Like the majority of Australians, I think that euthanasia should be permitted. I think its vital discussion topic for an aging population that has a high proportion of never marrieds - no children.

There is nothing so wicked as watching your once proud parent being grimly kept alive against their stated wish to maintain their lifelong independence and oft times stated wish to die with dignity at a time of their choosing.

Actuallly, Michael, it's the second time the machinery of government has creaked into action to stymie this same man. Never mind that they have done so in the face of unusual unanimity among the electorate in favour of the actions being proscribed. You seem to think (and I use the term loosely) it's axiomatic that being 'tired of life' is not sufficient reason for ending it. Perhaps, for believers, this might be the case. For those of us who do not believe we are created, let alone created in the image of God, and are hence uniquely valuable, such an assumption requires something in the way of argument and evidence. I would be delighted to see you provide some, but fear that were I to hold my breath until you did so, I would not need to call on Dr Nitschke's services.

More drivel from Mr Cook. Opus Dei would be proud of him, yes he is a member of the Pope's secret army.

I won't even bother to comment on this piece of bile.

Quite funny in an absurd sort of way.
"Ending better than mending", what a brave new world it could be...

What a gutless article. Sneering and taking cheap shots is always easier than laying out your own beliefs and justifying them.

Interesting to see the number of one line cheap shots, claiming there's a lack of argument in Michael Cook's article!

Nitschke has been selling suicide to people for many years, whether they're suffering from depression or not, whether they're old or young, whether they're terminally ill or not. Counselling or procuring another person to commit suicide is illegal because it is recognised that suicidal people are desperate and vulnerable. Nitschke's made a career out of it. Good on Cook for exposing him.

Majella, you can kill yourself very efficiently indeed without Dr Nitschke's help. Most people who suicide manage to do so with no outside involvement. An overdose of paracetamol, for example, is exceptionally effective, so long as you don't let anyone know you've done it until the liver damage is irreversible. (Gosh, could I be prosecuted for writing that?) Will we now see Mr Cook produce a searing expose of Woolworths' role in assisting suicide? It would make about as much sense as the rest of his witterings. What you and Cook seem to most object to is Nitschke's openness and his disavowal of the moral tenets you propound. Cracks in the Christian social edifice, eh? Can't have that. Let's paper over them with legislation.

I wonder about the validity of the desire for 'dignity' based around independance and ability. If an infirmed person's 'dignity' is destroyed by their infirmity, then the idea that dignity lies in how we react to difficulty has been unfortunately ousted. Where is the dignity in disability, when an able person who is sick looses theirs so quickly?

Another victory of lifestyle over life?

Euthanasia and suicide are not the same thing. Suicide is when you kill yourself. Euthanasia is when, for quality of life issues, someone else kills you or helps you kill yourself at your request (voluntary) or without a request but they think it's best (involuntary). That’s why it’s sometimes called “assisted suicide”. It’s not illegal to kill yourself. But it’s illegal for other people to kill you or to help you kill yourself. It’s illegal to encourage other people to kill themselves. I think that’s the way it should be. Otherwise consent would have to be an absolute defence to murder/manslaughter, instead of just being (as it is now) a potential mitigating factor.

I think the operation of the new laws to prevent discussion of euthanasia is not so desirable (and I mean discussion rather than encouragement). Surely, by careful definition, the desired application of the laws could have been brought about and I understand the desired application was to really about preventing suicide cults on the Internet encouraging young people to kill themselves. I would be interested to know if posters think it is okay to encourage old people to kill themselves but not young people. Do we value old people less? Or do we value old people more and say that they have a greater capacity for decision making so it’s okay for old people to decide to die but not young people?

Magella.

I take issue with your comment about cheap one line shots and your assertion that Dr. Nitschke is selling suicide.

Of the 2,500 suicides in Australia the majority are by hanging, next is overdose on prescription drugs. How many single vehicle accidents are really suicide but are not added to the statistics? If people want to commit suicide there are many web sites to tell them how, it is not illegal to view this information just illegal to pass on the knowledge to someone else. Maybe Google should be prosected.

