David G,
Aren't we talking quality of life here as long as one is not dead ?
I think it's ridiculous to try and categorise people's existence in a bureaucratic fashion. Dying with dignity is pointless when there's no dignity in getting to the dying stage.
It's a bit like putting up a grand headstone for someone who was ignored throughout their life. Hypocrisy is the word that comes to mind.
If more courtesy was extended to people in their life in general then far less effort & care would be needed towards their declining years. There would also be more dignity.

the Mary Potter Home in North Adelaide caters to all without asking if they means test for a belief in a higher being. They do it out of love. And they have excellent palliative care.

Peter Singer, that arch utilitarian, baulked when asked if he could put his own mother down. How could he? Indeed, how could anyone with the tiniest shred of humanity in them?

Even if 99% of the Australian population had a referendum and agreed that euthanasia was a fundamental human right to be enshrined in the Australian Constitution, it still wouldn't be right: it would just be as odious as the one about excluding certain undesirable races - I forget which one, but it's 'odious' indeed, just jumps off the page at you! - or in the American context, the Dred Scott decision which makes black Americans private property and the Roe v Wade decision of 1973 which also makes the unborn 'property' to be disposed of at the convenience of the 'carrier'. Just like slavery. Just another barbaric and inhumane ideology.

But we are so so modern, aren't we? Just "throw Momma off the train" and let's get on with life, shall we?

Would there have been 85% support were the question asked in the following way?

Do you support legalised killing?

Do you support legalised killing.
Fester,
I'll answer first with a question. Do you believe we have the integrity in Australia not to abuse legalised killing ? For useless drug addicts, criminals, serial thieves, corrupt law enforcers etc it would be of benefit to decent society. You have to be cruel to be kind. Trouble is that decency never gets the upper hand. It's much easier to tolerate the misery thrust upon innocent decent folk than making scoundrels accountable for causing the misery. I think a 4x2 would be very dignified for many of the scoundrels in public office.

[quote] Just "throw Momma off the train" and let's get on with life, shall we? [/quote]
Posted by SHRODE, Sunday, 10 October 2010 12:18:44 AM

No one is advocating that train-wreck of an approach, and to intimate that is a straw-man fallacy.

Really, McReal ?

David G wrote on Friday: "We don't have to fill in forms to prove that we don't want to put the dog down because it chewed the corner off the carpet or that it is costing too much in medical bills or that it passes wind under the breakfast table. Our motives are not questioned by anyone!

"But put the human animal into the 'death with dignity' equation and all hell breaks loose!"

Let's hope that, when David G becomes prime minister, his wife or kids don't pass wind under the breakfast table :)

I'm intrigued by that little line: "Our motives are not questioned by anyone!" with its implication that one should be able to put down relatives with no questions being asked. Call me old-fashioned but perhaps the law still recognises humans as having more rights than dogs: perhaps David G and Peter Singer would like to change that ?

Put your names on the list, boys.

Joe