I sometimes wonder whether those who claim to want to protect our freemdoms are only happiest when they seem to be being taken away. That is the only reason I can come up with for the way in which recent legislation has come in for so much attack.

As with most of the commentary on the Anti-Terrorism legislation, the article is a (wilful?) misrepresentation of what this suicide legislation says. Take one of Greg's examples:

"One final example will suffice to illustrate the unfairness of this new law. A person might return from a trip to Oregon in the US or the Netherlands, two jurisdictions where strictly regulated assisted suicide is permitted. If an individual uses the Internet phone, fax or to discuss practices in Oregon or the Netherlands with a fellow activist, friend, doctor, or loved one, then that individual will be made a criminal by this new law."

In this context, the "material" that the legislation talks about is the discussion itself. Substitute the word "telephone discussion" for the word "material" in the legislation, and it becomes obvious that Greg's proposition does not stand up, because the required elements of the offences do not exist. That's even before the clarifying exceptions in subsections 474.29A (3) and (4) come into play.

Sylvia.

After his recent article "australia is a racist backwater" had so much rubbish in it, i'm not gonna bother reading his new one!

If i chose to live, it would be appauling if society killed me.

So if i chose to die, would not it be equally appauling that society keeps me alive?

i support suicide on humane grounds only, and as a last resort.

There is nothing wrong with these laws. This prevalence of information should not be made available to the vulnerable or those in an induced state. The anonymity of the net means these type of forums etc are being used by the wrong people, and the government acknowledges this problem.

I dont want to see teenagers, depressed people and the like with easy how to die info. We are taking a backward step in society if we view the killing of oneself as nothing short of self murder. When i was younger i have been depressed, but the person i was then is not who i am now. The least we can do as a concious government is to stop the prevalence of potentially life threatening information. those who have the correct grounds to do so will recieve the information one way or another.

I prefer to have it illegal to assist so as to allow the means to be part of the mental soundness test. Really, if you can't work out a way to do yourself in you aren't mentally qualified to know what's good for you.

Laws like this are rather pointless realy sucking up to the RR in the mob. The information will be freely available on the net no matter what laws are passed in Oz. After all US web servers host pro OBJ site even though the US is spending billions fighting him.

Thanks, Greg. I'm a fit, non-depressed mid-sixty year old who decided, a year ago, it would be sensible to find out now what I could do if I ever find myself, as I may do, in a situation where I would prefer to end my life rather than continue (eg if I was suffering from early Alzheimers, or facing a painful and inevitable death from kidney cancer etc.)

It was through the 'EXIT International' website that I found the advice I needed and I'm grateful to its founder, Dr Philip Nitchke for all he is doing to help suffering people. His moral courage amazes me. To be willing for so long to put up with misrepresentation, hurtful accusations of 'encouraging suicide' and the cruel nickname 'Dr. Death', all because he believes, as I do, that there are situations in which choosing to end ones life is a moral and rational choice and that it is morally right to give people in those situations, if they want it, whatever information is available on how to end their lives without pain.

One of the main aims of this legislation is to stop Philip Nitchke and 'Exit International' continue its work of helping people who seek its help. And they are not young, vulnerable people. The fifty I met at a recent 'Exit' meeting were sensible adults, all over 60 and all in control of their lives. That's why we want information. We don't want to wait until we're in a helpless position and unable to do anything but let doctors make all the decisions.

Like you, I'm saddened that our government has gone so far down the path of constricting freedom of speech and that, judging from the other comments, some Australians are happy to see them do it. Isn't it interesting that a right wing government quick to accuse the other side of favouring a 'nanny state' is attempting to prevent me accessing information 'for my own good'!

What is wrong with yous Australians. Why do you want to knock youselves off? You have to get tough. What is wrong with vomiting your own faeces while you're snatching your last breaths? A bit of screaming in agony because the analgaesics don't work will do you good. A bit of self discipline is what is needed here. A good smack on the bottom for those gerries who complain. Yous wants it easy - well it's not. life was meant to be violent. What is wrong with a bit of suffering. Put backbone into you if you have any left after the surgeons have finished. Just because you are hallucinating doesn't mean you can take off for heaven. You'll get plenty of that after you are dead. In the meantime you are needed in the factories. new technology means you can still sit at your desk with your saline drip bolted to your head. New plastic wrap will stop your bowels falling out and a champagn cork fitted to your .... mouth can stop you screaming all the time. There's also the converted water beds where you can float with no bones like jelly fish to get an extra five years of hell. Now buck up chaps and get on with it the pharmaceutical industry needs you.
Barfenzie

"THE PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY NEEDS YOU"

Thanks to barfenzie everything is so transparent.

