If doctors are increasing morphine doses to kill people that's exactly why legalising euthanasia would pose a risk to people - i.e. doctors can't be trusted to do the right thing. Nor can relatives of older people who might want to inherit. See Paul Keating's comments along these lines. It's got nothing to do with religion, it's just common sense.

.

Dear WilliamS,

.

You wrote :

« … legalising euthanasia would pose a risk to people … it's just common-sense »

That’s true, WilliamS. Life itself poses a risk to people. That’s common-sense too.

According to one of my cancer specialist friends in the medical profession, the current common-sense management of euthanasia is better than all hell breaking loose if the lawyers got hold of it.

Maybe, but, in my view, euthanasia is a question for the person to decide, not the medical profession.

In the 15-44 age bracket (people in the prime of life) the leading cause of death in Australia for the period 2014-2016 was suicide.

From age 45 and over, coronary heart disease was the principal cause of death, lung cancer, dementia and Alzheimer vying for second place :

http://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/life-expectancy-death/deaths-in-australia/contents/leading-causes-of-death

So, in all probability, that’s what awaits us, my friend.

I can understand that some people would prefer to have a peaceful and painless death in a warm, cosy environment – not just those people suffering from a terminal illness, but also all those who decide to take their own lives.

It will not happen overnight but we must prepare for a radical change in our attitude towards life and death. Democracy and justice are solidly anchored in an ocean of inertia by the massive iron chains of archaic religious dogma in a position of opposition to the most fundamental of human rights. Our democracy and justice have been insensitive far too long to the pain and suffering of people wishing to lawfully exercise their natural right to life and death.

Given the current state of the law, they are left with no other choice but to have recourse, alone with their solitude and in a terrible state of despair, to the most barbaric, inhuman and expeditious methods in order to carry out their macabre enterprise.

Naturally, there is a need for safeguards to protect the vulnerable from the malevolent influence of ill-intentioned persons in their entourage. Just as the ill and suffering must have full, unrestricted access to the best available professional palliative care.

.

//You just don't kill people !//

Well you got that right at least: no, I don't kill people. Most people don't kill people. But some people do kill people. Some of these people commit the crime of murder, and we lock those people up. But some of them are soldiers, and if they're particularly good soldiers and kill lots of people we give them special honours and afford them more respect than other soldiers - even though the people they killed may been blameless of any wrongdoing of being conscripted into the wrong army.

And it's remarkable, once you drill down a little bit, how many vehement anti-euthanasia campaigners are in favour of capital punishment.

So much for just not killing people, eh?

//where after being drugged via your coffee against your will, you can be held down by your family while the doctor injects you with a lethal drug dose.//

But that's not voluntary euthanasia, is it? That's murder, plain and simple.

Murder is wrong. Just like rape is wrong: if somebody spikes your drink, holds you down and forces you to have sex with them, they're a sick f%$k and criminal. But if people have sex consensually, it's fine (it's better than fine if they're having sex with me). And what's the crucial difference that makes the rape abhorrent and the consensual sex quite nice? The fact that there is consent.

As with rape and sex, I think that there is a very important moral distinction between murder and voluntary euthanasia that hinges on the issue of consent.

Murder is wrong and always will be. But I'm rather less convinced that voluntary euthanasia in necessarily immoral. And arguing against the immorality of murder doesn't help sway me from that position because it doesn't really address the question, does it? It's like arguing against sex on the basis that rape is bad. Everyone agrees wholeheartedly with the premise that rape is bad... they're just not quite sure how the conclusion logically follows from that premise.

//Victoria's doctor prescribed assisted suicide hasn't even been implemented and there are cries it doesn't go far enough!//

Right, and are any of those critics arguing that it should be extended to allow involuntary euthanasia (murder)? Because I couldn't find any. Perhaps you have a link you'd like to share?