I could understand the connection in Paul Russel's article about used cars and suicide, I think you had better re-think that metaphor, Russel.

I get the impression, from asking my own friends and aquaintances, that the overwhelming majority of people approve of euthenasia. The most stalward opponents of euthenasia are Catholics.

So, it seems to me, that the Catholic Church is dictating to the Australian people what our legal rights should be in this matter. This is why my belief in "Freedom of Religion" is qualified. Freedom of religion is a nice principle, but I don't see why the Australian public should have much tolerance for international organisations, who pay no taxes, yet who meddle in our democratic processes.

I am a democrat. Australia should have a referenda on this matter and my own feeling is that those people in favour of euthenasia will win in a landslide. If I am wrong, I will accept the umpires decision. But the decision will be made by the Australian people, not by the King of Rome.

Don't give me any crap about "the tyranny of the majority.' This is a democracy, sunshine, majority rules.

Those people who oppose euthenasia and democracy can then exercise their democratic rights and immigrate back to some priest and mullah infested cesspit where democracy usually does not rule. Those undemocratic religious cesspit countries can then peacefuly continue to be poverty stricken and strife torn, while Australian society continues to advance.

A much better idea is to use preventative medicine to keep the often tragic old and frail in far better health; and, simply not needing to contemplate assisted suicide. There is so much more we could do; if the emphasis was on the patient instead of the profit/loss sheet of big pharma or their affiliates?
Sure the diet needs to be changed, with processed foods all but eliminated; and, an exercise regime established if possible; but, that is not a substitute for the missing preventative health care therapies; rigidly resisted by a large section of the medical fraternity?
Why? Well some might suggest there's not as much money in preventative health; much of which could be administered by a far less expensive nurse practitioner.

>>A much better idea is to use preventative medicine to keep the often tragic old and frail in far better health<<

Of course, Rhrosty. Poor old Ponce de Leon need not have wasted all that time searching for mythical fountains when all he had do was eat lots of fresh fruit & veg and go for a brisk walk every morning. If he'd done that, he would have never got sick, and would have lived for ever. Why, he'd still be walking around today.

The simple fact is that getting sick and dying is pretty much what old people do best. And all the preventative medicine in the world won't change that, merely delay for it a few years. Of course, a few extra years of good-quality of life might be worth all that healthy living. But it is disingenuous to suggest that healthy living will prevent geriatric diseases, because it won't. At best, it will just postpone them for a while.

It is arguable whether it's actually a good thing to keep people alive for longer and longer as they get older. I strongly recommend that everybody have a read (or hopefully, a re-read) of 'Gulliver's Travels', paying particular heed to Gulliver's journey to Luggnagg. Are we trying to create our own struldbrugs? And if so, is it really a wise idea?

*A much better idea is to use preventative medicine to keep the often tragic old and frail in far better health; and, simply not needing to contemplate assisted suicide.*

Well that is wonderful Rhrosty, but let me remind you, that in the
end, every single one of us, without exception, will have a tragic
ending.

The question is how it ends. Not all are fortunate enough to
die of a good old heart attack in the middle of the night. No matter
how good the preventative medicine, some will continue to be struck
by incurable diseases, or even accidents, sooner or later.
Tomorrow, you could be hit by a proverbial bus.

When for whatever reason, the body fails completely and only the
mind is left functioning, basically one is trapped. I feel great
empathy for people in that condition, who simply want a say about
their future. Why should they not have a say about it?

Fight until your last breathe by all means, but please don't try
and deny others the humane right to make choices about the rest of
their lives and how they want to live it

But Yabby, the example you gave to justify having assisted suicide laws was of locked in syndrome, an extremely rare condition. And whilst Dr Phil has made the Blinkinator, has it ever been used? Have a look at what the Brits are doing: Simpler and effective. The truth is that cases to justify such laws are incredibly rare, and for such unfortunate people, other avenues are available which require no change to existing laws.

<It is arguable whether it's actually a good thing to keep people alive for longer and longer as they get older.>

Anton, dont you think you're being a little hypocritical by only supporting the right of elderly people to make their lives shorter? I think Rhrosty makes a good point, and I for one would rather see old people healthy and productive instead of regarded as useless and lined up at assisted suicide clinics.

*The person has to be suffering from an incurable disease, which can be predicted to have a fatal outcome. And the illness must also result in mental and physical suffering that makes the person's life unbearable.*

Fester, I simply quoted one example. The above was snipped from
the 2nd URl which I quoted on this thread, where Swiss Info did
an interview with Jerome Sobel of Exit Switzerland. Given the
Exit 2007 figures also quoted, of 245 patients, multiply that
by 3 to give you an Australian figure. Why should these people
not have a choice, other then your starving to death solution?

Why not a dignified and peaceful death, with friends and family?
Why do you want to deny these people a choice about their own lives?

Fester might have a " I can just starve to death" perspective now,
but wait until you are old, frail and sick. You might then remember
this discussion. Your inability to empathise with these people,
your denial of them having the right to choose.If their perspective
is different to yours, on what grounds do you want to deny them
what should be their free choice?