This doesn't go far enough:

What in heaven or on earth, gives anyone a right to control others who live 100's if not 1000's of kilometres away?!

Well said, David.

I would expect the Greens, at least, to do the right thing and back you on this.

<<If we are not free to end our lives, with assistance if necessary, then we are not free at all.>>

David, in terms of Australia, most Australians are always free, most of the time. I can dance under the stars..... I can walk on a foodpath..... I can go shopping.... and there I thousands of other things I could list here, that I can freely do.

If people want to end their life in 2017, they are free to do so by themselves, with no asistance required.

If one is able to take on such a practice themselves (which you call assisted suicide), but then add the term 'free' into the debate is a contradiction in terms.

Personally, I am totally against any type of suicide or euthanasia for a range of reasons (particularly as neither is voluntary) and I would recommend, that if someone feels in any form that their life in unstable or in a mode of concern that they get professional help or advice.

Nathan J makes sense.
I think euthanasia is a conspiracy by the medical fraternity to increase their riches, (which already are obscene by community standards) and wrest control of all medical conditions able to be exploited for profit, not currently captured.

Where is the reference to our current astronomical suicide rate in Australia? Seems Australians are quite successful at it without outside help, thanks Doc!

Risible rubbish David! Euthanasia is practised daily in many large urban hospitals as compassionate pain management, And that is where the law needs to change to keep pace with common practise. So that compassion isn't tried as murder.

Hospitals are the only place for end of life pain management. Not in the home as treatment for clinical depression, relatively easily dealt with through effective clinical treatment, not smuggled bootleg self pity? So you've driven the kids and the friends away and think topping yourself will teach all those ingrates a lesson?

Again we have a we know best elitist instructing the rubes, in what opinion they should have? Given they're just not smart enough to reach their own considered opinion, then own their own behavior!

By the way, if you come across one of those, broken english two liners, with no bearing whatsoever on the topic? Under no circumstances should you click on the accompanying link, unless you want to download a keylogging trojan? And kill the computer/cause it to commit Hari Kari.
Alan B.

David - what do you think of this latest case from the Netherlands?

NETHERLANDS, January 31, 2017 (LifeSiteNews) – A Dutch doctor who forcibly euthanized an elderly woman without her consent "acted in good faith," a euthanasia oversight panel decided when it cleared her of wrongdoing. The chairman of that panel has expressed hope that the case will go to court – not so the doctor can be prosecuted, but so a court can set a precedent on how far doctors may go in such cases.

This particular case was sent to the Regional Review Committee, which oversees the country's liberal euthanasia regime.

The woman, who was over 80, had dementia. She had allegedly earlier requested to be euthanized when "the time was right" but in her last days expressed her desire to continue living.

Nevertheless, her doctor put a sedative in the patient's coffee. The doctor then enlisted the help of family members to hold the struggling, objecting patient down so that she could administer the lethal injection.

"I am convinced that the doctor acted in good faith, and we would like to see more clarity on how such cases are handled in the future," Committee Chairman Jacob Kohnstamm said. Taking the case to court would be "not to punish the doctor, who acted in good faith and did what she had to do, but to get judicial clarity over what powers a doctor has when it comes to the euthanasia of patients suffering from severe dementia."