Thanks Marshall Perron

For your response. Speeding the demise of a relative for pecuniary or other interests is indeed an issue in the euthanasia debate.

Even if there is no evil intent, other family, other friends or future descendants may question whether Aunty's assisted demise involved the self interest of some who continued to live after her.

Regards

Pete

To the Marshall Perron Imposter,

If you were Marshall Perron, your spelling would be better.

@NeverTrustPoliticians

Oh Ye of little faith. Spelling ability is no qualifier for political office.

And some current or retired politicians can be trusted. Take http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gai_Brodtmann for instance - went to Uni with her - nice person.

I belief Marshall to be the real Marshall Perron - who has been a determined advocate for euthanasia for almost 20 years.

Cheers

Pete

"Dear Will"?

No person expecting to be taken seriously would write a letter addressed to a parlimentarian and be so informal.
(It's "Dear Mr Hodgman", mkay?)

Solution: decriminalise opiates.

Those in pain can relieve it themselves.
Those who want out altogether can deliberately overdose and leave with a smile on their face, instead of their face all over the wall.

Fraudulent/coerced "assistance" can still be criminally prosecuted. (It's called "murder").

isn't it the loony left who cried over not allowing the 15 year old rape victim to have an abortion. Now it is open slather for thousands of murders each year.And now they want us to trust their 'pure ' motives for killing the elderly.

Marshall, there is no point preaching to the insanely religious right, you will never change their minds.

The Libs have to follow their mad Abbott on this one, and he follows faceless men/gods in the sky.

I have always said that euthanasia will never become involuntary, so why on earth is it anyone else's business if someone else chooses to die this way or not?

All anti-euthanasia advocates can die in as much agony, and with as little dignity, as they wish...