To me the proportion of Anglicans or even Catholics supporting doctors giving a lethal dose deliberately to cause death is irrelevant to the fact that morality is not determined by popularity polls. The principle is that one may not perform an intrinsically evil act to secure a good outcome. In other words, the end does not justify the means.

Would the author define voluntary euthanasia, and provide the text of the questions that were asked in the 2012 Newspoll.

Kevo, VE is not a choice between life and death; it is a choice between two different ways of dying: one in pain and anguish or the other with peace and dignity, when the dying patient begs for a mercifully quick death. What is unChristian about the latter?! It is evil to DENY mercy, and not to prevent further injury or harm from ongoing agonising pain.

Christ's own death was quick compared to the average crucifixion victim. Perhaps he was granted Divine euthanasia?

There is significant theological support for VE, as explained in the article. Kevo either can't understand rational argument, or he arrogantly thinks he knows better than the majority of Christians, let alone the community generally. I'd like to know his real name, so I could see whether it ranks amongst the eminent theologians who support VE. I doubt it!

We live in a Democracy, Kevo, whether you like it or not! What right do you have to tell someone who thinks differently on this very personal issue that they have to suffer a horrible death just because dispassionate, merciless people like you say so! It is Voluntary, so it will only affect the people who ask for medical assistance to die. It won't affect you, so why do you oppose it?

You might think differently if you were in the advanced stages of Cancer, the pain from which cannot be fully alleviated. You might pray every day to die, but your prayers aren't answered. Then what would your attitude be?

Religions including Christianity have caused mass killings throughout history, against the wills of those killed. That is evil! Why then do you think that it is unacceptable to relieve people from end of life suffering when they beg for mercy?!

Your theological position has no rational merit.

Kevo clearly believes that we shouldn't have armed police or military forces either.
Please read and then reread "Geoffrey W" post.

Kevo, Christians like any other religion change their views on what is moral.Many years ago it was perfectly okay to stone people to death, or force a women to marry their rapist. Many Christian continue to support the death penalty.

Bottom line morality is built on populist opinion.

Dear Raycom

The SA Voluntary Euthanasia Society defines voluntary euthanasia as -
A quick and peaceful death brought about under medical supervision at the request of and in the interests of a patient in which prescribed safeguards are followed.

The definition applies to a person who is hopelessly ill with no other prospect of relief from suffering which that person finds intolerable.

I would also support Voluntary Medical Assistance in Dying, where the patient requests and the doctor prescribes the medication, but the patient must ingest it without assistance. A problem here can arise if the patient has Parkinson's or MND and has deteriorated to the extent that they can no longer drink from a glass or swallow. In all cases the doctor has a right of refusal to assist.

The Question asked in the 2012 Newspoll was -
"Thinking now about voluntary euthanasia, if a hopelessly ill patient, experiencing un-relievable suffering, with absolutely no chance of recovering asks for a lethal dose, should a doctor be allowed to provide a lethal dose?"

Before you comment that such a question is loaded, I make two points
1) These are exactly the people we believe should be able to receive assistance.
2) Essentially the same question has been asked at intervals since 1962. In 1962 the yes was 47%, No was 39% and 14 % were undecided. Public opinion on this issue has changed and matured.

Also relevant is a Canadian Supreme Court decision last month - a unanimous decision by 9 judges has stated "The prohibition on physician-assisted dying infringes the right to life, liberty and security of the person in a manner that is not in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice," and has given the Canadian Parliament 12 months to introduce legislation to comply with the Supreme Court guidelines.

Ian Wood

I believe that Christians are being routinely misrepresented here?

What Christians do support is the administration of a large enough dose needed to relieve pain, and the giving of that dose decriminalized in law, so that no caring doctor can be tried for murder or manslaughter; for just administering a large enough dose to relieve pain; even where that dose proves to be lethal!

That's a very different kettle of fish to claiming Christian support for voluntary euthanasia. Which is used elsewhere (Canada, Belgium) as a permanent (cost effective) cure for depression and hopelessness!

And given those who make a living will can decide how they will be treated at a doctors hands; particularly if terminally ill, mandated voluntary euthanasia is hardly warranted!

If you want to take your own life, there are just so many ways of achieving that, including (mess free) painless drowning or freezing or carbon monoxide poisoning?

Just as long as you are the only one made to carry the responsibility for ending a human life; and absolutely at odds with the doctors code of ethics, or Hippocratic oath!
Rhrosty.