The gulf between the Greens' euthanasia and the general public can be seen here and I do believe that Tony Abbott was reflecting the community view.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NpCj4F4aFlw

I would also agree with Abbott when he says that if you really want to unleash economic rationalisation on the frail aged give them that option (near end of video).

The Greens have often proposed death taxes and there is fostering of intergenerational jealousy (not only the Greens) which is often being surfaced in connection with housing. Look out, oldies!

Dear Bren,

<<The author seems to advocate extreme libertarianism to the point that not only does he believe that everybody has the right to commit suicide, but he also seems to support the right of third parties to assist any suicide (not just for the seriously ill).>>

And I fully agree with the author: what's "extreme" about NOT persecuting (or prosecuting) people who do such-and-such? Extremism is to persecute others for doing things you don't like (and indeed, this particular act happens to be something that I dislike), not vice-versa.

I don't support, nor do I think does the author, the RIGHT of third parties to assist any suicide, for nobody needs to give them such rights - I simply believe that to begin with, nobody has a legitimate basis to take their freedom away to do so.

Dear Mollie,

We seem to disagree about the morality of some cases, which I consider immoral while you consider moral. We could therefore enter a full-on long discussion about the religious/spiritual/theological aspects of suicide and assisting suicide.

However, this is not necessary, for even if I am wrong, this changes nothing: for the purpose of this thread, all I say is that government has no right to enforce morality, whatever that is, that this is totally outside their legitimate sphere of action.

Hi Yuyutsu,

Perhaps what may seem to be a 'moral act' to one person, assisting a dear friend to top themselves, with massive lots of love and deepest concern, may seem to be a criminal act to the justice system. How would you distinguish one from the other ?

If someone reasonably healthy dies - i.e. outside of a medical or palliative situation - and someone else is present, who may even admit assisting the deceased, then moral all you like, the police may consider it a crime scene.

And how are you going to prove otherwise ? Worse still, if you stand to gain in any way from the passing of the deceased, how do you avoid a charge of premeditated murder, for personal gain, or at the very least, manslaughter ?

Why do people think this is all so easy ?

Joe

Joe, I don't think its necessarily easy and I doubt that many would advocate a system where you can drop into the chemist (or maybe Wollies) and pick up a pack of tablets for your rich auntie and no questions asked.

There would need to be some controls around it. For a start some conselling to ensure that the person seeking an assisted suicide was doing so without coaching and was aware of any viable options that might be available. Its also in my view reasonable to require the presence of someone with no direct interest in the outcome be present during any legal assisted suicide.

A number of options were mentioned earlier in the thread for people to end their own lives under current laws. All of them in my view have some serious down sides far beyong the suicide itself, I earlier mentioned a number of the down sides mostly around the risk of only partial success or trauma for those driving the vehicle someone jumps under, discovering the result or cleaning up the mess.

Even taking a handful of pills has the risk for most people of being discovered before its finished and being rushed to emergency treatment or great distress to the person finding the body if successful. Current laws don't leave most people many options to end their lives in a controlled manner without a whole lot of uncontrollable risk attached either for themselves or others.

R0bert

Hi Robert,

No, what I meant was that it's not easy to differentiate suicide from murder, if other people, particularly family members, are anywhere near the scene.

The problem with this sort of discussion is that completely different situations are treated as if they are very similar - (A) the suicide of relatively healthy people on the one hand, and (B) the 'assisted' death of people in their last hours, and in distress, on the other.

If, in (A), after counselling and entreaties, someone decides that they still want to take their own life, then they will find a way. If they also want to say goodbye to loved ones (who presumably have used every effort to dissuade them), then they can put on a sort of wake (perhaps in front of the roaring fires of the crematorium: hey, a new business idea for funeral parlours), a pre-memorial, where they can crack jokes, tell scurrilous yarns about the pre-deceased, and generally have a good time, before the pre-deceased goes off on his or her own into an adjacent room, with the pills and plastic bag.

Who knows, their genuine friends may persuade the intended deceased that, with all its faults and tragedies, life may be worth living after all.

Joe

David G the people you mention seem to be extremely happy for innocent people to be euthanised in war, what hypocrites they are, one only hopes when they are vomiting up faeces and bleeding from the anus and in extreme pain and dignity loss, having to have someone wipe their rectum for them ,lets hope they enjoy every moment of it,
Perhaps then they will realise what 80% of Australians are wanting, that is Voluntary Euthanasia.