Whichever way you choose to look at it - that some of those going through the ghastly process of slow dying prefer to hang onto whatever life they have left and others prefer to end their own suffering and the mental suffering of those who love them - the fact is that a very substantial majority (70-90%, depending on which poll) are in favour of voluntary assisted euthanasia.

Democracy - or what's left of it - is based on majority rule. The stubborn resistance of conservative-minded politicians (is there any other kind?) to the will of the majority makes a mockery of so-called democracy.

I would like to see a referendum on the issue of voluntary euthanasia, given that it is known that the majority of Australians support the issue.

Our spineless Politicians either listen too hard to religious claptrap, or are too scared of changes in medical law like this.

The question that should simply be asked is "Do you support the formation of strict laws allowing VOLUNTARY euthanasia for terminally ill residents of Australia?"

All those who don't agree can take as long to die as they wish, given that it is only legalised voluntary euthanasia we are asking for.

Dear Suse,

<<or are too scared of changes in medical law like this.>>

What has this to do with medicine? Surely euthanasia is not a medical procedure!

<<The question that should simply be asked is "Do you support the formation of strict laws allowing VOLUNTARY euthanasia for terminally ill residents of Australia?">>

I would have a hard time responding to that question because I wouldn't agree with having even more strict laws than we already have.

Instead of a general referendum, the question should be a personal one:

"Do you wish the state to protect your life?"

For those who do, everything stays as it is. For those who don't, killing them should no longer be a criminal offence, regardless whether it is done by medical doctors or otherwise. Whether I live or die simply stops being the state's business (which shouldn't have been its business to begin with without my consent).

Yet another attempt to clothe religious objections to assisted dying in the garb of an imagined concern for 'society' and dire warnings about the 'slippery slope'. The response to claims like this is obvious: identify some states (like Switzerland) where assisted dying is legal and has been for some time, and examine whether they are indeed facing disruption, despair and the breakdown of society as a result.

And the answer, of course, is No.

"Eighty four percent of voters opposed any ban on access to assisted suicide, while seventy eight percent were opposed to banning overseas individuals access to such services."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthanasia_in_Switzerland

Yuyutsu "What has this to do with medicine? Surely euthanasia is not a medical procedure."
Well I guess that depends on how one would wish to be euthanised .
If it is to be legal, I doubt the Government would go with shooting or strangling as the method for euthanasia ...

""Do you wish the state to protect your life?""
No Government can 'protect your life'.
We will all die from something eventually.
As I said, you can choose not to avail yourself of euthanasia if you wish, but just don't refuse it for everyone else.

Like it or not, we would have to have state sanctioned laws if we want legalised voluntary euthanasia.

Dear Suse,

Of course in the ultimate sense no government can protect one's life - but they do try their "best" and in doing so, they often step beyond their limits, such as when they demand people to wear seat-belts or helmets "for their own good".

We could discuss endlessly the philosophical point whether "My life is mine" - but in any case it's clearly not the government's. The only thing which allows governments to try protecting my life, is my permission, my authorising them to do so. What I seek is to be able to deny (or withdraw) my consent for them to protect me, to exercise self-defence measures in my name which I do not approve of and am unwilling to delegate to them. This includes the criminalisation, prosecution and imprisonment of my murderer(s).

I therefore wouldn't settle for such a limited version of the right to be killed - only by doctors, only by this method or another and only if/when I'm terminally ill. There is a fundamental principle involved and any limitation thereof would imply as if the government owns my life, something we should never accept.

(and just to make it clear, I have no intention of ever using this right)