You would think that a claim that 75% of people over 50 would vote against euthanasia when 80% of the population support it would raise some questions, Cornflower.

Anyway, who cares! Even if 95% of people opposed it, it should be available for those who want it or need it!

Visit a hospice where people are dying terrible deaths or vomiting up feces and you might change your mind!

Every human should have the right to die when they choose without pain and with dignity.

It's an individual's right, one that shouldn't be decided by the sheeple!

I'm with David G. on this one. If I have a willing medico lined up (and I am very strict on not coercing medical staff into anything that they would be uncomfortable with) then it's nobody's business but mine and theirs if I am terminally ill and avoiding pain in my last weeks.

Why should I be treated as an idiot because I am terminally ill and unable to make up my own mind? My family are not murdering so and so's but would respect my wishes. Saying 'but giving you this right, might mean that other people are abused' is like saying 'that we will now have to outlaw all pain relief because some people might abuse the right to use it' - and heavens above, become addicted even.

Probably the most peculiar claim that has been made in relation to this debate is that it's okay for me to kill myself (suicide) early rather than have a nice, clean, hospital or hospice death when I was ready, if I wanted it which I might not if I found my illness bearable.

TBC

I hope the people who push this view are ready to open up their lounge rooms and offices in for people with terminal illness to come and top themselves in.

That's OUTRAGEOUS I can hear some people say. Well not really. If I have to kill myself early which would annoy me and my family very much because I'd lose time with them, no matter how I did it, then some poor soul have to clean up the mess. Why should some poor bush-walker have their day ruined and maybe even suffer some emotional hurt because some intrusive types think that this is better than dying in hospital.

Then I might blotch it, end up incapicated early which would be both expensive to the state and terrible on my family.

Then there would be the legal complications, things like the impact on my life insurance and probably the coroner's court to add stress to my family. So nope, if I have to go early and luckily for the fanatics out there that would intrude on my rights, I am in reasonable health, I would seriously consider dropping my corspe on someone who I think would deserve to deal with it, than someone who hasn't impeded on my choice at all.

Pericles,

It is disingenuous of you to insist there is no difference between the statement I made and what you claimed I said. Most readers would have no difficulty understanding the difference. However if it suits you to muddy the waters to bolster your argument, so be it, your loss.

Pericles, "So, you and I are 100% agreed that a poll that shows such a massive discrepancy between the views of the 'general public', and those most affected, should be widely publicised."

No, you are comparing apples and oranges, I referred to a quote regarding the opinions of the members of National Seniors, whereas the poll to which you refer could involve anyone, for example a high number of young people if done on line. Would you like to link to your poll?

As for your remaining questions see my replies already given above,
3 October 2010 8:14:00 PM and
3 October 2010 8:29:50 PM

There is no secret, it is quite straightforward and easy, just get your copy of the transcript from the National Press Club as suggested to you and as they offer (I gave you the link to the request form). The link you posted above was the introduction for Mr O'Neill, a promo, not a transcript of his address. Did you not realise that? They do it for all speakers. It is delivered by the President of the NPC, Ken Randall AM, who also introduced Michael O'Neill.

anyhow..i hope..this relates

[same book]

it relates to improper comprehention...of the death-thing
and how if the spirit...is prepared..for the next level
[or those left behind...knew what they were doing
wasnt helping the departed...adapt..
to their new reality

we just might....be leading all of us to a better future
with knowledge..informing our life/death decisions
instead of theory/need/want

the writer/visited a crossed-over..soul...surrounded by..
oh heck..read it or not

<<the presence..of a number/of bright purple..hair-lines
which, emanating from..the body of the/sleeper,
passed across..and out of the room,..I knew not whither.

My friend informed me/that-these..were love-cords
which existed..by reason of the uncontrollable/grief
of the friends..left behind.

Great difficulty,..he explained,
is frequently experienced..in dealing with these-earth attractions,

and if..friends..could only know
how their unrestrained-grief..finds a response
in those they mourn - disturbing and breaking their rest -
it would do much to/remedy the wrong..they are thus unintentionally the cause of.

Should the sleeper awake/before the force..of these cords can be weakened,..which not unfrequently happens,..the soul-is drawn back again to earth,..and naturally participates..in the agony of its friends,

which is/also..increased by..the discovery
that it is both powerless..to make its presence known,
or in/any way..minister to the relief of the mourner.

In the case before us,..messengers had/been
continually dispatched,..and every available-influence employed to try and stem..the torrent of these sorrowing friends.>>

so impeding..the natural progress/of the departed-spirit

who...in responding..to the earth-pull
are risking..getting/becomming..earth-bound..dis-incarnates

or worse..be tempted..to/take possesion of another
and risk going-to hell...
for violating..the principles of freewill..[gifted]..to all

who could have thunk-it
dying..aint as..simple as it seems

ignorance is no excuse...we claim..to be enlightend..
its time..we became/more informed..about this life...and the next

"Re your response to Merv, we can all play that logic-game: are YOU suggesting that if anyone runs someone else down with their car, that should always be treated as an accident ?"
No Loudmouth, that is not the same logic at all.

Mine is comparing the withholding the right to request to be euthanized on grounds of hypothetical misuse, to withholding other important rights that actually do result in many deaths from misuse.
That is precisely what he seemed to be saying, that despite many people who are suffering, there are stories on the news of children killing their parents (didn't verify why) and although rare, "once is too much", and would be foolish to pursue in parliament.
That would imply prevention of Euthanasia legalization because risk of misuse by a minority trumps the rights of many others not to suffer.
You can re-read it and tell me where my presumption was off if you want.

The other made by you, I simply cannot see the relationship, and can't help but wonder if it is pure nonsense of no relevance at all, attempting to portray the same to mine, unless you can elaborate.

And let me say it again- the two reasons for opposing it (the evil doctor and the evil relatives) are pure garbage- freak situations that ignore the shortcoming of needing a DEMAND from the patient to die compeltely foiling their plans, and the existing ease to murder a frail person and make it look like an accident or a heart attack, regardless of if Euthanasia is legalized or not.