"Euthanasia is naturally emotive, but making bad decisions to ease suffering can open the door to unintended and unfortunate consequences."

That alone makes no sense, because neither you, nor I, nor anyone else, and certainly not the government, has any right to dictate to me what happens to my (or anyone elses) body.

I am the one to make that choice, and nobody will ever take that away from me. They can take away my control if they can pry it from my cold dead stiff hands.

People like you are the reason why we have so many problems. This simplistic style of thinking is not going to get you anywhere, certainly not with me, or anyone who has a modicum of intellectual capacity.

You might consider yourself an intellectual, but I have different views about that. That you would have no problem with abortion, yet force someone to endure endstage cancer, speaks volumes about your level of empathy which, at least to me, appears to be close to zero.

Yabby said: "Fester, I remind you that the palliative care business makes serious
money out of dragging out peoples final deaths, as long as they can.
They have good reasons to oppose assisted suicide, it would cost
them big money."

Excuse me? What a bizarre comment, and baseless. As a doctor who was worked in palliative care, I can assure you this is not an industry that generates any money. Pall care specialists are not remotely well remunerated relative to their colleagues. This is a function of the non-procedural nature of their work and the patient-centred model of care, i.e. large amounts of time spend with each patient ensuring that their symtpom control is as good as can be achieved.

There is next to no private work done, it is all based out of public hospitals/hospices, for precisely the reasons I have just listed. So who stands to benefit? What is this so-called industry that is working against the genuine interests of patients in order to protect its revenue base?

<That alone makes no sense, because neither you, nor I, nor anyone else, and certainly not the government, has any right to dictate to me what happens to my (or anyone elses) body.

I am the one to make that choice, and nobody will ever take that away from me. They can take away my control if they can pry it from my cold dead stiff hands.>

So what you you and Yabby are proposing is a bureaucracy to deal with the decision to kill oneself? Ever heard of suicide? Why make it so complicated, and how many people would want this service in any event? Even Yabby's example does not need any change to existing laws.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2009-08-14/perth-quadriplegic-wins-landmark-right-to-die/1391380

You accuse me of lacking compassion. Why, because I dont support the establishment of Death Inc? Well I dont, and I was especially turned off the idea by a circus on the Gold Coast a few years back, with all the death cultists championing their mascot for the cause. Well, she couldn't let them down, could she?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nancy_Crick

Government has no business involving itself in the decision to create or end human life: That should be the jurisdiction of the individual.

*So what you you and Yabby are proposing is a bureaucracy to deal with the decision to kill oneself? Ever heard of suicide?*

No Fester, a bureaucracy that regulates laws which let people
commit suicide, who are incapable of doing it without some
assistance. Those laws would be similar to those used by Exit
Switzerland, to determine suitable patients.

Letting Mr Rossiter starve himself to death is hardly humane.

Australian law prevents organisations like Exit Switzerland from
functioning in Australia. Why?

This argument is almost entirely predicated on a belief; that old people are useless?
There was a time when the Eskimos, stripped their old people jack naked; and took them outside in the snow to freeze to death?
Apparently freezing to death is very humane, with very little discomfort?
And all these old people are living even longer?
We could apply euthanasia to them, with little lead pills?
It would cost a lot less than the needle in the arm; now the favoured death row humane option for murderous criminals; which we dress up with terms like euthanasia?
When what we are advocating is the lethal and permanent dispatch of people; before their natural time; and, however we dress that up, it's still murder or assisted suicide?
[Doctors are trained to save lives, not take them!]
And a very slippery slope, which could ultimately be used as a form of population control?
Our palliative care and pain relief is improving almost beyond belief; but, not the cost of housing the old and the frail, which has become a extremely profitable money spinner for some multi-millionaire, private players; at least until the oldies' assets are completely stripped and they simply become a costly burden?
We should instead, use what we have now; as very low cost preventative medicine; to keep people active, alive and participating, until their final day, when we should hope; they simply die in their sleep; and in their own homes, when their allotted time is up!
The last approach would cost just a tiny fraction of what we shell out now; in so-called, age care!

I agree a natural death is better. Having experienced two euthanasia experiences in the family one a voluntary and one an involuntary, there is nothing nice about euthanasia.