No. Without the absolute right to defend life there's no safeguard.
Jamo,
Of course we must defend the right to live just as we must defend the right to fend off those who want to put us under the yoke of misery.
Govt doesn't defend either, they only say so because it sounds good to many. We must evaluate the situation ourselves & take steps accordingly & if possible.
Look at the many abused children ? The authorities only step in after the abuse not before when concerned people first report it. Then, there's no end to the money spent on investigations. A fraction of the cost of investigations would help poor families to feed their kids & get old & sick people some decent care.
But no, let the crap happen first & then cry sorry.
As long as welfare is not primarily a service but a career path first, this dreadful trend will continue.

To Individual.

For the older man it is sad that he lost meaning you to live on. I don't have any answer for him. Not yet anyways. But I do know suicide thoughts. And I know that though it's sad what that man said, it would be tragic if a younger man said the same thing, even if he had lost much of his health in an auto accident.

For the older man, the sadness that lingers is enough to say "let him pass on," "let him die on his terms." But if you allow yourself to think that same way for younger man then something is seriously wrong. You should want to help him find a reason to live or to find new meaning in life. On the other hand if you really don't see the point that it would be tragic to have the younger man kill himself, then my next point will be wasted on you. (My hope is that something is not that wrong with you).

If the younger man's life is worth fighting for and not giving up on, then so is the older man's life worth fighting for and not giving up on. Suicide is sad enough a reality of the world, there is no reason to help it along with assisted suicide. Especially for the horrible reasons that the person makes your life miserable. Mark my words the reasoning you are using is an excuse to not try and help another person, but to advocate a solution of killing themselves instead of helping them or those in the same situations. It is a steep slippery slop towards negligence of a vulnerable population.

Regarding suicide. Those who off themselves usually do it in a moment of temporary stress, or in a time of hardship. Trying to give them a reason to live on is a good answer for those situations because sometimes that's exactly what people need to hear. A reason to keep on going. Just so you're aware, instead of spouting off ignorant pro-suicide philosophy. Something the world doesn't need any more of.

.

Suicide is perfectly legal in Australia. We can commit suicide whenever we like and wherever we like.

However, we cannot commit suicide however we like.

If we want to commit suicide in a calm, peaceful, painless manner in a nice cosy environment, among our loved ones, with competent medical assistance - that is illegal.

It has to be done by improvisation, with whatever means are available, and is usually a macabre, gruesome, excruciatingly painful, barbaric affair : e.g., hanging, cutting veins and bleeding to death, jumping off a roof, throwing oneself over a cliff onto the rocks below, jumping on the rails in front of a train or a high speeding car or truck on the motorway, suffocating by tying a plastic bag over one's head ...

All that is legal.

Right-minded society obviously considers it more acceptable - at least, from a legal point of view.

Could its attitude be motivated by fear, existentialist angst ?

.

To Banjo Paterson

[Could its attitude be motivated by fear, existentialist angst ?]

It's also entirely possible that the reasons and motivations are what people actually say they are. Reread the comments of those who are against a policy of assisted suicide. I think all of them so far explain themselves well enough to understand the reasons they stand against it.

As for assisted suicide being more nobel and painless then suicide without help, my reply is the same as what was said before. Suicide is a tragedy, and should be assisted in helping people find a means to live instead of encouraging them to give up.

Jamo's take on it is that without a strong stance defending life, then there's no safeguard against .... Well I could give a few things it could safeguard against, so I agree with it. But if your confused on the reasoning or motivation on that comment perhaps a direct question is better.

Diver Dan and Runner both seem clear on their reasoning. Calling it murder by doctor, and saying there's no reason to trust the arguments for assisted suicide to be any different from abortion, where now abortion is done casually.

As a rule though, taking people for what they actually say when they explain themselves is a good practice.

To Plantagenet.

Are you offended that I am Christian? Or that I identify my understanding or my points come from a Christian foundation. I would not be insulted if someone says "as a doctor," "as a woman/ as a man," "as a student," or as anything else. It is a phrase to explain where a person's points are coming from. They aren't saying that they are saintly or anything like that, nor am I saying that. Since you decided not to reply to the actual points I had made, I have to assume that the conversation is of no value to you, but instead your insulted that Christians actually hold the bible to be from God in one way or another. I will not apologize for being Christian, and if you're insulted, that's on you not on me.

To Toni.

That's not a bad question. As far as racism goes I can't think of any reason to justify it. From a religious perspective I don't think race is a factor. It's the teachings that matter not a person's heritage. Regarding sexism the only arguments that can be applied to sexism could be if a religion says that women should not teach, that women are not allowed in a certain religious position (like a priest or something similar), or in a non-teaching environment being sexist to a job based on a strength level between men and women (an argument for women to not be active police officers, firemen, or soldiers). Only one of those reasons applies to schools, and even that reason is not an excuse for so many examples of sexism from wage difference to condescending attitudes towards women or men.

(Continued)

(Continued)

To Yuyutsu.

[To guarantee freedom of religion, the only safe way is therefore to allow ALL teachings, then leave it for the parents to determine who will teach their children.]

I agree. The only things to restrict this is whether there is a dangerous, criminal, or terrorist element within the schools or the teachers lessons; and the other is if the school teaches a minimum subjects to ensure the students leave school with the tools to make it in the world. Math, reading, and writing would be that minimum in my opinion. Anything beyond that would be up to the government such as history or science classes. But for religious freedom to exist then any religious teaching should be allowed to be taught from a religious teacher. That said, if a teacher wants to say they teach correctly, then a peer from that religion should be able to say they are or are not teaching correctly.