I can see all the arguments both for & against voluntary euthanasia, but can not see any acceptable argument for banning the promotion or the advertising of it. We are supposed to be adults, capable of making our own decisions, & I will not be dictated to by anyone on these things.

I want the option for me. I really enjoy my life, it is painful at times, but so what. I do become terrified as my pain builds, that I might leave the final act of pain relief too late. Too late for me to take the necessary action for my self, & become dependent on another for help.

This is not only transferring the burden to someone else, but asking them to become open to drastic punishment, just to help.

If the process of legal assisted voluntary euthanasia is available, staffed by professionals, there is much less likelihood of damage to others, & I am relieved of the necessity of going even a little before I wish, to avoid involving family.

Surely not too much to ask?

I saw the GetUp! ad when the funding campaign was being launched - in fact I donated to it. However, I was concerned that the dog excrement aspect would be off-putting to a lot of people (it made me retch) and that it might be used as an excuse to pull the ad.

Unfortunately, when you're trying to reach a broad audience, you need to keep your method fairly conservative.

As for the VE issue and censorship ... Only one book has been banned in Australia in the last 37 years, and that's the Peaceful Pill Handbook, published by Exit International.

Yet, either due to ignorance or disinterest, there is no outcry. Contrast this with how, whenever authorities interfere in any way with the distribution of a movie, book or other cultural medium that contains 'poor taste' pornographic, sexual or violent content, all hell breaks loose.

Just another example of the many hypocrisies inherent in the censorship debate.

Rhosty there is a big difference between not agreeing with the policy and banning political advertising that states that policy.

A ban on political adds featuring simplified statements of policies which some disagreed with leave us just with the negative adds free of policy (the ones I'd rather see gone).

Feel free to fight against voluntary euthanasia but be very nervous when a political party can't run adds that provide a statement of key policies regardless of how you feel about those policies.

If you have not already done so follow the link in the article and look at the add, disagree if you like but tell me what part of the add you find so bothersome that a party should not be allowed to tell the public is part of their platform.

The judgement and handling of the issue are both if as reported very poor.

R0bert

Some folks are missing the point! Maybe intentionally?

It's not about "Euthanasia" rather the bogus censorship of an ad for a political party which supports the concept of legalized voluntary euthanasia.

I agree with Ms Patten - it stinks! Her Party has every right to promote their policy. There is nothing new or controversial about it nor is it encouraging illegal behaviour. Voluntary euthanasia has been on the agenda for many years. Every viewer or reader has the freedom, and presumably, intelligence to make a decision as to whether the policies of Ms Patten's organisation are worth their vote.

I hope it backfires on the manipulators who are obviously seeking to interfere with the democratic process under the shambolic cloak of censorship.

Arguments for/against euthanasia are logically irrelevant in this case. The Sex Party has not broken the electoral law, and the adverts should then be allowed, whatever particular attitudes people may have. The alternative is to suggest that adverts in favor of something 'I' disapprove of should be disallowed, and that opens up a nasty can of worms regarding freedom of speech, and could, if legislated, have consequences which those supporting the ban on the Sex Party ad may come to regret.
Tonyo

"I'd say freedom of speech is being threatened when we in Australia are called "discrimination" against for refusing to advertise things we think are in bad taste"

That's completely illogical, you only need to protect "free speech" for speech that is critical or controversial. You don't need to protect speech for all the stuff that doesn't upset anyone, because it doesn't upset anyone. I would like to ban all speech by any religion but I respect their right to peddle their filth to all 'n sundry.

To the Author, I voted for you guys in the Senate last time and will again this time. It was either you, the Pirate Party or Wiki.

As to the house of Reps, ALP last, LNP second last and Greens third last and so on up the order.

On Euthanasia itself, there was an interesting AMA on Reddit with a guy who had end stage cancer, where he covered it nicely when queried,; the choice should always reside with the individual, never with medical staff or worse still, the legislature. His AMA (Ask Me Anything) is here

http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/1l6l38/iama_41_m_with_renal_cell_carcinoma_ive_lost_a/