Nonsense, Yabby.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assisted_suicide#Switzerland

<The person helping also has to avoid actually doing the act that leads to death, lest they be convicted under Article 114: Killing on request (Tötung auf Verlangen) - A person who, for decent reasons, especially compassion, kills a person on the basis of his or her serious and insistent request, will be sentenced to a term of imprisonment (Gefängnis). For instance, it should be the suicide subject who actually presses the syringe or takes the pill, after the helper had prepared the setup.[25] This way the country can criminalise certain controversial acts, which many of its people would oppose, while legalising a narrow range of assistive acts for some of those seeking help to end their lives.>

Those who oppose a person making the choice of when their life and participation in life has ended, either have not visited a hospice or an aged care facility.
I pity the relatives and friends of these people who are anti euthanasia, as when it comes to lifes end, these people are happy to see their relatives and friends suffer.

*For instance, it should be the suicide subject who actually presses the syringe or takes the pill, after the helper had prepared the setup*

Exactly Fester! You still don't get it however, even after reading
your own quotes. Euthanasia is illegal in Switzerland, but
suicide and assisting suicide under certain conditions, are
quite legal. Had you bothered to read what I quoted, you would
get it. But no, we try and be a smartarse, so we keep digging.

The doctor or the assistant do not inject the patient, but let
him/her drink the prepared drink. The patient chooses to drink the
drink. One is euthanasia, the other is suicide.

After its all over, Exit usually ring the police and the death
is reported as suicide, all quite legal.

>>The means to enable a peaceful death are readily obtainable and inexpensive<<

Really, Fester? Then perhaps you could explain to me why over 50% of suicides are by hanging, which is pretty much the antithesis of a peaceful death*.

If the means to achieve a peaceful death by suicide are as readily obtainable as you'd have us believe, why aren't more people availing themselves of them?

Unless this is sort of thing is what you meant by 'readily obtainable and inexpensive':

>>Australia threatens people with half million dollar fines and 25 year jail sentences, for smuggling Nembutal.<<

In which case I suggest you google up a decent dictionary and search for the words 'readily', 'obtainable' and 'inexpensive'.

* Death by hanging is a fine art. A skilled hangman can drop a man in such a way that his neck breaks, resulting in a rapid death. But an amateur (and there's precious few hangmen left these days) is likely to cock it up, and spend the last 15 minute or so of their life kicking and twisting on the end of their rope as they choke to death. This is regarded as such an unpleasant way to die that botched hangings were one of the main motivations for replacing hanging with electrocution as a means of execution.

I'm not being a smartarse Yabby. I am merely trying to make sense of what you are saying.

Let me remind you of a reason you gave for Australia having assisted suicide laws like Switzerland's:

<but why do you want to stop me
from having a right to make a decision about my life, if I were
say paralysed completely, unable to move anything but my eyes for
instance? >

So how does this person press a button, inject, or take a pill? For another to assist in such a case in Switzerland is a criminal offence. Are you claiming otherwise? Even a recent report on assisted suicide in Britain advised that such cases be ineligible.

http://www.firstcoastnews.com/news/health/article/234517/10/Assisted-Suicide-Debate-Revived-in-the-UK

Yes, euthanasia laws sound reasonable and humane with the emotive "It's my life!", but when you get down to the nitty-gritty of regulating death, is it better than what we have?

<Those who oppose a person making the choice of when their life and participation in life has ended>

No, it is the euthanasia crowd who want to impose a bureaucracy on everyone that achieves what exactly? There is nothing to stop you killing yourself if you have a mind to. And to be frank, with all the hoops you would have to jump through to do it with state sanction it would be quicker to starve yourself.

<If the means to achieve a peaceful death by suicide are as readily obtainable as you'd have us believe, why aren't more people availing themselves of them?>

Well why dont you ask them, Anton? But dont knock yourself off like this guy. Instead, respect other people's property and the environment, and be mindful of the trauma your actions could inflict upon others.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tjEdLuqK1RQ

I admire workers like stickman.

Having witnessed my brother dying from a most painful cancer, the level of palliative was excellent. My brother did not want to hasten his departure and seized every treatment to prolong his time with his family. However he did not want to be resuscitated if his heart gave out first.

He fought and endured excruciating pain to retain what consciousness he could. It was always his choice.

At the end, when he and his family knew the pain was too great and it was time to go, he received enough pain relief to ease the pain and slipped from this life.

It was hard to see him struggle, but it was he who decided how much pain relief to get. I suspect that his battle might well have been over earlier if he had accepted less treatment and more pain relief.

Having witnessed my brother's fight I am not sure how I would have dealt with it, but I am now confident in the level and quality of palliative care.

The call for euthanasia is a demand that someone else takes a person's life. If you want to go early, why ask someone else to do that for you?