With Mr Cook’s article we all know his agenda; he is bound by his membership of Opus Dei to follow the views of the Catholic Church.

I have terminal cancer and therefore euthanasia is a subject I have had to think about in more that bioethical terms.

There are questions like “when is life no longer worth living”? A difficult question that I have had to address and I have not come to a conclusion yet.

But being confined to bed in an opiate induced stupor, being fed through a tube and having someone wipe my ass is not a life worth living. But of course I can always ask my Doctor to end it with a terminal opiate injection and the majority will oblige.

Cook’s article is a cheap shot at Dr. Nitschke his only remedy to a complex problem is good palliative care, sounds good in theory, he really means good hospice care. Palliative care is treating symptoms like honey and lemon for a sore throat. He can’t even get his terminology correct.

My niece committed suicide five weeks ago; she was depressed sought help and was dismissed by our Mental Health system. If the government and Cooks of this world really want to help lobby against suicide they would do better to get better mental health services.

There will come a time when you have to have this discussion with yourself, as I have, you will find that religion has no place in your deliberations.

Veryself, you are either very cruel or very ignorant, nothing could be further from the truth than what you posted about paracetamol as an effective method of suicide. Its harder to think of a more painful, slow or ineffective choice.

The Paracetemol Information Centre states " A fatal overdose of paracetamol, no matter how large, is unlikely to bring about death in under five days, at least some of which are likely to be spent in hospital." http://www.pharmweb.net/pwmirror/pwy/paracetamol/pharmwebpicjournalist.html

Let's go for cruel, AndrewM. 'Effective' simply means 'it works'. I don't recall advocating suicide by paracetamol overdose, or suggesting it was other than inadvisable, painful and slow. My point was simply that the means of committing suicide are readily available, and don't require the intervention of another, or access to a website. Which renders the pontifications of the likes of Mr Cook otiose at best.

"with good palliative care, the days of justifying lethal injections with lurid descriptions of excruciating torment are largely over."

Not in the valid opinions of many people who are suffering endless excruciating pain.

"Dying can still be an uncomfortable business marked by weakness, dependency and lack of control, but these do not suffice for euthanasia."

In whose opinion, the Pope's, as relayed by his double agent, Michael Cook? Or in the opinion of those people who are suffering in this way, with no hope of improvement in their condition?

"For years, euthanasia has been tainted by its association with the Nazis"

So why has VOLUNTARY euthanasia had such a high level of support in the community for so many years, if it's so tainted?

"The potential market is far bigger than the white-haired old dears who toddle along to his suicide workshops"

You patronising what-you-are!

Michael Cook’s ‘positive spin’ on the enactment of the Suicide Related Material Offences Act 2005 cannot disguise the fact that all this will do is drive the voluntary euthanasia movement further underground. This is in no-one’s interest. His patronising comments on ‘white haired old dear dears’ augment those he has previously directed at ‘vulnerable women’, or those now well-known and strong-willed women who have gone public with decisions to end their lives in an effort to promote legal reforms for voluntary euthanasia.

Palliative care specialists concede that even optimal palliative care has not made it unnecessary or unreasonable for some to wish for a hastened death. All should be allowed the choice which they consider to be right for them. Voluntary euthanasia is not an alternative to palliative care, but complementary to it.

‘Privatised DIY death’ is a reaction to the suffering perpetuated through opposition to legal reforms that would respect the rights of desperately ill people to face death on their own terms. How much longer will a lonely death by ones own hand be the only option for those whose suffering will be relieved only through death?

Julia Anaf

Unlike most Australians apparently, I cannot 'favour' or 'support' euthanasia. My reasons are manifold and somewhat ill-defined. I am utterly irreligious. Voluntarily dying does instinctively seem somehow a betrayal of our species.
My clearest argument is the old 'slippery slope'. A couple of correspondents have touched on the matter of medical costs. In this country much medical expenditure is (to my regret) borne by the public purse. In an atmosphere of permissiveness surrounding euthanasia, could some future cash-strapped government be relied on not to 'off' the more expensive of their charges. It will help balance the budget for a geriatric population...
As for Nitschke....campaigning for death is a damned strange thing to spend a life on and we would all do well to be highly suspicious of the bloke's motives; something alluded to by the article's writer.

