What I find absurd about my need to shorten my pain in dying, is the intrusion of politicians between me and myself.

If I am able to commit suicide no one can stop me but, if I need some help in dying, all sorts of rat- bags, for strange reasons of their own, try to withhold that help, thus adding more pain to the one I am under.

Dr. Nitschke’s idea of establishing a public clinic, open to the scrutiny of everyone, is grand.

Earlier this month the voters in Zurich, Switzerland were ask to vote on whether or not to ban their law allowing assisted suicide, and whether or not to outlaw that service for visitors.
According to a report in BBC News on 15 May, some 85% of the 278,000 votes cast opposed the ban on assisted suicide and 78% opposed outlawing it for foreigners.
This is an idea whose time has come, and for all of us aging baby boomers who have lived our lives advocating personal choice, none too soon.

So please tell us Phillip, do you still stand by your claim that: "all people qualify" for euthanasia, "including the depressed, the elderly bereaved, and the troubled teen"? June 5, 2001, interview with Kathryn Lopez on National Review Online

If you do still hold that position then surely, if you are a man of integrrity, you should be saying so. If you have changed your views, why have you, and have you made that known?

Opponents of assisted suicide are inhumane. For whatever reason, they are condemning humans to suffering that would never be tolerated in an animal. It's time the government stopped siding with them and left it up to those who need help to die. It's their choice, not the government's

To strengthen your words, Skeptic:

"What I find absurd about my need to shorten my pain in dying, is the intrusion of politicians between me and myself"

I find it absurd for politicians to intrude in the relationship between me and God.

As Dr. Nitschke writes from a secular perspective, he seems to accuse religion for the acts of politicians. False! Only the politicians themselves are responsible for their oppressive actions, not religion! While it may well be true that "the final moments of life offer a redemptive satisfaction one gets closer to God", who are this bunch of secular ignorants in power to try and enforce upon us spiritual principles which God Himself does not enforce?

I praise those who have the courage to stay alive till the body naturally expires. I think it is meritorious, but no merit is possible without free choice.

While I do not recommend the use of Dr. Nitschke's proposed exit clinics, I will fight for his right to have them if that's what he wants.

JP,

Yes, from a legal point of view, everyone should be allowed to terminate their life and to assist others who so wish to terminate their lives, for whatever reason, including the depressed, the bereaved and the troubled. It is none of the government's business.

From a moral point of view that's different of course, but nobody ever appointed this secular bunch of ignorants who sit in parliament and government as a moral authority or as spiritual guides.

DavidL,

I fully agree with your conclusion, though I don't consider it a compliment to be called "humane". The most serious suffering which governments inflict on dying people is not the physical pain, but the lack of choice whether to endure it or not.

*False! Only the politicians themselves are responsible for their oppressive actions, not religion!*

That is a bit simplistic, Yuyutsu. The Vatican is an extremely
cunning lobbyist organisation, globally. Never underestimate
their tentacles and how far or deep that they stretch.

Given the Vatican's hold over many a Catholic politician's alleged
ticket to heaven, I have no doubt that threats of excommunication
would soon fly, for Catholic politicians agreeing with euthanasia.
Along with a great deal of political pressure, lobbying etc.

Last time I checked, suffering was considered noble by the church.
It is one of the reasons why Opus Dei members carry little whips.

The Vatican's fight against euthanasia is IMHO clearly inhumane,
but we don't let those little bits of trivia intefere with the dogma.

Good on Nitchke for giving those who want it an option. For the
record, I know of various cases of Swiss people who have used the
euthanasia option, mostly terminal cancer patients in alot of pain.
I'm told by those attending, that its a very well organised and
beautiful experience. Its just a shame that a person like me, if
I was in that situation, would have to try to fly to Switzerland
to have my wish granted.Never forget, all that palliative care is
a highly profitable business.

I dunno Doctor, I always thought the very first duty of a medical doctor was first...to do no harm ?

Further, aren't doctors charged with the responsibility of treating those who are sick - not assisting humans with the means of killing themselves ?

Or is it simply a case that you (personally) find, that treating or aiding the cure of the sick, is all rather too routine. And not nearly as fulfilling, as manifestingly helping somebody to die ?

I recall well, after a rather nasty ambush, close by Dat Do in SV, our Section Cmdr.(Cpl) had to decide whether to put this poor bugger NVA out of his misery because the Claymore didn't quite finish it's 'work', anyway... it was very very difficult, believe me.

I suppose it takes all sorts Doctor ?

