The figure of 80% in favour probably comes from polls conducted through on-line media.

Optimal palliative care is critical for terminally ill patients, and optimal mental health services are critical for sufferers of mental health issues.

I agree that "reducing the argument to a crass monetary level is demeaning." However, it is a strawman fallacy to say "right to die advocates .... are far more concerned with cost-effective economic rationalism than the value of the human person."

Issues around religious belief, or lack of them, and "principles", and purported lack of depth of those, are easily conflated and confused.

If optimal palliative care is not providing adequate relief for a terminally ill patient in the terminal phase of their illness - as it does for 99% of patients - then euthanasia seems a reasonable, merciful option for that rare patient. Claims we would be on a slippery slope beyond that can be readily addressed in a mature society like Australia's by appropriate review procedures and medical panels.

Pat
Euthanasia is a serious subject and should not be taken lightly but think you are being unfair in your claims about euthanasia advocates, in order to protect a religious agenda. A religious agenda is one thing and people should be free to follow the doctrines of their faith - but should it be forced on people who do not share your beliefs?

Do you sincerely believe the majority of euthanasia advocates are all about economic rationalisation? Surely our fellow men and women are better than that.

Euthanasia is practised unofficially in many medical settings including increasing morphine dosage to offset pain at a level that is considered most probably fatal. What do we do, do we keep treating the 'pain' until the effect is the same as euthanasia or do we just get on with making legislative conditions strong enough to withstand possible abuses.

Who is advocating it as an economic saving?

Most of the documentaries I have seen on the subject have (naturally) focussed on older Australians who wish to have the right to die, in consultation with their doctor/doctors, should they be terminally ill and in pain or a there is a growing awareness of what it might be like to live with alzheimers. If you have ever seen anyone in the grip of dementia it is truly a scary and woeful existence for the patient and I know I would rather meet a painless end rather than endure that horror.

I can't see Catholics or others who do not condone euthanasia being forced or pressured to euthanase even for pain relief if that is not their choice.

I do understand some of the bureaucratic concerns, but strong protections in legislation would offer safeguards and ensure governments continue to deliver high quality palliative care like the wonderful Clare Holland House.

"Who can tell when it is right to die?"
The patient- end of story.
And that includes being allowed to choose life-ending drugs over dying as a result of denial of medication, too.

Of course, when the article is written by a Catholic Bishop, he would (and has) tried his very best to employ dishonesty to make it appear NOT the case.

Nothing left to see here, all the arguments for the Euthanasia debate have been comprehensively covered in both this forum, the "Rational Skepticism forum, and hundreds of others- from confirming patient wishes in all different circumstances (including written request-to-die form prior to disability), who would perform the procedure (grant anyone with background checks, willing to take some training a license to euthanize), and the safeguards.

Everything else not already covered is just disingenous or outright ignorant posturing- just like the good Bishop's dishonest article.

Pat,

As a Catholic Bishop, I am not surprised that you follow the church's dogma, However, I am surprised that you are prepared to bend the truth to such an extent in representing the issue.

In considering euthanasia there was always in consideration a panel of experts to confirm that the patient is suffering from a condition that is either terminal and or involves suffering that cannot be mitigated medically. Also they need to confirm that the patient is not simply suffering from a medical depression, and that it is his sustained will not to continue living.

If all these conditions are met, the only obstacle is the present law and those religious zealots who wish to perpetuate their suffering.

Pelican , you seem to be saying that everyone with dementia would prefer to be dead. I dont agree. My father has dementia but he still has a dignity and a sense of humour. i believe he still enjoys life.

The pushers of the right to death debate are in denial of human nature. There will be a large number of children and grandchildren who have little to do with caring for the elderly and who will suddenly take interest in their inheritance. Just happens most pro deathers also show no conscience in killing the unborn. Why am I surprised?