I found it interesting in your post individual, that euthanasia moved from something a person could desire for themselves, to spare themselves constant intense pain, to something that could be desired to spare others a drudgery.
And, yes, I understand that carers are completely marginalised by our system.

Individual, "...depend on people who don't have any other interest in prolonging a miserable situation other than for a job."

Euthanasia isn't and shouldn't be considered for the well-being of the carer, only for the patient.

There are many cases for euthanasia, which I support. But your particular argument isn't a valid one for this debate. Likewise, one wouldn't argue against euthanasia for the sake of saving jobs...

And drug addicts are people too. I'm fairly certain most carers in the industry wouldn't be making such a distinction in their job.

So what are the limits to euthanasia ? Beyond what point does it become murder ?
Loudmouth,
I appreciate your question as this is indeed the crux of Euthanasia. We must however, not lose sight of where we're heading as a society. We cannot afford both physically & psychologically to become a society of carers because that's what's around the corner if modern medicine keeps focussing on extended life expectancy rather than quality of life. Yes there are many who object to euthanasia on the grounds that medicine will find cures & people will live better & longer. But who'll be there to support this extended life ? Don't bet on Governments for they already cringe at the mention of pension. Family ? Perhaps in some isolated cases but if the present is used as a gauge then I won't hold my breath. It literally comes down to acceptable moral of do we provide medical help up to a certain age only & let nature take over or do we go against nature & our concept of moral & prolong life which can not sustain itself without extensive effort & sacrifice. Many patients just lie in hospital beds simply waiting to pass on and/or even against the patient's will our morals will not allow them to go with dignity. Are our morals such that we even go against nature & against a patient's last wish ? We bail up when it comes to the end of peoples' life but we ignore their plight throughout life. I find this very strange indeed.

I must be a bit of a b@stard because, even though I'm heading there myself pretty soon, I don't spend sleepless nights worrying about how undignified it must be for old people to be spoon-fed, insensate and incontinent, in the corridors of over-crowded old people's homes. I don't weep into my latte about the vast numbers of people spending their last months in unbearable pain. Instead, I look down from my Olympian ivory tower and contemplate where the boundaries between suicide and murder (or manslaughter) may be.

Suicide I'm fine with, but that Other Person's involvement in something that might be murder or at least manslaughter, I'm not.

Yes, I must be a proper b@stard: I don't care if I'm a nuisance to my children, I don't care if I crap myself and need feeding, and am oblivious to it all. It's my life, my only life, and nobody else has the right to take it, not on any spurious grounds of 'dignity', or saving me unbearable pain (gimme the morphine pump!), or any bullsh!t about quality of life.

So where is the boundary between choice and not-choice ? Simple question. Or is it ?

Joe

So where is the boundary between choice and not-choice ? Simple question. Or is it ?
Loudmouth,
It's your life, you do with it as you please. Just don't expect others to change their routine to accommodate your needs. If you need help & you don't want your carer to feel undignified then pay them properly. if you can't pay expect not live much longer. Very simple indeed.

colinsett, "Cornflower, you must occupy a culture vastly different from that of myself..."

Congratulated on being 79 and being able to boast of your large spread of contacts, with none suffering depression, I hope. However, if you take the trouble to go back and read my posts on this subject you will realise that I am basing my comments on what Michael O'Neill, CEO National Seniors, had to say in his address at the National Press Club in the last couple of weeks. National Seniors has several hundred thousand members plus and the survey of its members showed 75% opposed to euthanasia and for the reasons I have stated previously.

The lack of reporting of Mr O'Neill's address says something too about the callous disregard of the problems affecting the aged. It is different of course where there is some political advantage in fomenting intergenerational jealousy to the detriment of the aged and especially 'Boomers'.

If you also take the trouble to read and understand what I have said many times over, I am not opposed to euthanasia. Rather I am very much for it. What I am doing is making a plea for government and the community to address the prejudice against the aged that is a growing feature of Australian culture and permits the widespread ageism - discrimination against the aged - and a broken aged care system to prevail.

The plea is for seniors to be treated decently. Now that might not be something you and your contacts think is much of a priority, but it is a very poor environment in which to introduce euthanasia. It is fundamental reason why many seniors do not trust government - a distrust you have acknowledged. As the alternative Prime Minister has been so honest to identify, economic rationalism could easily affect the services available to seniors should euthanasia become available.

What doesn't figure is why you and the Greens are not as concerned to demand the removal of the systemic discrimination against the aged as you are to make euthanasia urgently available to them.