“Hope” and this author are against voluntary euthanasia; so their talk about the ‘inevitability’ of the breaking of laws concerning euthanasia is just an addendum to their anti-euthanasia campaign. They are not concerned about the odd person being euthanized wrongly; they are against voluntary euthanasia, period. So they need to come up with every little thing they can so that they can continue carping against the rights of people who wish to die peacefully and with and with dignity.

Politicians (especially politicians), medical practitioners who don’t wish to be involved, and do-gooders should keep their snouts out of the subject. There are ways and means to take your own life painlessly and without the help of anyone. As far as ‘laws’ being broken, we already have enough laws that are broken by some people every minute of the day. The waffle about laws regarding euthanasia is a waste of time.

If people want their rights back, short of getting rid of the meddling we-know-best politicians and elites who do not believe in democracy, nor any rights but their own, then they just have to go their own way and do what they wish to do. To hell with bills and laws dictating how or when you will die.

Have to absolutely agree with the Author, and his very well argued and cogent article.
People already have a right to commit suicide, and really do not need any help to actually end their lives, eat a gun, O. D., or jump from a really tall building or cliff, if that is their wish?
Unfortunately, many of these sad outcome attempts, are just a cry for help! Or are mentally disturbed persons trying to manipulate others?
Hence we have the murder suicides, and the single car crashes or head ons, that involve more that the suicidal person.
If someone truly wants to end their life, there is always non patrolled beaches and the inevitable rip, that take them out well beyond their capacity to swim back!
And those that were rescued, all seem to claim that the end by this method was both peaceful and calm?
One final note, If euthanasia ever become law. then the intended Subject's will ought to be changed, so that all their goods and chattels, worldly wealth, is given entirely over to charity!
This would prevent those, with a so called vested interest, in an earlier than expected outcome, from receiving any financial benefit from any assisted suicide or euthanasia.
Cats and dogs don't make wills or leave behind years of accumulated wealth!
Rhrosty.

yep just look at how abortion went form the poor raped 15 year old to mass slaughter of the unborn in the name of feminism. Extremely ugly but very true.

The religious discussion as to whether and when killing may ever possibly be right, should be carried in churches - not in parliament.

States have no right to meddle with religious or moral affairs. The only thing that gives states the legitimacy to prevent people from killing each other and to punish those who do, is the wish of its citizens to protect themselves against murder.

Whether the wish of citizens to be protected by the state from murder is implied or needs to be explicit, whether citizens should opt-in for that protection to begin with, or whether they need to opt-out if they don't want it, is open for discussion, but not the fact that nothing but people's own consent gives the state the right to protect them.

Ideally, every citizen (and legal visitor) should fill out a binding questionnaire while they are young and of sound mind, including:

{{
* Do you want the state to try protecting you against murder [Yes/No]?
* If murdered, do you authorise the state to punish the murderer(s) [Yes/No]?
* As above, for attempted murder [Yes/No]?
* Do you want the state to try protecting you against bodily harm [Yes/No]?
* If harmed, do you authorise the state to punish the offender(s) [Yes/No]?
* Do you want the state to try protecting your property against theft/damage/arson [Yes/No]?
* Do you authorise the state to punish offender(s) against your property [Yes/No]?
...
* What measures/conditions, if any, may constitute your consent to be killed by another [ticking a variety of options, starting with "hearsay"; thru "JP-signed statutory-declaration"; "spouse/family's decision if I cannot express myself"; "doctor's-prognosis"; "two-doctors'-prognosis"; "specific illnesses/disabilities"; "having less than X months to live"; etc. etc.; and ending with "nothing!"]?
* If someone kills me with my consent, can they still inherit me [Yes/No]?
...
* If I ever wish to change my mind on any of the above, my new choices will take effect after a cooling period of [1-day to 5-years].
}}

The answers would vary from person to person. The default answers are open for discussion.

Sorry, my death is my business and mine alone!

Lawyers, police, noseyparkers, clerics, politicians, atheists, believers, people of any coloured skin, tranvestites, same-sex couples, greengrocers, retailers, banks, finance companies, American Presidents, judges, terrorists, Hollywood producers, Rupert Murdoch, Barry Humphries, Phoney Abbott, Barbie Bishop, the Queen, the Pope, Jesus, Mao, Putin, etc, keep your bloody noses out of my business.

