Dear Foxy,

I am totally opposed to female genital mutilation and will attempt to impose that view on others no matter how much they feel they have a right to cut up little girls or how great is the majority that feels they should have that right.

Would you find FGM acceptable if 98% of the people thought it was? I don't think you would. If I were part of a small minority that could impose prohibition of FGM I would force my will on a majority for it if I could.

FYI I belong to Exit International and the Voluntary Euthanasia Society of Queensland, but I understand that those who oppose me feel they are as much in the right as I feel I am.

Thanks, TTM, you've made my mind up for me - I'm totally opposed now to VE, since it is obviously nothing more than a way for Gen X and Y to knock off their Baby-Boomer parents and grandparents, and to fast-track the inheritance of their property.

What a bunch of hypocrites.

And thanks for demonstrating what a weird sense of humour sociopaths have.

Joe

Dear Loudmouth,

I belong to Voluntary Euthanasia of Queensland. To the best of my knowledge all of our membership is quite old. Some of us are suffering from various unpleasant diseases. I am one of the healthy ones but will be 85 next month. We will inherit nobody's property as our relatives who have property are generally much younger than us. What unites us is the prospect of suffering various unpleasant terminal diseases and not being able to end it at our own time and choosing.

In the shopping centre mall I was approached by a young man collecting for the Heart Fund. He asked me, "Did you know that heart disease is our number one killer?" I asked him, "What do you think should be our number one killer?" A massive heart attack seems much more desirable than a killer disease that would have us lose control of our bowels, mind, other facilities and condemn us to a lingering and painful end.

Oh joe! grow up. The sence of humor was for the very sad subject that it is, and as for the people that's in this situation, its no laughing matter. Gen Y for your information could give a rats about gen X and your penny's in your jar.

"And thanks for demonstrating what a weird sense of humour sociopaths have.
LOL. Yes Joe, everyone's out to get you.

When its time for me to go, they can have all Ive got before I become a dried up old fool.
You cant take it with you. But better still! Why not let the system have it all and then I can become the hypocrite and let the government or what ever faction drain all my life savings, then I can say to what ever imaginational deity, that my life was well served.

Yeah right!

Or give it to a church for that front row sit to the after life.

I can see them rubbing their hands right now.

I don't know what planet your on, but all the best in what ever you do.

Smile.

TTM

TTM,

I'll get back to you when you have something sensible to say :)

Meanwhile, thanks for making my mind up for me.

Joe

This is why I insist that the debate has long since finished;

Most people clearly support the policy in principle to some extent, with their only opposition being a reasoned conservative demand that we ensure there are no loopholes for abuse or misconduct.

And even THEN we've already set enough basic parameters that we could practically mail a printout of this thread to parliament as a blueprint to pass to legal analysts.

I think beyond a first requirement of specific demand from the patient only, and possibly a secondary demand of long-term disability (which, to clarify again means that unless the patient ASKS, it's never even an option- but that patient would need to be suffering a disability that has no prospects of an imminent recovery, or at least make a convincing reason to the doctors why he/she should die before they will proceed)- would satisfy the basics in most cases.

And the further implications of a 'death will' in prior case to being incapacitated beyond communication.