And perhaps some of you should have a little more regard for old fools like me who have read the Remmelink Report and are aware of how even in the Netherlands with the best safeguards people have been "put down" without their permission.

I personally do not want doctors or my family to have the option of "helping" me end my life, because I don't know what I'll say when under the influence of various pain killers. Perhaps I'll beg them to kill me. I don't rightly know. But I do know that when in my 'right mind' I don't want to end my life prematurely, no matter how bad the pain and suffering is, and while you might think that's stupid, that's my right and it should be my choice. It is not respectful of you to think that you know better, or to push the euthanasia option when you should be encouraging me to cling onto life to the very last.

However awful the end may be, I don't want to lose one second of life, because that last second could be the touch of a loved one's hand or seeing my baby niece's heart-melting smile. That's what life is about and you should have a little more respect for that.

Montgomery,

Nobody is proposing that you shouldn't have the right not to choose euthanasia. After all, we are discussing voluntary euthanasia and not compulsory euthanasia. But it cuts both ways - if other people do wish to choose euthanasia, that should be their right and their choice. It is not respectful to think that you know better, or to deny people the option of euthanasia.

*I said nothing about sticking someone in a home, etc.*

No Mishka, for its easy to pontificate on about how palliative
care should be etc. All very noble. Meantime let those of us who
choose to, make our own evaluation about what really happens and
what the choices are.

Let those like Montgomery make living wills about their views,
and make their intentions and choices clear.

But it is insulting to the rest of us and hardly respectful
to want to force your philosophies and choices on us.

The Catholic Church can believe whatever they will, but they have
no right to enforce their dogma either. They should stick to
preaching to the flock.

I happen to think that my philosophies are far more evolved then
theirs. To me life and death and quite natural processes in the
cycle of life. Some people just can't get their mind about accepting
death, some of us can. Some of us don't want to spend years suffering, it should be our choice.

Respect is about having a regard for others and their choices, its not about forcing
your opinion down their throats legally.

Cling to your last breathe if you will, suffer if you choose to,
but don't try to force me to do the same, if I choose not to.
What you are showing is absolutaly no respect for my wishes.

Every one has choices and so they should , some people make bad choices and suffer the consequences.
What does the Eskimo do , how is the UBD concluded ? Apparently when the elderly can't render animal hide by chewing because their teeth are worn away below their gums .The only downside is waiting deserted on the trail for the Grisly to come . Frankly I'm glad I'm not an Eskimo Dr Nitschke's method is much more user friendly using Botox the same product Vet's use to put your pets down , very humane almost instant the best way to go, sure beats the Grisly who might just eat your feet and save the rest for breakfast.
Sure there has to be check's and balances but the noise created by religious Zealots should not apply to me none of their beliefs are applicable to me . I shouldn't have to import Botox myself illegally from 3rd world Countries ,that's ridicules.
A MRI of my Brain shows 13 stroke's have occurred over a period of time so you can easily imagine my quality of life .

The Acolyte Rizla, please re-read my first paragraph. I don't trust any euthanasia legislation to safeguard against involuntary euthanasia. This article highlights the 'slippery slope': http://alexschadenberg.blogspot.com/2011/11/euthanasia-in-europe-sliding-down.html

Yabby, anyone can commit suicide if they want, but euthanasia by definition requires someone else to either do or abet the killing. That not only raises the risk of someone else making the decision for you, as even those who are pro-euthanasia have admitted in the Netherlands, but also creates a moral issue with regard to the role of the doctor (who is supposed to preserve life not take it). Furthermore, the focus on euthanasia distracts from the more pressing issue of palliative care.

I think Montgomery has raised a good point about the possible state of mind of the proposed euthanasia patient. Euthanasia legislation by its very nature assumes that pain and suffering is justification for killing, while he has indicated it's something that could affect his judgement. He shouldn't have to make a living will to indicate he wants to live. Life should be the default, not death.

At the end of the day, euthanasia isn't about suicide, it's about getting someone else to kill you. It places your death on someone else's conscience, and it allows you to end your life prematurely. It's not about accepting death, as you put it, because if you really accepted death you would accept it when it comes and not try to hasten its arrival. Euthanasia is not about accepting death, it's about rejecting life. It is cowardly because it demonstrates a fear of living out one's fate, and it is lazy because it transfers responsibility for one's death to someone else.