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.