if you need to ask.
One can easily discover that they are suffering a terminal or debilitating illness, or simply do not want to experience any loss of control one might associate with themselves when they get very old. Now the problem is, ironically, that it may likely become too hard to actually kill yourself by that stage (especially now because we're forbidden by lobbyists and simpletons), so we can either kill ourselves before it gets bad, and we are still fit enough to catch a plane to Mexico, or risk suffering through the whole thing if we put it off.
That is beside the point that it's really none of your business anyway.

-"Humanitarian causes"? Like what? Why isn't euthanasia a 'humanitarian cause'? Since when did you even CARE about 'humanitarian causes' until it became a convenient excuse to deny people the right to use euthanasia? As for cost- see Switzerland- not much actually (and the alternative, palative care, is quite costly itself. But you're right, we couldn't bear to lose the money- while we're at it, let's close down some universities and use the money for a 'humanitarian cause' also?

"Euthanasia is so simple for some, but for me it poses too many uncertainties and problems."
And here comes the (possible) truth.
The reverse to your statement is more true- it's a simple "NO" issue for YOU because you lack the capacity to evaluate laws, safeguards and protocol required- we however, can.