Philip it is about time that instead of grandiosing about yourself with Voluntary Euthanasia it is time you gave praise to all of the people involved in making VE law in each state, you never mention these people, it is all about yourself, "Saves" in S.A have been working very hard to bring about change in this state and it is very disappointing to have you announce your intentions before the bill was passed in S.A. this was detrimental to some politicians when you announced a clinic of your choosing in this State, wait until a decision is made then announce your intentions, you know the press will follow you because of your radical intentions when they should be concentrating more on the VE movements in each state.
The VE movements in each state are working for the benefit of ALL CITIZENS not just those involved with Exit who pay a large fee to become members, are you going to tell me how to end my life unless I become a member of Exit, Philip stay out of the limelight until decions are made, then come in with your plans of clinics, and please give praise to all the hard working people in each state including myself who want to see legislation passed through Parliament not a nebutal making class somewhere in the outback for only those who are in the Exit movment.

Ojnab

Dr Nitschke's article regarding physician assisted death (PAD) and 'Exit Clinics' is premature and should have been kept until any legislation is passed concerned with PAD. Before that, he and all others who work toward PAD must expand their unjustly limited vision.

"There will always be those for whom illness brings utter incapacity and devastation. Whether it is a long, drawn-out degenerative disease such as MS or an acute bout of terminal cancer...". Such diseases cause despair to many and life is limited without hope.

My daughter, at 40, had suffered a degenerative disease for some twenty years. Once a brilliant photographer, all creativity and talent had disintegrated. She lost the ability to care for herself as she once did and self-esteem and friends went along the way. The disease, degenerative, incurable and intractable to treatment, took away hope of a better life but left the memory of what she once had been; "utter incapacity and devastation" indeed. She had suffered all that could be borne. She placed her head on a rail track, waited for the train and found peace.

Anne's degenerative diease was paranoid schizophrenia; this, with bipolar 1 and severe affective disorders, caused 90% of some 4,600 suicides in 2008. Every two hours a despairing person jumps from a bridge or building, in front of a train (50/year in Victoria), cuts blood vessels or hangs themselves. We weep for their deaths. And we ask: why are degenerative diseases "such as MS" used to plead for PAD;
why are degenerative diseases of the brain not considered? They can cause immense suffering, often followed by suicide...almost always violent and always, always heartbreakingly alone. Your maxim, Dr Nitschke, "...it should be their human right not to suffer more than is necessary.", appears to apply only to some Australians. Stigma, doctor. This final, obscene stigma must end for the severely mentally ill.
ANY NEW LEGISLATION MUST COVER ALL AUSTRALIANS IN THAT AREA. More difficult? Yes, indeed! Impossible? NO! And there are tens of thousands of us who will fight for it!

Nitschke reminds me of the priest in movie "The Devils", rubbing his hands together and cackling with laughter as he rejoices in the premature death of another, less fortunate, human.

He makes and has made part of his considerable income by trying to influence Governments to legislate for the right of people like him to decide that another's life is less worthy than his own, and then take that life. I don't trust the Government to manage health services properly, let alone provide death services.

On a personal note my only contact with Nitschke showed him to be an ignorant, egocentric man. Years ago I was in the Sydney Domestic Qantas Club sitting on one of 6 (I think, maybe 8) chairs around one table which served as a common place for drinks, food, papers and so on. Nitschke sat down, pulled the table in front of himself and it became "his" while I, and anyone else who may have sat there, went without.

I tolerated his inconsiderately loud, almost shouted, conversations on the phone very briefly before moving. From 20 metres away his self-promoting words could still be heard over the general noise.

I could imagine that L.B Loveday, a very egocentric man, he normally waits until all of the VE movements in each state have contacted politicians and others and have spent many many hours of voluntary work to bring VE to all people who request it, this being hopefully passed by law through Parliament in each state, he does nothing of this except hold Exit clinics for his members, but when the cruch time comes for a decision by Parliament there he is making sure he has advised the press that he will be in town, tries to take all the accolades from the VE movements, where in actual fact he has done nothing towards achieving their aims.If VE fails in S.A. and Tasmania I think Philip should take a look at himself and perhaps think to himself I helped that to fail because of my radical end of life means.

Ojnab

It is OK for our Govts to take us to war and murder the best of our youth,and yet they still want control of our final exist.

Our exist from this life should be a matter of personal choice,since we had no choice in our entrance.Our Govt cannot control itself,let alone the citizens whom it oppresses.

