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.