Well given assisted dying can still be murder, I see very little reason to change this law. and even more so when today's terminal illness may well be tomorrow's miracle cure.

All we need are living wills and doctors no longer prosecuted for the fact that adequately dealing with end of life pain and suffering, may well suppress the life force to the point of extinction!

I can however empathise with folk who think that for them life is just endless interminable and largely pointless and lonely waiting, while those medications meant to improve the quality of life; steal their cognitive abilities, their NORMAL libido, taste buds and almost everything that once gave them some modicum of pleasure, making them easy depressed targets for those who might well have a pecuniary interest in a quick and easy outcome?

As they say, where there's a will there's always a relative! And given the emerging case against statins, some otherwise very fine folk seem to find a fistfull of dollars more important than the hippocratic oath, a medical degree and at least doing no harm!?
Rhrosty.

Thank you David and good luck with your initiative.

Beyond this particular issue, what should be of concern is the unusual powers and money given by the state to medical practitioners of the Western school of medicine and the special privileges given to their closed organisation, the AMA. Their monopoly should be broken, over medicine itself as well as in several other loosely-related areas: I hope you address this in your term as senator.

Assited dying. Euthanasia. Suicide. Call it what you will. The state should keep its nose out of the way people choose to die. The current situation is tyranny: plain and simple.

David - you assert that there is such a thing as "a right to die at a time of our choosing".

That is an incredible claim.

If that claim is accepted then there will be no basis whatsoever for refusing anyone at all assistance to die. If the "right to die" is accepted as a human right then all human beings must be given access to that right, not only if they are terminally ill or suffering, but merely because they are human beings.

If this arrticle is an indication of how poorly you have thought this through, you are truly a very dangerous man to have in politics.

Rhosty, Yuyutsu & ttbn, i hear where we are all coming from but this debate is always promoted by communists who want to reduce the number of conservative voters by killing more older people faster.

JP, too true, Libertarian-ISM is the new ISM.

might not start with the granny flat hunters but you have to be blindly ignorant to see that killing the unborn babies have nothing to do with the poor 14 year old girl who has been raped in 98% plus cases. Open your eyes David.

Runner,

I respect your views on abortion, and with a few exceptions, I agree with you. However, I don't think the killing a perfect child in its mother's womb is comparable to some sick, poor old codger who has had enough suffering and actually wants to die. He has the choice. Unborn babies have no choice. Do you not think that there is a vast difference?

Of course there is a vast difference between abortion and euthanasia ttbn, one is legal and the other is not. Both are about choice, but those wanting legal euthanasia are not able to have that choice, and that is wrong.

But why do we need to discuss abortion on any thread other than one about abortion in any case? Runner has a paranoid wish to control all women's choices, that's why.

I don't believe a life sentence should be given to someone who assisted someone else to die, as long as there is proof that person had a terminal or life-altering illness and they wanted help to die.
Many compassionate doctors have 'helped' their patients over the years, and I challenge anyone to watch another human being in excruciating non-relievable pain for any length of time and not want to do anything to help them end their pain.

Dear Suse,

<<I don't believe a life sentence should be given to someone who assisted someone else to die, as long as there is proof that person had a terminal or life-altering illness and they wanted help to die.>>

Only the second condition is necessary.

Although suicide* is immoral, the state has no right to appoint itself as a guardian of morals.

-*-

"Suicide" is not actually possible because the self (Latin-"sui") cannot die.
Causing one's body to die can therefore be one of three:

1. For those who identify themselves with their body - an attempted suicide.
2. For those who consider the body as theirs - destruction of one's property.
3. For those who already realised they are God - throwing out the garbage.

Assisting in the first two cases, is immoral (but should not be a criminal offence).
How could a secular state ever be able to distinguish between the first two cases and the third?

ttbn

while I agree that abortion is a different issue the parallels can't be ignored. I am old enough to remember when the regressives/feminist won people over by the argument that the poor 14 year old girl that was raped should not have to carry anyone's baby. The regressives dishonestly knew that they wanted free slaughter but also knew they could not win the public with that argument. Now we have open killing fields. Same would happen with euthanasia. Use some poor suffering soul to win over the unthinking public (especially in schools). Before you know it you will have the same result as abortion (ie open slather).

Yuyutsu, why do you think suicide is immoral?
Surely if someone thought they were God, then they have a psychiatric illness?
There are many poor sods who declared they were God, or his son, and were sectioned and rightly placed in mental health institutions.

If someone gives someone else the means to kill themselves, and know they want to kill themselves, then they are assisting them to die. Personally, I think voluntary euthanasia should be legal, but only if they are assisted by medical staff, not just anyone.

A lot of people who often comment on these types of topics have no medical condition, or no respect for the basics of life. I have four medical conditions myself, but death (so people like David Leyonhjelm can feel better, in terms of cheap party politics) is not the answer.

When I was diagnosed with my fourth medical condition (this year) and am now on nine medications per week, most taken twice per day (and in the first week I felt over drugged) - but realised quickly, I need to take these tablets or I won't live.

Life, renewal, energy, assistance, prevention, revitalisation, passion and medical advancement should have a larger focus when health is a discussion point. Switching off the lights and walking out the door is a cheap answer in regards to health, and most doctors, nurses and specialists have very respectfully stayed away from it.

At a basic level, people will be taken advantage of, with any assisted suicide system or other systems around death of a person, for financial reasons and no legislation will be able to stop that.

