If I claim to have a divine revelation, and embrace a religion which advocates the compulsory execution of anyone over 55, do I have the same rights as Pat Power to promulgate my views in public and condemn anyone as mercenary and wrong-headed for disagreeing with them? Do I get to excommunicate hospitals which fail to carry out my instructions? And if not, why not? What evidence does Bishop Power have for his beliefs that I do not?

But let's be fair: it is not only religious beliefs that MPs should leave at the door. Anyone who believes in astrology, leprechauns, UFOs or homeopathy should leave that behind too. Then perhaps we can expect rational decision-making.

Who can tell when it is right to die ?
The Patient--end of story.
I'm with you King Hazza.
Dr Phillip Nitschke had in place a workable procedure which was veto'd by the God botherers led by Kevin Anderson.
Fortunately, Dr Nitschke has developed an alternative through 'exit international' and those poor suffering individuals who so choose can exit peacefully , in their own time ,by their own hand without the interference or intervention by religious moralists

The catholic church has never had a problem in imposing a right to die when that happens to be a side effect of extracting a conversion/confession/lesson for others.

Nor have other atrocities against humanity been in principle taken by the church as a true rebuke and a clear indication that their dogma not only fails to be robust, it fails to be adequate to even cursory examination.

Only once such deep failings in dogma as might lead to such cruelty are completely corrected might church dogma inform a genuine comment that could override an individuals wishes.

Rusty

The question was asked why any discussion on the subject of euthanasia always relates back to religion.
The answer is clear that it is the fear of a backlash from religious zealots throughout our communities that restrict the politicians from being honest with themselves, being honest with their constituents and being honest in stating their incompetence to effectively offer a vote on this subject, in any forum.
90% of politicians are weak, malleable people, anxious about their comfortable seat in parliament, their superannuation, their subservience to their leader for future promotion and as backbenchers in either of the larger parties, anxious about their endorsement approval by the party system, next time around.
They live in constant fear and it is this fear that well-organised religion exploits.

It totally controls their every waking moment.

Can you really imagine anyone in the coalition bucking the well-stacked Catholic heirarchy all sitting on the front bench as of today like the twelve disciples of George Pell, rosary beads in their pockets and voting honestly for the approval of euthanasia? Hardly.

The injustice in the whole story is that politicians , particularly these kind of politicians are allowed to be the arbiters on such a subject. Why? What has it to do with them at all? But since the first day of this country and including all the religious baggage we 'inherited' from the old country, religion has parasitically wormed its way into our laws and parliaments through non-secular education, tax-free status, funding for almost all religious denominations and our subservience to religious festivals and traditions, ad nauseum.

Let me quote part of the Messiah which says, "We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way”
In this case, in political terms, “turn to his own way” for politicians means protecting their backsides, a full time career for our elected sheep.

Has anyone ever considered euthanasia as a voluntary personal decision for those who may wish to end it all, not from pain, not from loneliness, depression, or any other factor but because one has really had enough of life, who may see that they are contributing nothing or little of any value , perhaps just tired of life and wish, without fuss, to say goodbye to it all.

I hark back to a program by the ABC Four Corners program on this subject when a rational, happy group of older people were illegally making Nebutal while having a barbecue, a sane, sensible, contented group of people all anxious to call it a day but at a time of their choosing. The presenter on Four Corners crossed to the then President of the AMA, Rosanna Capolingua, a Perth GP and asked her to comment. Her comment was along the lines that “we must do something to stop such people being depressed”. What a stupid statement about people who were happy and content then and probably still are today but who just wanted to decide themselves when they left this earth.

With such prevailing medical opinions and understandings, why would anyone want GP’s involved in any determination of such an important decision, I ask you? A perfect example of the prevailing political and medical attitude in Australia.

The question as to whether the supporting numbers for euthanasia represent 85%, 70% or any other figure is really irrelevant. It certainly is a great majority, which probably clearly reflects that those who consider religious and political considerations being part of this determination should butt out, permanently.

nohj
I am not making any assumptions for other people only myself. It is an individual choice as no two people are the same and disease itself affects people differently.

runner
Human nature is not perfect but do you really think the young will start eyeing off their inheritances? You do have a poor view of human nature, and while warranted in some cases, I don't think the bonds between children and parents are that weak. How is that relevant when relatives are not involved in the decision making, it is up to the individual and their doctors.

We are talking about free choice. Didn't you once say you condoned the death penalty? So death is alright as long as you make the judgement.