Simple- legalize euthanasia, but on condition that
-it may only be practiced by a certified practitioner with a specific license to conduct euthanasia.
-The patient is either terminally ill, or disabled with low prospects of immediate recovery
-that practitioner is called in, interviews the patient to clarify intent to die (or is provided legally-acceptable evidence that the person would have wanted to die), explains the procedure, sets up the euthanasia device, asks for permission again before turning it on.

That would bypass the "evil relatives making grandpa die a few weeks sooner to get his inheritance" scenario;

Of course, as the author represents a dubious organization that stands for nothing but "ban euthanasia", I don't think that's the solution they wanted to hear.

Paul Russell

Note; The Aborigine did not have the danger you highlight.

It can be easily eliminated when all people’s tenures cease at death.

In fact 'The Will' is an absurd instrument which pretends that man has powers after death.

Think that its absurdity made and makes monarchies ereditary.

Funny that the other day such ritual was confirmed at the
meeting of the British Commonwealt in Perth, the present Queen of England accepting a new rule about the sex of the one succeding to Her Throne.

Posted by Mishka Gora, Thursday, 3 November 2011 9:20:04 AM

That's fine Mishka but you might change your mind when you get to my level of unviability , I did the no intervention thing but my Daughter kicked up such a fuss and got so upset the Dr and I relented .
3 yrs on she is still mothering me , thats 3 yrs of her life so far that can't be recovered and I get to take 25 medications per day that make me feel just rotten , I am eternally convinced that I would be a very happy cadaver .

Seems like another version of the "think of the children" argument but in this case those who have trustworthy family and a desire to end life with dignity cannot do so because of the minority of vulnerable people.
Sure lets protect vulnerable elderly from criminal family...but lets also not use coercion and the force of Law to remove entirely one's right to control ones *own* destiny.
Tyrants, even petty ones always use charity or virtue to justify their violence onto others. As with prohibition, where the costs and damage far outweighs the "benefits" of restricting other's behaviour, banning healthy but doomed folk from making their own exit plan is inhumane. Laws will never obtain social perfection...Deliberate inhumanity trumps the occasional criminal act in my book.
These is only so much the Law can and should do for society. Trying to protect folks from themselves is not only pointless and immoral, it also is harmful in the "moral hazard" sense. It certainly doesn't help if folks who cannot keep out of other's business are empowered...they just don't know when to stop!

hear hear Ozandy............very nicely explained.....thank you.

Another paid official of the Catholic Church trying to force religious dogma on the rest of us.
" Imagine the people who believe such things and who are not ashamed to ignore, totally, all the patient findings of thinking minds through all the centuries since the Bible was written. And it is these ignorant people, the most uneducated, the most unimaginative, the most unthinking among us, who would make themselves the guides and leaders of us all; who would force their feeble and childish beliefs on us; who would invade our schools and libraries and homes. I personally resent it bitterly". -- Isaac Asimov