Cornflower,

There is absolutely no doubt aged care is a disgrace; most of us have seen it first hand and I don't think there is anyone who doesn't see the drastic need for improvement in this service.

But it is a different issue (albeit related intrinsically) to the moral debate of euthanasia.

Let's hope the situation improves in aged care facilities so that euthanasia is not such an attractive option for so many... But it doesn't mean euthanasia should not be available for those who really do need it.

Loudmouth:
"And should all of those 85 % who are so happy to support the deaths of others put their names on the lists, and be first to stand in line ?"

Read the article again please. They aren't talking about euthanasing others, they are saying they would like to have the choice for themselves.

oneundergod,

I can't take you seriously when your whole belief system was totally debunked when Gandalf The Grey re-emerged from the dead as Gandalf The White. Besides, us Jedis return to the corporeal world in spirit form to chat with our fellow Jedis, so there's no real problem with euthanasia for us at all.

The author states that "85 per cent of Australians want choice over how they die and that includes three out of four Catholics, four out of five Anglicans and nine out of ten Australians with no religion." It would be helpful if the following information were provided: the questions asked in the survey, the answers broken down by age and by religion, and the definition of euthanasia provided in the survey.

TrashcanMan, "But it is a different issue (albeit related intrinsically) to the moral debate of euthanasia."

It is relevant because where discrimination already exists and adequate care is already being denied (as is the case in Australia), euthanasia is seen as a logical extension of those policies and practices.

But what prevents the Greens from supporting a Commissioner for the Aged? Aren't the rights of the aged worth protecting?

Aren't the rights of the aged worth protecting?
Cornflower,
very valid question. We need to establish as to what's right morally & technically. Morally I believe it is the family who should be the #1 protector. If this is not possible due to no relatives or the relatives' financial situation then Government hast a technical responsibility to take over. If we can afford to keep hordes of useless retired public servants at great cost then morally & technically we can afford to look after the basic needs for the aged, most of whom are so worn out they only last a few years into retirement. They have spent their life paying tax so the public servants can have a carefree existence for life. It's morally fair to make the retirement years of working people a little easier. There's no dignity in dying in a run down old caravan or in an aged facility where no-one cares. Our six retired PM's are costing us about $100 000 00.- combined. Then there are the judges & Ministers, bureaucrats etc etc.
If we can afford them then we can afford to look after the workers who helped create this wealth. Don't wait for the unions, they only pretend to help after you've paid union fees.

Oops ! That should read a $100 000 000.- as in 100 million.

Trying to draw a link between people who are living in substandard aged facilities and those who are dying terribly and want to end their lives with dignity is ridiculous!

These are two separate issues entirely and to try to meld them is irrational and counterproductive. Keep these important issues completely separate otherwise important progress will occur with neither.