I shall ignore my 80-plus mother's final request and let her rot in her own vomit - why should she get to die with dignity? Who does this woman who has worked all her life, raised 2 kids, paid taxes, nursed my alcoholic father think she is anyway?

She should die slowly and painfully just like Johnny Howard no doubt will when he is prone on his death bed.

The central issue here is the continuing eroding of citizens rights.This legislation is the latest blow in the ongoing campaign against a persons right to end their life.
Marshall Perron, a Country Liberal Chief Minister of the Northern Territory,introduced legislation into the Northern Territory as Rights of the Terminally ill which permitted four people to end their suffering with dignity before The Andrews bill vetoed the N.T.law despite the wishes of the N.T.to recognise the need.
Doctor Phillip Nietzke, a man of great compassion who understands the need for terminally ill people to die with dignity, has been forced to move his operation to New Zealand where he can continue his advisory service because of this most recent law.
The rationale for this new law is to ban discussion and access to information from teenagers who might be contemplating suicide.
In real life,a person wishing to end their life for whatever reason manages to find a way. This is a separate issue. Friends of mine who have made the decision to end their lives have done so ....Four by shooting; Two have hung themselves and One used overdosing . To my knowledge they didn't discuss their intentions with anybody. Only one was suffering from a terminal illness that I know of.
What is the next freedom this government intends to remove........

I totally agree with maracas, most people are missing the point as to what is objectionable about this legislation. I have no plans to top myself, but I'm sick of the current Government (often with opposition support) infringing on Australians' basic freedoms. Even in the conservative United States, legislation such as this would be greatly opposed as the attack on freedom of speech that it is.

I do not wish to enter into deep discussions on the morality issue here but just to say one point that euthanasia/ mercy killing is widely used by our medicos daily. I don’t see people objecting to that. A recent example is Kerry Packer.

BUT is it just me or hasn't anybody questioned HOW is the government going to find out (let alone legislate) what we do on the internet?

Is Big Brother so paranoia now that they have to tap all our electronic devices?

Having watched a dear relative die a slow terrible death I am going to make sure I do not go the same way.
I doubt that any of the 'right to life' busybodies ever watched someone they love lose everything and everyone they loved in a terrible manner. They could never be so sanctimoniously merciless if they did.
You have a right to dictate how your own life and death is managed, you do not have the right to manage anyone else.
But when all hope has gone and all that is left is pain and indignity, you should have the right to say,"Enough!"

Several days ago I watched a program on Perth TV about a formally very active and fun loving man in his eighties who was slowly dying. He was suffering pain and a variety of indignities. He wanted to die and his wife was lovingly supporting him, but under the law was unable to do anything to help.

The program then switched to a well known Perth "Right to Mind Everyone Else's Business for Them" member. As he spoke against voluntary euthanasia, to me he was the embodiment of evil, perhaps the reincarnation of one of the Spanish Inquisition torturers.

Well I believe in the right to self determination and the right to self defense of my rights. Perhaps this forum is being monitored by govt agents and by saying this I am putting myself at risk of a knock on the door in the middle of the night, as someone comes to take me [together with my computer] to an unknown destination for interrogation. I'll know who they are by the sound of the jackboots on my step.

It was interesting to listen to an interview with Barnaby Joyce about this issue. His evasiveness could not hide his pro-life views. I am begining to think we have another Brian Harradine in the making. I realise his senate vote had nothing to do with this law passing, but how long before he trades his vote for a personal moral view?

This law is about controlling the Philip Nitchke's of this world and shows how absurd this law is. "Oh I'll move the site to NZ, problem solved".

Our? Government is trying to control the flow of information, an impossible task. All it will do is stop informed people disseminating needed information for desparate people.

What a shame we have such a weak opposition leader, but of course he is after every vote he can get. Principles in politics were euthanased long ago.

Euthanasia (literally “good death”), practice of ending a life so as to release an individual from an incurable disease or intolerable suffering,... Or intolerable politicians.

Barns cooked his goose with his last piece of rude, hate-filled drivel. I refuse to read anything else he writes.

The increasing imposition of new legislation to stop this, curb that, prevent something else and punish people for all those new "crimes" is insanity. All it achieves is creating more criminals which generates a need for more prisons. Talk about progressive government!

Have you all noticed that is what governments today do to "fix" problems?

They create legislation. What person in his right mind would believe that a law is going to stop someone from committing suicide, or someone from talking to them about it? As usual only those not directly involved will be caught for doing something they didn't even know they were doing. Those that want to continue their search will still find what they want. Or they will do it more violently, perhaps in a car on a highway. Now that's much better isn't it? Better than choosing to die painlessly and easily and alone. Right.

