John is not the only person suffering the slow and pain-racked death that is cancer.

Betty was as well, with the chemo remission evaporating after around 5 short years as her ovarian cancer returned and was sent home to die, with, death sentence, stage four ovarian cancer!

Several assisted dying advocates and doctor death offered her assisted suicide. Or as others might say, sanctioned by the state, murder! And just as evil as a soldier putting bullets into the chest and head of an unarmed, non-combatant?

However, Betty is not poor, but is a cashed-up multimillionaire who heads for Europe and a few European clinics and successful clinical trails around 1966, of alpha particle isotope, bismuth 213.

And, following one short hour of day clinic treatment that did not include hair loss or nausea or any evident damage to healthy tissue, was sent home with all evidence of cancer no longer seen in the scans!

As the days, weeks and months passed the breast lump disappeared and the vision in her right eye returned, which unbeknown to her had along with several other facilities, been compromised by an inoperable tumour at the back and base of her brain, which had along with the undiagnosed breast cancer been removed by a single hour of radioisotope, CONVENTIONAL, nuclear, ontological day clinic, medicine!

Betty was extremely lucky given the total world supplies at that time of alpha particle isotope, bismuth 213 was just 3 grams, due to an asinine prohibition of MSR thorium. the then source of her miracle cancer cure, bismuth 213.

The embargo placed by the lobbying of big pharma, big nuclear and the 3 trillion dollars a year, fossil fuel industry. who all saw there profit curve tracked straight down, if ever MSR thorium was allowed to develop and be deployed!?

Why do we want to KILL folk who yet may be cured, but for our self imposed embargo on all nuclear power, even poorly or completely misunderstood unconventional nuclear power and its life-saving spinoffs! Not to mention, power for less than 3 cents PKWH!
Alan B.

democracy worked quite well when our laws were somewhat based on the 10 commandments. Now we have adopted idiotic irrational secular humanism with moral relativity. If any sane person can't see slaugthering unborn babies is wicked then I doubt their is any hope for the elderly. Its amazing how gracious God has been to such a wicked generation who have flooded academia, Government, education and Parliament. In NSW a professing Catholic woman (State Premier) does a filfthy deal with the Greens etc to kill babies up to birth. They then celebrate the wickedness of this legislation. I pray for God's mercy however I think it was Billy Graham who said that if God does not judge America He will need to apologise to Sodom and Gommorah.

Thank you Spencer.

I fear for the future of the Nation with the changes to the Law relating to abortion and euthanasia, together with the confusion between biological sex and gender identity.

.

Dear Spencer,

.

You ask :

« If a majority of people agree with a position [legalising euthanasia], does that make it right? »

It’s not a question of morality, Spencer. It’s a question of the fundamental human right to life and death.

There can be no life without death and no death without life. Life and death are two sides of the same coin. If life is a fundamental human right, then death is too.

As you say :

« There is no need for a commandment that says, "You shall not commit euthanasia." »

Indeed, there is no such commandment. There never was one. The bible makes no mention of any such commandment. On the contrary, many theologians claim that the bible teaches that the “creator” endowed us with the faculty of free will so that we may act voluntarily, not by obligation or compulsion.

Surely, for those who believe in such a “creator”, that should not be interpreted as an invitation to choose between morality and immorality. That would undermine the very essence of “free will”. It would be tantamount to saying “you are free to sin if you like, but if you do you will burn in hell !”.

That hardly qualifies as “free will”. It’s coercion, and very severe coercion at that – for those who believe in hell, of course. Better forget about “free will” in those conditions. There is no acceptable alternative – and, therefore, no real freedom.

What sort of “creator” would play such a fiendish game ? It's perfectly sadistic.

Allow me to suggest that you might like to read the following article that deals with the question of legalising euthanasia :

http://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=c1447c7d-6904-4d9e-a7d6-a67edd6fb115&subId=300148

.

Cutting to the chase, Spencer, your minority faith should trump the civil code.

Similar to the "Discrimination" Bill. Which would give your minority group new powers and protections to target other minority groups.

Banjo P,

<<It’s not a question of morality, Spencer. It’s a question of the fundamental human right to life and death.>>

That kind of morality or view of human rights gave Hitler & the Nazis the right to murder 6 million Jews in the Holocaust.

The 'right' gave Stalin the opportunity to murder 20 million people in the Gulag.

The Chinese Communist Party leader, Chairman Mao Zedong, was the worst in the 20th century, slaughtering 35-45 million, http://www.nybooks.com/daily/2018/02/05/who-killed-more-hitler-stalin-or-mao/

And you call that a matter of human rights and not of morality??

You deny the facts of history that a nation's rights are driven by its morality. When Australia kills through VAD, it is following utilitarian ethics (the end justifies the means). It already has horrific outcomes in The Netherlands, Belgium and Luxembourg.