*That said, a referendum wouldn't bother me, though I suspect most people would think it was a waste of money.*

Not really Lindy, not if it was done at the time when people are
voting anyhow and its just one more piece of paper. It would
be the democratic way to decide the issue and take all the religious
heat out of the political debate.

You forget that when it comes to politics, it can only take a small
% to change outcomes. The Greens don't have 51%. Do you think that
their views don't affect political outcomes? Do you think that
the deals which Harradine did about family planning for the third
world, did not affect outcomes?

There are many seats where only a small change in the % of votes
will change the outcome of the seat, the religious right are
pretty good at exploiting that to their advantage.

I personally don't like to see our oldies having to be turned into
Nembutal smuggling criminals, because the law is an ass, so I think
that it needs changing, so that people can make choices about their
own lives.

Enlightened societies like the Swiss and the Dutch have moved in that
direction, no doubt in Australia we are simply behind, its just
a matter of when we finally change the law. Taking the politics
out of the debate by way of a referendum, would let it happen sooner
rather then later.

Yabby, you're failing to distinguish between the Church and the political system that it allows it to participate in democracy. There is nothing wrong with any group lobbying or campaigning, and you're going on like the Catholic Church and Catholics are the only ones who are active in the political arena. In fact, you're delusional about the political power of Catholicism in this country, shown by the fact that practising Catholics are disgusted by the number of technical Catholics who either do nothing about things like abortion - abortion is available in Victoria up to 40 weeks, so obviously the Catholics aren't doing very well there! - or actually support things like RU486. Sure, smaller parties and independents can hold the balance of power in our poltiical system, but that's a problem with the political system. The fact is that if anyone holds the balance of power it's the Greens, but I don't hear you complaining about them incessantly! Or about the three independents! Anyway, I've got better things to do than debate someone with a grudge and who can't see the wood for the trees. Happy Christmas!

*In fact, you're delusional about the political power of Catholicism in this country*

Absolutaly not. But to understand the situation you need to understand
how the whole big picture works. In the end people power matters.
If politicians tried to ban abortion, they themselves would soon
be turfed out of office by the mob, who would be demonstrating in
the streets. Abbott, Andrews and others are realists enough to
see that and see how pointless it would be to their political careers.
So the church has little choice but to concede defeat.

Voluntary euthanasia is a different kettle of fish. Most
Australians are for it, but are not yet prepared to go and
demonstrate for it. So for a politician to run on it, they would
win a few votes but also upset a few people and lose a few.
So its easier for politicians not to touch it at all. They know
that the lobbying power of the church is there to be used when
required and voluntary euthanasia is still at the point politically,
where it will work.

You just go an enjoy yourself Lindy. I know its a long way away,
but one day you too will perhaps be gasping away for your last
breathe, with little choice in the matter. Keep gasping whilst you
remember that some humane and compassionate people tried to change
it all, so that you actually had a say in all of this, unlike today.

Even better, by then the law might finally have been changed as
reason and compassion finally get to be judged more important
then church dogma.

You're entitled to your views on euthanasia and whatever else, Yabby, but it's a pity you base your views on your prejudices instead of cold hard facts. I've heard some good arguments for euthanasia, but claiming that it's compassionate while those who are against it are lacking compassion is not only stupid but malicious. People on both sides of the debate care about human dignity, passionately - it's just that they propose different solutions. One proposes dying with dignity and the other proposes living with dignity, but both arise due to compassionate concerns about the way we live when we grow old and feeble and are struck down by inevitable disease and decay.

Personally, I'm one of those people who loves life even when it's pretty s**te. When I'm depressed I wallow in it. I think anyone who's managed to get through a lifetime without learning that the little things matter, like watching a leaf blown in the wind or feeling sunlight on your face, probably needs to live a bit longer. If that's lacking compassion, so be it, but I think we should all have every last chance to enjoy what this earth has to offer, even if we're too stupid to realise it. That may be a very subjective perspective, but it's got nothing to do with church dogma or your prejudices against the Catholic church either.

*Yabby, but it's a pity you base your views on your prejudices instead of cold hard facts.*

Facts Lindy, is what my views are based on. In fact I find it highly
arrogant and patronising of the church, that they think that only
they know what is good for me, because only they are in touch with
the Almighty himself.

How can a total disregard for my views, a lack of understanding of
my persective, be called respecting my dignity?

I now have a number of Swiss friends, who had terminally ill relatives,
mostly long suffering cancer cases. They attended the
voluntary euthanasia services and have all described them as very
moving experiences which they will remember with fond memories.
These were not decisions taken in a hurry. In each case, the patients
made the decisions and they all expressed huge relief that they
had some control about their lives, not just doctors and nurses.

To really understand these cases, you have to understand their
individual medical conditions, you need to understand the patient's
perspective and why they think as they do.

To deny patients their rights and wishes, because church dogma
dictates it as so, is hardly compassionate.

Selective facts, Yabby. You have only considered one part of the jigsaw. I'm not going to get into a debate on euthanasia - there are plenty of other threads you can do that in, and I notice you couldn't help Catholic-bashing in the Paul Russell article either - but what I will say is that you have forgotten that euthanasia isn't suicide. If it were, anyone could simply go off and top themselves. It's assisted suicide, and it involves doctors who are supposed to swear an oath to preserve life and not to kill. It involves doctors who are supposed to make every effort to save lives, not kill people. It involves relatives. And it involves a legal/justice system that fundamentally opposes the taking of life. It's a lot more complicated than you make out. And it's got nothing to do with the Catholic Church. As I said before, I've heard some good arguments for euthanasia, but they don't have anything to do with reinforcing bigotry and anti-Catholic sentiment.