Suicide used to be a crime for which people who attempted but failed suicide were then punished on top of failing to escape what they wanted to escape. Where's the logic? There is none is there. Maybe a law to force people to not be unhappy might be appropriate? Sounds like a good option.

This whole slant on government policy is about one thing to my mind. That is our PM and his cohorts want to impose their limited views of life on everyone else.

If you think about the laws against terrorist acts it's exactly the same. Will any suicide bombers who fail be pumped for knowledge of who advised them so they can be punished under this law as well as the terrorism laws?

Suicide is more common than our authorities think or admit. Stats only show known suicides and Kerry Packer will not be counted will he as he could afford it.

Could posting here be in breach of this draconion law? Need to be very careful what I say.
Wait until we have some honourable, generally law abiding citizens with terminal and painful illness prosecuted for seeking information on a way to terminate their life wtih dignity. Then see whether the courts will apply the law the way the government intends.

This legislation is just a further example of how debate and dissent is being stifled in this country. What sort of democracy are we?

Again its very personal. I suppose kids could get hold of it on the net. Its like abortion or being gay, as in, so much its certainly not something we would wish to advertise or make hip. Howard would be aware that people slip quitley away all the time with the help of their Drs , especially terminal cancer people and the likes.As much as i hated Packer he was old school enough to do some things the right way, dieing being one of the better things he did..Its sort of like the Australian flag when u see people wrapping it around their bodies with towels and shirts. It does not seem right some how. Thats not respect and dignity. A falg belongs on a flap pole and to take ones own life IS personal and SHOULD be kept that way.I think thats where Howards lot are coming from on this issue to be honest.
Gays in cuboards flags on poles abortion in private discussed with women and their Drs. Taking your own life .. very much the same. Why is it that people feel they have to TELL ALL. How about some good old fashioned descrection .

Spare me Greg Barns. You have done it again. What a preposterous article.

Euthanasia and suicide are not synonymous. Euthanasia is mercy, or assisted death. Suicide is self murder.

Assisted death has been around ever since I started nursing in 1971 (and no doubt before). People were taken off machines so that they could die with dignity. People were not rescucitated so that they could die with dignity. Families and patients - as much as was possible, were engaged in the decision making.

My father was 52 years of age when he died from intractible terminal kidney cancer. He died with dignity in his home with the nursing care of my mother, myself, and a night nursing agency. I made sure he was high as a kite on pethidine for his exit - and I did not overdose him. He talked until his last two hours and then quitely went to sleep with my mother by his side. He was not in pain, not incontinent, and did not have a bed sore - despite many months in bed.

Are you trying to tell me that Dr N's suicide plastic bag kit for suffocation is going to provide a dignified death? Give me a break.

We have an extremely high clinical depression and suicide rate for young people in this country. They are fragile and vulnerable. I have nursed them. They are impuslive and very much influenced by the internet. Would you want your clinically depressed adolescent going to a web site to get a recipe for the best method of suicide? See comment from Realist.

Have you experienced suicide in your family? I have. It has torn our family apart for some 13 years.

My husband will nurse me at home if necessary, and I will nurse him if necessary, and we will both nurse my 78 years old mother if ever necessary. We will take responsibility to ensure that we all die with dignity without killing ourselves or each other.

Kay

Suicide illegal my God!It should be compulsery for some people.Does this mean J.H. will be here forever?jeez luise that means I will have to top myself first.I mean J.H. wouldn't do anything illegal would he?.

PHILB Love your humour . No mate he would not do anything wrong. He just made it his QUIET business to self regulate the Live Animal Export people three weeks after he was elected..He was what some people would call a good poly right back even then. He saw LEGAL problems for his MATES that donate to his party with their blood money and stealing Australians jobs so he FIXED!! it. No hes a real legal bloke .I dont think little JH would ever consider suicide at any rate. To think about ending your life takes guts if your ill or not. He has never done one thing off his own back. Perhaps he will ring his old mate Bush if the time ever comes for him to seek permishion. That does not mean i am against us standing up for the U .S. After all we would have been gone if not for them in the last war. However having watched this man and whom he follows shows little of the type of leadership and personal judgment we would hope for. Cant you just imagine little JH and his old mate Bush sipping brandy over the latest free listed Goverment drugs.[smile]

Greg,if you are really determined to die ,you don't need the internet to show you how.

The Govt is just trying to stop a lot of impressionable youngsters from committing suicide and this has nothing to do with your rights to end the pain.

Anyone who reaches the point of life's negative balance sheet have all manner of exits.Try jumping off a cliff.

