A thoughtful article on a difficult subject which unfortunately has been misunderstood by most of the comments here; I don't think the author has a position but has described both sides of the argument.

Well of course the author has a position. As I understand it and he
is free to point it out if I am wrong, he is paid by HOPE to lobby
against voluntary euthanasia being introduced in Australia.

By what I have been able to discover, the author is also a Catholic
and used to be employed by the Catholic Church to lobby for their
various causes.

As such, I assume that he is only doing what he is paid to do and
what he probably believes in. That does not help those being
tortured and forgotten by our backward legislation, because both
sides of our political debate don't have the testicles to put
compassion ahead of winning the next election. 80% or so of
Australians agree with voluntary euthanasia, but when people vote,
they vote about many issues affecting them immediately, not what
might happen if they should be so unlucky as Mr Rossiter etc.
The religious lobby might be small, but they know that their threats,
which could swing 2-4% of the population, would be enough to swing
an election, so they use that lobbying power. I gather that before
the last Qld election, every candidate was questioned by the anti
euthanasia lobby, as to their position on the subject. I give the
Catholic Church all credit for one thing, namely knowing how to lobby
and influence the political vote, without the name of the Church
being plastered over the top of the lobby group.

Yes Yabby, that is correct, but I thought the author's coverage of the pro's and con's was even-handed.

The fact of the matter is that pallative care is, in many cases, now merely an euphemism for assisted death; pain relief in terminal diseases is nominally one thing but in reality another.

So, what is being discussed and sought in the Nicklinson case is an extension and formalisation of something which already happens.

The problem here is that Nicklinson's circumstances are his own but if he succeeds in obtaining a successful verdict a blanket criteria may have iniquitous results of the type legitimately described in the article.

Until what is, no doubt justifiably, sought by unfortunate people like Nicklinson can be individualised without setting a precedent for other different circumstances then I would not change the law.

Cohenite, if only it were that simple. We already have laws which
are working pretty well, in a place like Switzerland.

http://www.exit-geneve.ch/Exempleoas.pdf

Exit Geneva is doing a great job as a volunteer organisation,
acting within Swiss law, for its tens of thousands of members,
who each pay a few francs a year. Perhaps Australia needs to
catch up to more enlightened and compassionate societies like
Switzerland, where the people decide these things by democratic
vote, not politicians whose main concern is winning the next
election and the Rossiters of this world simply have to suffer.
We can do better than that.