I want my house wired by qualified skilled people, and repairs and decommissioning to be similarly done in a safe, competant manner.

So too my car repairs, and the decommissioning of complex devices such that there is a poor way and a good way.

Dying alone is a poor way. Being an unwilling recipient of heroic measures is a poor way. Having ones helpless body at the mercy of people who constitutionally believe that it is "right" to override your wishes is a poor way.

Just as being sick alone is poor, receiving innappropriate or botched treatment is poor, or having unwanted treatments cunducted without consent is poor.

Whatever the bodily process is, there is no reason why patient rather than church should have the say. That the church may desire to desperatately clutch the power of life-and-death is *not* a reason, as they have so botched this in the past as to call all dogma and "scripture" into extreme disrepute. There is no reason why the technical details should not be done competantly by suitably qualified personnel, nor why friends and family should not attend, as they might an unassisted death.

Rusty

...no reason why patient rather than church should *not* have a say....

Rusty

Hi Hazza,

[Sorry for following you around :) ]

'As I hear it Loudmouth, "euthanasia" is nothing but assisted suicide at request of the patient (either direct communication or by written will made beforehand)- using specialized, efficient killing drugs.'

That's okay then.

Only .......

* How do you distinguish between 'assisted suicide' and murder ? If somebody dies in the presence of another person, how do you KNOW they have suicided ? If suicide were completely legal, one would not need a note or a completed Stat. Dec., one would just do it. But if someone else is present, doctor or relative or whatever, some sort of written record would be vital - and so the 'suicide' situation would be very different in law.

* And why does the discussion so often slide from 'assisted suicide' towards the killing off of people who are not fully conscious of what they are doing, or on financial grounds, or [most heart-wrenchingly and compassionately] because of the poor quality of someone's life, as judged by someone else ?

Nowhere near as simple as it seems, Hazza .......

Persuasive argument, David, and others here too. As pointed out by Briar Rose for example, it is clearly nonsensical and inhumane to be forcibly kept alive "when I have no quality of life, can't think, can't talk, can't listen, can't connect with my loved ones, can't meditate, can't take care of my bodily functions, and am in a constant and sickened stupor from drugs that are supposedly alleviating my pain".

I do however have some reservations about legalising euthanasia. I see the 'slippery slope' argument as a compelling one when it comes to this issue.

There will obviously be strong measures put into place to begin with which will protect individuals from being euthanized against their will. My concern is that decades down the track these safeguards might not necessarily have the strength they would in the early days. Several current trends I feel will converge and add to this weakening.

The first is that health and hospital costs will continue to spiral as more and more expensive medical interventions are developed. At the same time, increasing numbers of people are going to be living very long lives. As well, the wealth disparity that has opened up over the last few decades will only gather pace, as will the entrenchment of the user-pays principle in part responsible. The convergence of these trends will place enormous pressure on our health systems and the losers as always will be those who cannot afford to pay the high costs that remaining healthy will inevitably entail.

Once euthanasia is long bedded down and has become the norm, people in this situation, particularly those without a strong and supportive family, will face pressure to take the euthanasia option even though they may in fact still have a will to live. It is easy to dismiss this possibility now, but in fifty years time I think this will be the legacy of euthanasia. For those of independent means, the option will be a source of comfort. For increasing numbers of old and poor I fear it will become an unwanted pressure.

@ David Swanton

//If liberty is being threatened, by organised religion through religious politicians, then all free-thinking people should rally against the threat.//

Characterizing religious people (Christians no doubt) as a 'THREAT' is itself the greatest "threat" to freedom ..and we need to rally against it.

Our parliament does not open with the Lords Prayer for 'no reason'.. it didn't happen in a historical vaccuum.

There's a saying "If you don't feel close to God, guess who moved?"

and needless to say.. it was not God.. maybe it was you and others of a similar mindset?

Bronwyn,

The slippery slope argument is a furphy. It has not happened in other countries where legal voluntary euthanasia or physician assisted suicide exists. Unless of course, if one takes notice of propagandised reports from religious opponents. Their sole argument is that a god gives live and only a god can take life. Fine for them but imposing that on 80% of the population is not your call or theirs. Imposing an idea by deceit is outrageous.

Although, you may have a point with the slippery slope argument. I know the speed limit is around 100 Kph now but what about people who want to get there quicker for economical and other reasons. It’s sure to slippery slope and zip up to 300 Kph before we know it. And what I’m waiting for is the offence of shoplifting to be elevated from present sanctions until we slippery slope sentences and fire offenders at the sun in rockets to get rid of them.

The slippery slope argument is, as I said a furphy and only believed by those of religious persuasion or those persuaded by their dodgy arguments. It is understandable that some people are sucked into this non-reason for not having legal voluntary euthanasia, as it has become a mindless mantra pulled out of the hat as often as possible.

My advice would be; don’t be one of those gullible enough to believe it.

If and when any of us are ever in unremitting pain, without quality of life with a terminal illness, wouldn’t it be better to know we were not responsible for preventing our own peaceful death.

None of this matters too much, except for those in the unfortunate situation right now, as parliamentarians cannot forever go against the wishes of so many.

David