Kay,
you say assisted death has been around a long time and I assume you witnessed people not resuscitated and machines being switched off 'so people could die 'with dignity'when you were nursing.

You were also very judgmental of Dr Nietzke.
His plastic bag was an option. He had other less traumatic options which were declared illegal. What is different between your assistance and Dr Nietzke's ?

I can tell you... He only offered assistance when it was asked for by terminally ill people who wanted the option to pass away without pain at a time of their own choosing. When they could say their goodbyes to their loved ones and save them the trauma of waiting around for the inevitable and suffering the indignity of dying helplessly, incontinent.

The orderly ,legal situation which prevailed in the N.T before the disgraceful intervention of Kevin Andrews was destroyed through the bloody mindedness of the political Right.

They did not stop suicide. When a person is determined to end their life they do so. Often it is violent.They die alone and their family doesn't cease to grieve. I believe some do it to punish their family.."you'll be sorry when I'm dead." as misguided as that might be. At least that is what I concluded when my 37 year old daughter, mother of three died in her car with the motor running in the garage on her 14th wedding anniversary almost 10 years ago.

This law will remain as an impediment to the very people assisted death was meant to help.
The reasons for teenage suicide need to be properly assessed and perhaps the causes of stress and pressure to achieve need to be addressed

Why thank you Wendy.You have saved me,I will now wait until after the next election.If J.H. is returned to power my whole family will commit suicide,and baby's that even have been born yet will commit suicide.My dog cat,and budge will commit suicide.Its odds on Peter Costello will commit suicide.Amanda Vandstone?No she already looks dead.Tony Abbot will think about it,renig, and go back to priest training.Kimbo will starve himself to death,this will take about three years.Alexander will have the gay community commit suicide for him by proxy.I should imagine whole suburbs will commit suicide.But fear not,the nightmare of this mob of social mis-fits will soon be gone ,and a new dawn will touch us all.Even the right wing loony fringe that believes the earth is flat will awaken out of their coma.

There is, of course, only one appropriate punishment for the heinous crime of attempted suicide, and that is the death penalty.

As for the crime of suicide, I am still trying to work out an appropriate penalty.

There is a vast difference between the suicide of a chronically,moribund person and the suicide of a young healthy adult.Maybe it is the latter the law is trying to protect.
Young people can despair over a broken romance, a lost exam,their disappointments in many things that will, given time, pass and their attitudes will change over and over. If they give themselves time.
There is no point in prolonging the agony of someone who is never going to recover,they do not need more time, they need a humane end to their suffering.

Maracas,
I'm a little confused. Where does it say in our constitution or laws that we have the right to end our lives?

Also, Dr Nitschke is not a man of great compassion. He is a man who lied whilst happilly killing non-terminally ill patients like Nancy Crick

Yes, Alan quite a lot confused I'd say.So far as I am aware the Constitution does not say you don't have the right.
Dr Nietzke didn't kill Nancy Crick. She made the decision and administered herself at a time of her choosing.
She exercised her right.

MJA data on Eutanasia
http://www.mja.com.au/public/issues/feb17/kuhse/kuhse.html

The medical end-of-life decisions reported by the 800 doctors were as follows: 26 doctors (3.2%) reported euthanasia; 51 doctors (6.4%) reported ending the patient's life without the patient's explicit request; 289 doctors (36.1%) reported making a decision not to treat, of which 55 doctors (19%) reported no intention to hasten death, and 234 doctors (81%) reported an explicit intention to hasten death; and 434 doctors (54.2%) reported alleviating the patient's pain with opioids in large doses, of which 335 doctors (77.2%) reported no intention to hasten death, and 99 doctors (22.8%) reported a partial intention to hasten death .

Its already happening, but Howard must keep the golden boy Kevin Andrews and his catholic do gooders happy.

Aside from my religious and moral objections, euthanasia and dying with dignity should not be in the same sentence. Also in comment, doctors are ethically not allowed to administer lethal doses of drugs- they're bound by the Hippocratic Oath. The vagueness of terms as well-what is considered as 'dying with dignity' and what is considered a 'life'? Life is sacred, it is not a privilege, it is not a choice. These laws address that- just as there are bans on websites that condone suicide bombings in the face of oppression, it should be the same for euthanasia. And also dying with dignity is not a right- being allowed to live is.

Government control over what people say...who woulda thunk it?

Do a little bit of research coach and you’ll soon discover that internet privacy is a myth. Everything we do on the net is up for grabs. If somebody wants to keep tabs on you they can.

Also, I doubt whether all the freely available software including port scanners is only used by freaks and voyeurs or those poor souls for whom internet spying provides the most intimate experience they can ever have with other humans. Surely some of the authorities are using the technology for equally invasive purposes.