Diamond, Its not about YOU or Your Choice,It was your mother and Grandmothers CHOICE .Don't muddy the waters with asides of a wife beater forcing a pill down the throat of a submissive wife.
Be a Gem and wait your turn......when YOUR time comes take advantage of having a CHOICE.
Besides, Phillip Nietszke,is a proponent of Voluntary Euthanasia. He understands that when people make a decision about suicide, they invariably opt for an overdose of sleeping pills or the exhaust pipe of the car piped into their vehicle.or slash their wrists or a messy shotgun,jump off a cliff or step infront of a train or truck.

I cannot understand the 'logic' of opponents to Dr Nietszke's proposals after counselling to assist in a death which is dignified, peaceful and spares the trauma for the poor devils who have to clean up the mess.

maracas

In response to Diamond.

I respect and admire people like your mother and grandmother who face difficult deaths with courage and serenity. I do not know how I will feel about it until the situation faces me. Perhaps I will feel it is the right thing to do the same as them. If I do, I hope I will have their courage. But I think it is more likely I will continue to feel I'd rather end my life a bit early than go through a lingering, drugged, painful death. And I see no reason why society should limit my choice in an area where if I decide to end my life it harms no other member of society.

But, you say, to allow me that choice might make other people, like your partner's female relations, vulnerable to pressure. It's not a good argument. There are many 'freedoms to choose' allowed by law that have the potential to harm innocent people – the freedom to divorce a partner who still loves and depends on you, the freedom to abort your unborn child, the freedom to access violent pornography easily on the net even though the effect may be deeply harmful especially to the young. These are freedoms society has decided it has no right to deny its members. It has then done what it could to guard against the possible negative effects of allowing those freedoms. I see no good reason why the freedom to choose to end ones life should be treated differently. By all means surround the law with all kinds of safeguards to prevent people being pressured into euthanasia – but don't deny those who really want to end their lives the opportunity to do so.

Diamond, I really appreciate you sharing your experiences of your family, but agree with maraccas. (and suprisingly TImkins). Death kind of takes the gender thingy out of us all. It's all about the right to die. None of us wants to go out unexpectedly if we have the choice (ie: murder, accident, mishap). We all want to die peacefully in our sleep with no discomfort or nightmares. However, faced with the choice (and as we would all just love to have control over our death - as we didn't have over birth or certain life events)in this society, I figure we have the right to choose how/when we die when we are faced with some disease that's going to give us a horrible painful death. And the choice should always be with the person who is facing it without pressure from the "loved ones" that may have a vested interest. Which is why it should be out there rather than unlegislated and behind closed doors.

Now the line

‘social marginalisation, economic disadvantage and oppressive stereotyping that is at the core of so many "free choices".’

Someone has turned their “weasel-word mill” up into high gear and is churning the English Language through it at a non-sustainable rate – so much so she is reduced to recycling bits of Germaine Greer at the end of the article – it reeks of desperation.

It supports a state of being where we are the chattel of the state not allowed to exercise any choice without approval or sanction from the “authorities”.

The bit about cardiac care is interesting – the matter that it has long been held that men are more disposed to cardiac problems or the degree of damage inflicted on the sufferer might be a consideration when doing statistics regarding the comparative levels of care and numbers of treatments across gender. Seems to me the number of treatments for breast cancer are seriously skewed toward ladies – and not toward men – yet men too can suffer breast cancer (just not as commonly as women).

Like most of what is written in the name of feminism (or maleism for that matter) – as this article seems to be, the sooner people respect others as individuals and stop taking a stance based on gender, the sooner we will all move forward. Unless I am to be cynical and assume that “feminism” is a substitute for the socially less palatable “racism” in those who seem to be unable to function unless they someone else to put down.

Now back to the article – euthanasia is not about gender – it is about individuals. Trying to beef something into what it is not is simply an attempt at politicism and sensationalism (more "isms") of what should be a personal choice – regardless of how cynical the author views the merit of “individuals” having a “choice”.

Although Tchamala point of “pressure from relatives” does need to be recognised and protected against..

Proposing improved palliative care has a civilised ring about it.

And it is not new.

Senator Brian Harradine put it forward during Commonwealh Parliamentary debate - which he helped direct towards the dismantling of voluntary euthanasia rights legislation in force at the time in Australia's Northern Territory.

What a load of nonsense such empty proposals are in actuality.

Ask any concentious Palliative Care nurse who has worked across the time boundary of the legislative change: The caring atmosphere pertaining prior to it has deteriorated since. Under the pressure of "rational economics" fostered since, the spirit behind it is now subordinate. Bureaucratic imperative, as defined by competition policy architects, takes precedence over the needs of the individual patient. Consequently, "Encouragement" to linger in extreme discomfort has been minimised, and continues to deteriorate as the years go by.

To be blunt, the proposal for "improved palliative care" is straight-out dishonest.

Forced prolongation by modern medicine or otherwise of terminal suffering, mental and physical, against the will of the person suffering is hardly democratic. And it is barbaric. It belongs to the age it sprang from two millennia past (if it ever truly belonged then). It is no improvement morally on the old practices of leaving the ailing grandmother out on the ice to await the polar bear; or putting out in the snow the male baby incapable of suspending itself from his father's finger.

Thank goodness we're agreeing on something again Col. Good stance, euthanasia has nothing to do with gender - who dies more than others from a certain illness. It's not about women being oppressed and more inclined to have the pillow over the face. It is an individual's right to choose the right to die when they are nearer that choice and much more the principle of their own life. After all, if I'm past 40 (which I am) and have the choice over a long lingering death of which i'm miserable, in pain and discomfort and the chance of escaping the pain and still be compus mentos (apologise again for my Latent Latin Col), I know i'd rather have the choice. It's a luxury a lot of humans don't get to choose. Who would say it's right to make someone suffer because society hasn't gone there yet? We need to talk more to the witnesses (ie family, friends) to get a more balanced view about the issue. Cannot buy into the euthanasia and women thing Katrina, no matter how much I tilt the frame.