What we have here a perfect example of the calm, balanced and rational approach that is the hallmark of busybodies everywhere.

Euthanasia is first described as "...killing a patient [as] an alternative to palliative care."

Right off the bat, we are told that the reason we want to allow people to choose to die with dignity, is to save money.

Might that not be a touch insulting to the many grief-stricken relatives who, even as we speak, are watching their loved ones live in excruciating pain, and without the ability to bring it to a close?

No. It's all about avoiding the inconvenience and cost of palliative care.

Christian charity at work. Doncha love it.

And in response to a claim by Dr. Nitschke that he was acting compassionately?

"The arrogance in this statement resonates strongly with that of other madmen in history who have presumed to play God with other people's lives."

No thought, it would seem, given to the arrogance involved in claiming the right to dictate to others whether their lives have effectively come to an end or not.

Is that not equally "playing God"? Presuming that you know what your chosen deity has in mind is, I would have thought, the absolute epitome of arrogance.

But what do I know. I'm not a Christian.

And a lovely scare for us all - every one of us - whose lives are apparently at risk.

"...you only need to con nine people in the ACT Assembly to get a majority and 22 million Australians are at risk<<

Fortunately, such a ridiculously illogical, laughably self-serving and patently untrue statement allows us to put the entire article into its proper perspective.

Thank you Clownfish, it IS difficult to find a rational response to the (worthy) arguments put by the author - who clearly discloses his religious affiliation via his by line Jon J - so your response is worth reading a few times. Voluntary Euthanasia is not a religious vs. non-religious issue. If it were that simple I (a rusted-on skeptic) wouldn't be posting. I am for personal choice based upon informed consent but those words roll off the tongue much easier than the reality would play out in the grey zones of human experience. Let's have the debate, try to keep our heads and assess the substantive, not the pointless distractions put up by those who (apparently) refuse to read and absorb what Jim Wallace is saying.

Clownfish, if you read the papers or watch the news, you will often see stories about people who have been killed by their children or their spouse or their brother or sister, usually for money. It happens.

So, given this fact, what are we going to do: force everyone to die a terrible death because someone, somewhere, sometime, might try to influence someone to euthanize themselves?

If the rules for legal euthanasia are set up properly, the scheme will be as foolproof as anything that humans do usually is. And the idea that, if euthanasia is legalized, people everywhere will go about killing everyone in sight is profoundly stupid!

Here Wally (can I call you Wally?), I fixed your quote for you;
"No matter how you intellectualise trying to deny people a basic personal right at the expense of prolongued suffering under life support- within in a democratic society- at the whim of a superstition of supposed will of a deity held by a minority of one broader, but mostly secular religious group, it will never be right."

So, following Joe Loudmouth's advice, instead of normally ignoring the article after finding it was by the head of the Australian Christian Lobby, I read the whole damn thing, and am regretting wasting my time;
It is precisely as Pericles, PeterGM and JonJ described.

The only issue Wally raised was that some of the people who still seemed to have still requested euthanasia (at least all the cases Wally kind-of sort-of hinted whether consent was given), were not terminally ill, but suffering something that does not actually kill you, and as such, do not deserve the right to defy Wally's personal beliefs and end their own lives.

And Julia, surprise surprise, is showing her colors as just another slack gravy-train rider listening to lobbyists. The "Safeguards" she is ignorant about, she would have found out easily had she hauled her lazy backside over to her office intercom, and asked her secretary to mail her the Euthanasia policies already in use throughout Europe as a good place to start researching.

I just hope at least that since we have already cleaned the crud off this 'debate' just a week ago that nobody is going to try to pretend the supposed 'dangers' we already covered need to be asked again.

I don't want to see this get to the stage where people can pay a corrupt doctor to euthanase their parent or other, and have some legal excuse for it. There have been one or two people who have had their lives finished for no reason except I guess they were being "smart" or something. Those people who really want to finish themselves off, can fairly easily find a method to do so but the elderly and those in very poor health, may want a bit of help but I'm afraid I couldn't help, and probably would not.

David G,

<<the idea that, if euthanasia is legalized, people everywhere will go about killing everyone in sight is profoundly stupid>>

Yes, it is. Down with everybody who even thinks it. Wait a minute, I haven't heard anyone even suggest it. Yet. But I don't read every piece of Greens material :)

But if it becomes possible to kill just ONE person without their consent, for somebody to take somebody else's one-and-only life, then where are the boundaries ?

By all means, Pericles, health systems should provide as much palliative care as people want, and certainly as much pain relief as they want, self-administered if possible. People should spend their last months or days or moments in as much comfort and dignity as possible. But let people linger if they wish, when a little life is all they have left before they say goodbye forever to the world.

Joe