According to Hinduism, suicide is normally a sin - but there are exceptions. Same for Judaism: in 1190, the Jews of York faced the choice of Christian baptism or death - most chose to die and were voluntarily killed by each other, apart from the Rabbi who was left last and killed himself.

But I need not bother the readers with the specifics of religious instructions: everyone has their own religion and/or their own set of values and while many would be willing for the state to stomp over the values of others, none of us wants the state to stymie our own values, whatever they happen to be.

Now suppose the Rabbi of York asked the tower's guard to borrow his sword in order to kill his community, then himself: should the guard have to refuse this last request in order to avoid being prosecuted for euthanasia?

If we are unable to live by our moral compass then we should at least be able to die by it. Who are they anyway, those who call themselves "the state", to tell others how to live and how to die? What do they even know about morality?

The only source of authority the state has, is the authority bestowed on it by citizens who request its protection. The state should do its best to prevent its citizens from being murdered, that means being killed against their will. Once a person no longer wishes to be protected by a state, that state is no longer authorised to protect him/her.

Can you explain exactly why I need to justify to you or anybody else my choice to continue living or not?

Well It's as you predicted Paul, more of the slippery slope emerging. What comes next, cost effective age "care" for folks now just a burden? And holding onto valuable real estate that could better serve a young family?

In the news just days ago, was a story of a 90 year old millionaire who died just days after changing a will, to disinherit the state and make a care nurse sole beneficiary? And given the very short length of time said nurse had known her benefactor, with access to a cupboard full of some very powerful and possibly life suppressing drugs, being investigated by the state?

I'm not saying or inferring anything untoward here, but this example surely underlines just how easily old, lonely and vulnerable folk can be manipulated? And how often does natural causes show up on the signed death certificate at the hand of a Dr, who may not have seen the patient?

Or just how difficult could it be for an impatient relative to substitute grandad's panadol for something a little stronger? You know, where there's a will there's a relative. A suicide pill is as dangerous as a loaded weapon in the wrong hands. And we know all it takes for a depressed person to opt out, is a five minute window! Who may well go on to a very different and fulfilling life if prevented for a few minutes from premature life altering action?

While I have a personal moral objection to suicide or the stilling of a beating human heart for convenience? I won't try to decide what others can or can't do, always providing they're the ones in control and acting out of fully informed free will and an intimate personal knowledge of themselves, their pain and emotional thresholds etc. And a suicide pill would avoid making a Dr complicit!?

Given the social engineering taking place on both sides of this argument, I'd live with it if we put the question to a plebiscite and allowed the majority to decide.
Alan B.

Australia is driven by handouts and powered by debt and it can't go on forever.

One day we'll have to decide between paying the people on welfare so they can eat, or paying for the medical treatments of the aged and handicapped so they can live.

Death Panels will decide who lives and who dies, people won't have a choice.
This will be the end result of the people discussed in the article.

Its a process of accumulation.
They will slowly push forward the laws here and there, and in all countries to slowly steer the planets inhabitants in a certain direction on this topic.
Articles promoting the benefits will be spread around.
'This is what they did in this country'...

We're being managed, I try to tell you all.

It will start out as something innocent.
Like 'End of Life Planning', about how YOU want to see out your final days.
There will be euthenasia legislation passed because governments will look to save money.
There will be a push for people to choose to 'end their lives with dignity' but really it will just be about governments and insurance companies saving money.
Things will get dirty as economies tighten under overwhelming welfare costs and there will bepressure to make difficult decisions.
You will be looked down upon as a burden if you want to live.
They could kill you, and fraudulently say you decided to opt out.

The younger generation won't know how to lead the country or make the right decisions as demographics changes and civil unrest increases.
They will make tough decisions.

... Next thing we know come retirement day we're all being lined up for the suicide booth, unless we can pay our own way.

You try something. If it works for a few years, then the people who claimed it would be a catastrophic disaster lose some of their credibility. Nobody takes them quite so seriously any more. So when the time comes for another sensible and obvious expansion of basic human rights, it's possible to do that in the face of only the normal amount of hysterical outrage and the brandishing of Bronze Age tribal shibboleths.

This is called 'progress'.

Alan B

You seem to think a Doctor or a nurse could kill a patient to inherit money if there were
uthanasia laws.

The permission to obtain the right to die would be subject to balances and checks and the direct request to 3 or 4 different Drs. Who could then file the request to a state legal organisation to be authenticated and checked. Nobody would have the excuse to murder people because those 3different doctors and a state authority would have to
look at each request and check, and verify that the request came from a person who had the capability of mind to ask for the medicine to die legally.

Doctors and nurses already have a cocktail of drugs they could use to kill old people with, so theres nothing to guard against that happening now.

A too high dose of morphine will kill you, and with pallative care the dose may have to be taken at an ever higher rate, to stop the pain and epiletic fits as your body organs shut down. I tend to think that in that respect we already have euthanasia happening
in our hospitals with some patients.

How do you imagine death, like an easy walk in the Park?
A heart attack if it kills you and doesnt leave you in a vegetative state,will probably be over pretty quickly but a cancer eating away at your brain, liver and other organs as it spreads around the body, will be anything but merciful.

.

I have been a member of Voluntary Euthanasia, Assisted Dying, Dying with Dignity or what ever else you may wish to call it for over a decade. A fundamental pillar of my thinking process is never give control of my mind or body to other people unless it is for good reason of which I understand and approve.
Now well into my 70th decade, a major point of concern for me is that I should have a “good” death at a time of my own choosing with no mess for others to clean up.
Virtually all the people I have known in euthanasia societies are healthy and have led successful lives. Generally, they see voluntary dying as an obviation of an undignified, drawn out process of dying.
Many have their little stash of quick release stored in a safe place, and very few ever actually get to use it. It gives a sense of security knowing that they have it.
An anomaly of the assisted dying process as it stands is that where as suicide of its self has been decriminalised for many years; yet is remains a crime to assist a person in an act which of its self is not a crime.
Can anyone tell me where else is it a crime to assist a person in a legal act?
If anyone is determined to suicide – and assisted dying IS suicide – then there is a 100% sure way to do it.
Buy a 2 metre length of rope from a hardware store and find a cross beam under a house. But remember that when you step off the box, there is no going back; and death by strangulation can only be described as horrific.
That is the choice that many people who wish to end their life are faced with today.

I am interested to know: is it criminal in Australia to help another, elderly or terminally ill, person who are not able to do so on their own, to obtain a passport and get on a plane to Switzerland where euthanasia is conducted legally?