How and when you die is your business but my life has absolutely nothing to do with you, get it? Keep away!

And if anyone steps over my line, I could well become angry, even violent!

I had no choice about the circumstances surrounding my arrival on this god-forsaken Earth but my departure circumstances are mine and mine alone to make.

Piss off!

"This is beyond ridiculous. "

Rubbish you're being a douche with this line of "logic." Football is allowable assault, War is mass murder on a scale beyond belief. Shaking hands is actually an assault, you just won't have Police bringing a charge, this would be similarly legal.

"People already have a right to commit suicide, and really do not need any help to actually end their lives, eat a gun, O. D., or jump from a really tall building or cliff, if that is their wish?"

What nonsense, you have no idea. My Dad wanted to die, he was riddled with cancer, barely move, constantly shi**ing himself... he couldn't pick up his arm let alone a gun (where in hell was he going to get one from, you all the anti gun nutters have stopped easy access) or climb a set of stairs to a building. He wanted to die, asked to be put out of it constantly, yet couldn't have his family around him while he passed at a time of his choosing. Instead he had to lay in a pile of his own s*it, drooling constantly and suffering immensely all because idiots like the author are scared little men.

Here's a link to the Dilbert Comic Strip authors similar experience:
http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/i_hope_my_father_dies_soon/

I think people forget the voluntary part.

The church has no right to dictate or interfere, in how any person wishes to live or end their lives.
The church has caused enough misery in peoples lives, by imposing fear on the innocent, to follow the weird belief that their is a thing in the sky that can control their lives.
Life is a reality, and how it comes to an end, is the choice of the individual and the individual only.

I agree with David G. - excellent presentation (although I dispute that you had no choice about the circumstances surrounding your arrival, that doesn't affect the topic).

I agree with Valley Guy.

And I agree with Kipp - however this article is about interference by the state, not by the church.

Law is as its only stone-wall away from being. The last will and testaments by the questionaries, as the right of/too life can be easily gathered by just one legal document. Now you want the legal doc from me....:)....sinple....NO:)

planet3

I honestly don't see a problem with allowing voluntary euthanasia.
Surely all those against it could just say ..."...no, it is not for me, I would rather die of natural causes."?

There is no evidence that people are being 'put down' against their will in those countries that have legalised euthanasia.
And there is definitely evidence that most Australians want voluntary euthanasia legalised here.

This article suggests that if we legalise a basic form of voluntary euthanasia here, then it is only a matter of time before we start killing everyone against their will!
What rubbish.

The fact of the matter is that those countries that started with the legalisation of one form of voluntary euthanasia found that this was successful,
and the sky didn't fall in,
so they started extending that availability to more groups of humanity who were also crying out for mercy.

I say amen to that...

This 'social reality' has been in existence for centuries, so why legislate so-called solutions now? Because the motive for treatment has changed. No longer sensitive and caring towards people's needs, the outcome is simply to terminate inconvience. Years ago there were no options available to assist the vulnerable. Now we have modern technology, but as usual someone realized its dark side, hence today we are returning to the dark ages. Must raise voices everywhere to stop this insidious decision-making in what is essentially an invaluable, moral concern for preserving human life.

Longy, I hope you never contract terminal bowel cancer. While you lie there vomiting up feces, I hope you remember the comment you wrote above and just grin and bear it!

You, like the rest of us, don't know what life has in store for us.

You may change your mind one day and not presume to speak for others!

The governments understandings is to care for the people, act for the people, and think for the people and they do an incredible stand back and listen position which has to be made very carefully due to the mine fields of law....sure I would like the safeguard for which in the event of "NO CHANCE of SURVIVAL"...but just think if we were all able to take that avenue...how can we test new drugs/DNA technology?...so there has to be a point of understandings, when the point of humanity is indeed, a very fine line for the law makers.

Planet3

We already have both voluntary and non-voluntary passive euthanasia--people are allowed to die of curable diseases such as pneumonia when they are suffering from incurable and painful illnesses, or when they are in the advanced stages of dementia. There is no moral difference between those and active euthanasia--the intent is death. But there has not been a slippery slope here.