Thirty years ago, late one Saturday night, my alcoholic father crashed to the floor in a coma.

Upon arrival the locum who responded to my mother's call examined my father and delayed calling an ambulance.

When he did call for an ambulance, he conferred with the ambos for some time, he then checked my father's vitals - dad was dead.

An autopsy was required, as my father was one of those men who rarely attended doctor's - the autopsy revealed a massive cerebral hemorrhage. Had my father been 'saved' he would've been a complete vegetable. Due to the locum's actions my father died peacefully and painlessly in his own home.

My 96 Y.O. grandmother caught pneumonia and was hospitalised, after saying farewell to her daughters and sons, she pulled out all life support during the night and downed some cached painkillers. She, too passed away peacefully and on her own terms after farewelling her family.

My mother, now 82, has made her wishes very clear - she does not want to be placed on life support. If she reaches a stage where she is no longer corpus-mentis then she too wishes to be euthanised.

To demean Dr Nitsche's struggle for the autonomy of terminally ill people is a cheap and shallow argument, the intent of which is simply the desire for control over people's lives.

Watching somebody slowly die of cancer in their last stages, is a very sad and traumatic experience. An article in today's paper here discusses exactly this. A man in his 70s, having watched his friend go through all this, insists that when his time comes, he wants to die with dignity, not that long, painfull drawn out process.

Religious people sometimes claim that religious belief gives them dignity. It seems that its the religious who want to deny that dignity to people at a time when they would need it most. So much for being humanitarian!

Why in a supposedly civilised society do we continue having the Euthanasia debate?

Would a religious person put down a suffering animal or pet? Of course they would and yet many would let a loved one suffer for what they would wrongly call a moral reason.

Euthanasia has one legal problem. This is where a person (loved one) might place some influence on a Dr in the name of love to gain earlier access to an inheritance. This is so simple to solve.

Everyone should have a living will that expresses their wishes for their time of failing health. If a person (the patient) expresses a wish for Euthanasia then he should be seen by two totally independent Drs (not known to the family) and seperate prognoses given. If the ill person is unable to convey his/her wishes then the living will is examined and the independent Drs should be called in by the attending Dr to make their independent assessments. The decision should be taken based on the living will and the independent Drs opinions only.

The family need not meet these independent Drs.

Once this is done the patient should be Euthanased in a painless and peaceful manner. If God created all things, then he created the option of dying in pain or in peace... Legalise euthenasia so that the peaceful death option is the one that can be chosen should it be the patient's wish.

Having watched both my parents die in agony ... even with morphine ... I can't believe people are against Euthanasia.

Michael Cook, I am one of your "little white haired" ladies lining up to attend Dr Nitschke workshop. Until you've walked in our shoes, you cannot understand the position that we come from. For this, you could be grateful but then, you are not yet dead yourself!

I too, hold opinions on this matter exactly the opositite to your own. I don't mean to insult or abuse another's opinion because they differ from mine, but what I do want is the choice, for myself.

Preferably, medically assisted dying would be a great choice!

Philip Nitschke is fulfilling a need in our society. The fact you do not require his services (yet) is a blessing, but don't crow too loudly.

A law will not prevent people from committing suicide or voluntary euthanasia as no doubt the statistics will reflect, I'm sure in the next year or two.

I operate a website specifically opposed to the Right to Life at any cost! I want legislative change and to this end I put my actions where my mouth is, hopefully without being too insenstive to those who disagree with my POV.

Mr Michael Cook, a major advantage our movement has is a Professor of Bioethics, Peter Singer, whose views as opposed to your own , is not coloured by religious views. Views, which impinge on the rest of society regardless of their rights to differ. Many of us are not Christians and therefore value life differently.