As a person who sees many medical specialists and is impressed with their high standards and ethics in terms of values and principles to each individual patient, I think David needs to speak to some medical specialists (and see the spectacular work) these people undertake.

Senator, if you are so much in support of assisted suicide at present, why not consider it yourself? Some other "whoever" can take over your job, as we throw piles of human bodies into a rubbish pit. Hardly an inspiring future, to look forward to.

Dear Suse,

Thank you for just providing a perfect example for the state's inability to judge people:

Yes, there are people who THINK they are God (due to a psychiatric illness; and they likely also imagine themselves to be some powerful deity along the lines of the Abrahamic concept of God) and then there are those who actually REALISED that they are.

Since you cannot tell the difference - one cannot expect the state's representatives to tell it either.

Regarding voluntary euthanasia, we are generally in agreement, yet under the microscope we do not agree completely: you believe that it should be legal while I believe that it should not be illegal.

I also disagree that medical practitioners should have any special privileges. First, it gives their discipline and their cartel an unfair advantage over other healing practitioners. Second, the reason(s) for one's wanting to commit suicide may have nothing to do with a medical condition. Third, doctors can be saints or sinners, demons or angels just like any of us.

Yuyutsu, respectfully, if you think there are actually people out there who 'realise' they are gods, then I doubt there is anything more I can add to this bizarre debate.
The countries where euthanasia is legal require both psych and medical doctors to agree that a patient is eligible for euthanasia before they are considered.
And all legal aspects are checked first as well.

Unrelieved pain, vomiting, and incontinence may change your mind about allowing anyone other than a trained medical doctor with access to suitable drugs to treat you.
'Alternative' medicine practitioners leave plenty of people in dire situations, believe me...

NathanJ, I am sorry to read that you are unwell. Obviously you can handle what medical conditions you have without feeling the need to opt out of life. You are lucky.
That is why I think this country should have access to VOLUNTARY euthanasia, so people like you can choose to soldier on, no matter what awful things that life throws at you, but others can choose not to.

As usual, opponents of voluntary euthanasia throw the usual rubbish suggestions of how the 'state' will just kill anyone even vaguely unwell, or that non-palliative or non-severely disabled people will be given access to euthanasia.
These situations have not become true in the countries where voluntary euthanasia has been legal for years. Look it up for yourselves if you don't believe me.

If opponents of voluntary euthanasia want to fight out their own, or their loved ones, awful illnesses to the bitter 'natural' end, feel free to do so. Just don't force those of us who don't want this for ourselves. That is not too much to ask.

.

Dear David (the author),

.

You wrote :

« I plan to introduce a Private Senators' Bill before the end of this year to repeal the Andrews Bill and set the Territories free »

I wish you every success, David.

All the best.

.

Dear Suse,

<<if you think there are actually people out there who 'realise' they are gods>>

Not "gods" in plural: we are all one, one God, only we have fallen under the illusion as if we were separate bodies. It is possible to wake up from this illusion and realise who we truly are and this of course is very different from psychiatric delusions of individual grandiosity.

<<Unrelieved pain, vomiting, and incontinence may change your mind about allowing anyone other than a trained medical doctor with access to suitable drugs to treat you.>>

This discussion is about assisted-suicide* in general, so it is not limited to euthanasia.

If and when you want a treatment, then you should be able to choose who you want to be treated by - whether that choice be for medical reasons or otherwise, one ought to be able to choose in accordance with their overall values. Talking of "suitable drugs", first your state denies access to all but medical doctors (more accurately, access is allowed only to those who are members of the AMA Mafia, excluding trained medical doctors who refuse or are refused membership for a variety of reasons) then you claim that only medical doctors can access them - well change that!

Now if you rather die (be it moral or otherwise is a different matter), then what's wrong with a bullet to the head? Do doctors aim better? A guillotine is probably the fastest and most merciful method.

* (caveat: the use of the term "suicide" is incorrect because the self never dies, so more accurately what we are speaking of are suicide-attempts)

A bullet to the head?
What if you are unable to lift a gun or pull the trigger?
Assisted suicide suggests someone who can't or won't do the job themselves doesn't it?

If an able person wants to commit suicide there is nothing anyone else can do to stop them if they are serious. Anyone assisting someone else to die when that person is mentally ill or does not have a palliative medical condition should be charged with murder of course.

runner,

I know what you are saying about abortion. When I indicated that I agreed with you except in a few instances, I really meant ony one - if there was a danger to the health of the mother. It should never happen on the whim of someone who doesn't use contraception or someone who is tart who gets caught.

I wonder if the euthenasia mob have found out from planned parenthood in America how much money they can make from body parts.

Dear Suse,

I'm afraid I disagree:

If two people freely and genuinely agree between them that one will either kill the other or assist them to kill themselves, then it should be nobody else's business. Reason and method have nothing to do with it.

I understand that you need some safeguards to ensure that their agreement is genuine, that there is a real danger that murder can slip through, so it would be fine to suggest and discuss what those safeguards should include. Killing someone with their genuine consent is not murder, only when consent is not given.

Clearly I don't condone this kind of behaviour and would not take part in it myself.

ttbn "It should never happen on the whim of someone who doesn't use contraception or someone who is tart who gets caught."

Oh absolutely, the guy who doesn't use condoms, or the guy putting it out there for all and sundry, leading to pregnancies, should be made to pay for the abortion at the very least...