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

Well Fester, then simply read the first URL which I posted. The
surgeon who heads Exit in the French part of Switzerland, presented
a clear, logical, compassionate case, according to Swiss law.
Given that they charge nothing but an annual 30$ membership fee,
its clearly more like a charity.

*So how does this person press a button, inject, or take a pill?*

Electronics. They can devise just about anything for any purpose.
The point being, the person does it him herself. Most people can
usually still sip a straw.

*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*

Perhaps people should be able to decide for themselves, wether they
would like to pass away, in a dignified way, surrounded by friends
and family, peacefully, or wether they should starve to death.
Your example of it being peacefull was of a person in a vegetative
state. But try it just a bit, no food for a week and see how
you go and how pleasant it is.

*but when you get down to the nitty-gritty of regulating death, is it better than what we have?*

Well of course it is. Or we would not have desperate people trying
to get to Switzerland, we would not have a whole bunch of oldies
trying to smuggle in their stash of Nembutal. Just because you
would be happy to starve yourself to death, why inflict it on others
who could have far kinder and more humane options?

To all you people who are so anti VOLUNTARY Euthanasia, please explain to me what is the difference between hundreds of civilians being killed amd maimed in so called wars than someone like myself who wants to end his life the way he wants to, that is by VOLUNTARY Euthanasia when in severe pain and loss of dignity, there being no chance of recovery
WAR IS KILLING.
Let me choose my ending the way I want to, you can suffer your own way right to the end, it will not bother me one little bit when the morphine no longer works for you in a hospice and they are keeping you alive in your vegative state by feeding you through a tube in the stomach,go for it,but you must understand that is not what I want.
WAR IS NOT CHOICE.
VOLUNTARY EUTHANASIA IS CHOICE.

>>Well why dont you ask them, Anton?<<

Because I am not a necromancer. This makes it extremely difficult to ask anything of somebody who has committed suicide (well, I suppose I can still ask them - but I won't be getting answer).

So why don't you answer the question instead of trying to avoid it by fobbing me off with irrelevant clips from Robocop (an excellent film, but what does Cool Sideburns Man's accidental death have to do with a discussion of suicide?). After all, I did pose the question to you and not suicides.

<what does Cool Sideburns Man's accidental death have to do with a discussion of suicide?>

I thought it quite relevant, Anton. Cool Sideburns Man, as you call him, suffered an accident which brought on a painful and terminal condition which made him want to end his life. He sought assistance from his co-crim, but as that wasn't forthcoming he had to throw himself in front of a car driven by another co-crim. Much quicker and simpler than following a bureaucratic process for assisted suicide, and given that his co-crims were psychopaths, I dont think there would be much chance of ongoing trauma as witness to his dramatic death.

As for your question, who knows? But I think it wrong to assume that suicidal people will necessarily choose the most painless and peaceful death.

Fester says this:

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

My response is very simple.

If the government has no business involving itself in the decision to end or create human life, then why, pray tell, is abortion legal?

Your response will be that it's the woman's choice.

Okay, no problems. The government doesn't NEED to be involved in euthanasia AT ALL, it merely has to end the war on drugs and allow people to buy barbiturates. See, that was easy. It's not that hard to comprehend.

Dried Fig

The issue of suicide is worth considering. Suicidal urges can present sporadically and unpredictably, and may be precipitated by drugs or alcohol. Having lethal drugs readily available may lead to more deaths. The example of thallium use in Sydney would suggest that people find other uses for such things as well.

I've no objection to the decriminalisation of drug use, but such a course would need to be carefully regulated.

<The government doesn't NEED to be involved in euthanasia AT ALL>

Kill yourself and it is your business: Involve another and you leave that personal jurisdiction. But I agree with minimising government involvement, hence my objection to more bureaucracy. I think the Brits have a better system than the Swiss.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/8710000/Locked-in-syndrome-man-asks-court-to-let-doctors-help-him-die.html