We already have an abortion industry and Dr Nitschke now wants another death industry. No doubt some children will be rubbing their hands together hoping to bring their inheritance forward. Oh that's right all human motives are compassionate!

Greed and loopholes will always be the major problem Dr Nitschke.

weareunique,

Do you really believe that greed is not a problem with the present system? The politicians will not allow us to make up our own minds about the morality of assisted suicide when there is hopeless suffering or to decide for ourselves whether we want to have anything to do with it. Most of the posters here blame religious fundamentalists such as runner, but such a people are a small minority of the population, and there is no reason to believe that Parliament is dominated by them. If the fundamentalists are so powerful, why have they lost on virtually every other issue: property rights and votes for women, contraception and abortion, no-fault divorce, blasphemy, gambling, most types of pornography, Sunday trading, etc.?

A better explanation might be achieved by following the money. Close to half the money that is ever spent on an individual's health care is spent in the last six months of life. The powerful industries that profit from this situation have every incentive to protect their financial interests.

*If the fundamentalists are so powerful, why have they lost on virtually every other issue*

Divergence, don't be so sure. I remind you of the deal that Harradine
negotiated with Howard, to obtain his single vote, which was needed
to swing the Senate, on IIRC the sale of Telstra.

Australia stopped all funding for family planning in the third world
and I gather it is still that way.

Yabby,

No doubt the fundamentalists do weigh in on the anti-euthanasia side. The threat of excommunication can be powerful, as you said, and a fundamentalist who has the balance of power can extract a lot of concessions. However, there was a free vote on the Andrews bill. Public opinion polls had been running at 70-80% in favour of making voluntary euthanasia available, so out of curiosity, I once calculated the probability that the anti-euthanasia vote on the Andrews bill would have been as strong or stronger than it was, given a 30% probability that each individual politician was anti-euthanasia. Lets just say that it was infinitesimal. If the MPs and senators voted as they did because they were worried about the fundamentalist vote, then why haven't they supported the fundamentalist positions on other issues, such as abortion or the teaching of evolutionary theory in the schools?

Divergence, I think that it comes down to how many votes are at
stake, both for and against.

Above all, policitians want to be elected again, so they are quite
pragmatic. Now on abortion, you would have people demonstrating in
the streets and people quite likely to swing their votes over the
issue. So the votes lost would outweigh the numbers of fundamentalists.

Whilst most people support euthanasia, they commonly have other
preferences too. So they arn't yet ready to swing their vote, as
they would do with abortion.

Political parties would have established all this by polls and
formulate their policies accordingly.

But for fundies and the Catholic Church, euthanasia is a huge issue.
So any party promoting it could easily lose a few %, enough to swing
the elections.

The best way to try and get it through is a bi partisan vote but
you'll have huge campaigns by fundies and the Catholic hierarchy,
to roll it.

Ojnab, as a member of Dying with Dignity I know about the issues the VE societies have with Philip Nitschke, but your anger should be directed to the politicians and those who constantly do everything to block a voluntary euthanasia law in Australia. I must say all VE bills supported and initiated by VE societies have been so very restrictive that you need to be almost dead to be eligible, yet none of the bills have been successful. To even suggest, that Philip Nitschke is to be blamed is very naïve and shows a lack of understanding what kind of political forces are behind the refusal to have an Euthanasia Law in Australia. I know that “Dying with Dignity” as well as “Your last Right” think by distancing themselves from Exit/Philip Nitschke they will get this ‘squeaky clean image’ which gives your organisations the image of being responsible and trustworthy and hoping with this image it would be easier to get an Euthanasia Law pass the Parliament. Using Philip Nitschke as a scapegoat for the failure of getting finally the Euthanasia Bill through the Parliament might come handy for you and works with some of the ‘hardliner’ in Dying with Dignity, but your naïveté is a laughable and very restrictive view which hasn’t convinced me. Many Dying with Dignity members are also members of Exit, I am one of them. Disappointed of what Dying with Dignity offered me on help I turned to Exit and got the information and help I needed. I am very grateful to Exit.
Apropos money, Neil Francis, chairman and CEO Your last Right, receives a very handsome salary ($180.000) for his work to campaign for VE. Part of the money comes out of the Clem Jones Estate, but also from Dying with Dignity/VE societies. Meaning part of my membership goes to Neil Francis’ salary. I'm sure Philip Nitschke would love to have that sort of money. However, I support Dying with Dignity as well as I support Exit International. Each organisation has a different approach and I think both could co exist side by side.