Pity about Bill Hayden and Mark Oliphant - the revelations in this article have rather darkened my impressions of these two gentlemen.

A greater pity of course about the state of mental health services in this country. There are certainly insufficient services available for the living, let alone for the dying. Perhaps there is a general delusion that we are all just fine. (I know I'm not.)

However, here we are talking about a choice of how to end our lives with dignity, when so many have no choice, not only about how to die in peace, but of how to be able to live in peace.
I wonder how many others of our species on this planet - what percentage by race, religion, country of upbringing, education or occupation - feel as I do that we are in so many ways still such a primitive species? I feel certain that mankind (or personkind if you're wanting to be picky), in all its wonderful variations, would fare so much better if we all worked so much harder on world peace - meaning that old quarrels and conflicts need to be put in context of present world circumstances, religious differences held to just differences - letting each to his own and without any cause for hatred or distrust, etc. Universal tolerance.

I wonder what it's going to take to achieve true world order, and what form that might best take? The situation in the middle east is something of a testing ground I think, and sensitive ethical and humanitarian choices are in the balance.

Given the current worldwide refugee situation, the widely disparate distribution of wealth and circumstance, I wonder if widespread multiculturalism and complete rethinking of territoriality is not facing us right now, and perhaps it is time? Perhaps an opportunity?

Maybe someone amongst the talented article contributors to this wonderful forum, may be able to compose a responsible, considered proposition on this, on a viable way forward to resolve the seemingly endless stream of conflict, intolerance, injustice and inhumanity?

Sorry SaltPetre, no amount of counselling, or antidepressant medication helps if someone has medically uncontrollable pain, vomiting, loose bowels, bleeding, and fitting.

I have seen it tried many times, and it made no difference to the patient's state of mind.

Many antidepressants take up to a month to really kick in...most of these people don't have the time left anyway.

Don't get me wrong, many people have peaceful, relatively pain-free deaths, due to our excellent palliative care professionals in this country.

I would only advocate legal euthanasia for the relatively few dying people for which nothing works, and they are in a terrible state.

Believe me, the pleading look in their eyes haunts you long after they finally die..

If, as Bill Hayden says, we should rid ourselves of 'unproductive burdens', what do we do with the disabled, mentally impaired or chronically unemployed?

I would have thought that Bill would have understood that what you produce is not the only measure of your worth.

"Unproductive burden" - what a horrific term and nothing to do with euthanasia. Productivity is not the only measure of worth, and in fact can distort many a discussion about social wellbeing. I would rather we talk of contribution, value of life and freedom of choice to rid pain and suffering. Euthanasia advocates are not pushing for a Logan's Run or Soylent Green solution for heaven's sake.

Suzeonline I heartily agree with your sentiments.

The idea of forced euthanasia has never been raised as a policy proposal and many against euthanasia reform will continue to distort the heartfelt position of those advocating for dying with dignity and freedom of choice. Why are we forcing people to cope with pain and suffering where all medical intervention fails. Where is the compassion?

"the corruption of the relationship between the state and its most vulnerable citizens, and between doctors and their most vulnerable patients"

And whence the assumption that the people labeled as "vulnerable" wish to have any relationship with the state and/or with doctors?

And who in the first place is the authority to label a person "vulnerable" but the state itself and its doctors, for their own agenda of course. What about being vulnerable to the tyranny of the state itself and its doctors?

The underlying assumption is that one's life belongs to the state, which is akin to the military practice whereby a soldier who attempts to commit suicide is charged with the criminial offence of "sabotaging military property".

Nay. If two (or more) individuals agree, by informed consent, to kill each other, for whatever reason (including for no reason at all), I would probably consider it most unwise and immoral, yet that gives no grounds for the state (or for anyone else) to interfere, as the state itself is the brutal party and the last example of wisdom and moral behaviour!

What a sad indictment on how low our society has descended. Pastor Neuberger must be rolling over in his grave. The greed mongers have certainly won out over the compassionate ones.

The Charton Heston movie Soylent Green is being played out right before our eyes. The pushy and the greedy will live longer, but not by much because, by their actions they will shorten the life span of all species.