A good article on coerced euthanasia - but I thought it was meant to be about voluntary euthanasia. I agree that coerced euthanasia is a BAD THING, as I'm sure everybody else does. I'm still in favour of voluntary euthanasia, because I do not consider the mere possibility of such abuses occurring sufficient grounds to toss the baby out with the bathwater and oppose voluntary euthanasia out of hand.

Elder abuse is a significant concern and those who rail against deserve support and praise.

It is possible to address Elder Abuse with the same tools to prevent coersed euthanasia.

A. Proper advocacy for the elderly, including guardianship by tribunal(possibly resulting in guardianship provided by the Office of Public Guardian), power of attorney, etc.

B. A policy for euthanasia only for (i) hospital patients (ii) with terminal desease, as determined by at least 3 doctors not working together, who are (iii) in the terminal stages of that disease, and who (iv) are not palliated by optimal palliative care, as determined by a medical tribunal that garners submission from at relast 2 of the 3 doctors defining terminal disease.

This advocates a "nanny" system, but that is the only way to deal with the elderly and potential widespread & varied abuse.

How dare anyone tell me that I can't end my life if I have a terminal disease and of sound mind determined by independent and qualified practitioners. That is NOT elderly abuse.

When a younger person despairs and contemplates taking their own life, we do not hand them the means to do so. We try to give them hope and show them reasons to live. We should do the same for all, regardless of age. Euthanasia takes advantage of the elderly and fails to accord them basic respect. We must give all people reasons to live rather than reasons to die. To do otherwise is an abuse of human dignity.

Thank-you for your article, Paul!

I definitely think Paul Russell shouldn't receive any assistance to end his own life, no matter how badly he wants to go. Let him suffer.

For normal people though, I think it ought to be their own choice.

The risk of abuse cuts both ways.

I had recent experience of this, as we had the palliative care of my mother-in-law who had advanced dementia and breast cancer. We cared for her at home for the last six months of her life until she died a few months ago.

The last couple of months were absolutely dreadful for her, her life was a pain, an indignity and a burden, she longed to be quit of it, and she repeatedly told us so. She was on oxygen, and required full-time assistance for everything, which her husband, daughter and sister provided. As her condition worsened, they really had to attend on her every move. At first they could take her to the toilet but at the end, when moving was too difficult, they toileted her on a potty in the lounge room. You can imagine the distress this caused to a dignified old lady. She used to say “I’ll be glad when this is all over”, and “call the doctor and put me down”.

But of course the doctor couldn’t put her down – it’s against the law.

It would have been easy to say “If you wand to end it all, just drink all this and swallow all these”, because she was prescribed morphine which we were administering, plus all the drugs under the sun. But who wants to be in that position? And why should we be?

On the other hand if we had hospitalized her, there was no way they could provide the care we would, and they would probably have killed her by neglect which would have been more distressing. (And her aged husband would have set up camp in her room, would have neglected himself, and it would have been worse for the whole family – 140 km round trip to the hospital each day.)

(cont.)