In closing

It has been said "He is alive, but only in the sense that he cannot be legally buried".

Mary Walsh
www.yourchoiceindying.com

I forgot to ask Mr Cook whether your mother is still alive and able to read your insulting comments relating to the lonely women who fear dependency.

One would hope no one needs to rely on you for tea and sympathy.

You appear to be as insensitive about women in general as you are about their dying needs.

By the tone of your article you appear to have little respect for women in general, and I am so very glad you are not my son, a feeling which I am sure, is mutual. You sound so cold and cynical, we would not get on.

Your attitude towards yourself and other people determines the quality of all your relationships.

1 to 5% of dying people are not assisted by Palliative Care - that is the official verdict. I, for one, do not want to be part of that statistic which is provided by various medical professionals whose whole life is dedicated to Palliative Care: 1% came from the Right to Life American lobbyist and the 5% an Australian Pallative Care Specialist. Who would volunteer to test the findings? Mr Cook?

Palliate, a word which means to mask and cover up by excuses and apologies. Be honest, for what purpose is the point of covering up death. It will come to all of us, no matter how desperately medical technology fights it. It is the nature of things that we die, the manner in which we do that can be more distressing than death itself.

To those who have shared their painful stories of about the reality of euthanasia and suicide. And the outcome of it being denied! thank you.

Mary Walsh
www.yourchoiceindying.com

Michael Cook is in the minority - over 75% of Australians agree with voluntary euthanasia to help painful suffering.

Since there are so many people here that agree with VE, you might also like to look at this Aussie pro-choice/VE blog & site ..... Mary posts to it almost daily. Steve Madden - I really think you'd enjoy reading the blog. And I think you both live in the same state in Australia.

http://www.yourchoiceindying.com

Look forward to reading some comments in Mary's guestbook from you Steve to things that Mary says in her blog.... I've enjoyed reading your thoughts on VE in this forum. Hope you'll continue your comments on her site.

I've had to wait to make a final point about Michael Cook's view points.

Steve Maddon is the classic example of what it takes to understand the difference between holding a view point as an observer and that of a participant.

A couple of years ago we VESV group of volunteers stood on the steps of Parliament House promoting VE. A man approached me, to say that until the previous week he always thought the God would take care of everything for his family. That faith would sustain him!. Now, he told me, he was not so sure, because in the space of a week, his wife was being operated on for breast cancer and he himself had been diagnosed with prostate cancer. Within one week, he whole world had changed in a manner he could never have foreseen.

He went on to say, he thought it was courageous of us to "Stand and Be Counted" for what we believed it and for the first time in his life he understood where we were coming from.

Perhaps Mr Cook needs, to spend real quality time, assisting those unfortunate enough to share the environment of a hospice or palliative care unit, to feed the feeble, to inject the skin and bone looking for a vein, long since crumbled because of excessive trauma from previous treatments. To attend to their bed sores caused by pressure from being left lying in one place, just that little bit too long, on the same skin and bone that once used to be a thriving body. And of necessity, clean their vomit and diarrhea. I once soiled my bed 8 times in one night and it was not unusual to vomit into my untouched meal literally.

This is the reality that encourages the promotion of Voluntary Euthanasia.

A reader of my website chuckled at my defining "rotting bodies from within" but that is what is occuring when our bodily system is breaking down. Our bodies are disintergrating from within and it is time to die, but medical technology does not allow it.

Mary Walsh
www.yourchoiceindying.com

Mr Cook---
"But with good palliative care, the days of justifying lethal injections with lurid descriptions of excruciating torment are largely over. Dying can still be an uncomfortable business marked by weakness, dependency and lack of control, but these do not suffice for euthanasia." Says who?
You have some definitive test that measures suffering that you use to be able to say to the dying that they aren't suffering? have you experienced dying personally. No I don't mean watched from outside but had the experience yourself?
How dare you purport to know what others are experiencing and then have the gall to tell them how to live their lives! OK I can see that if someone is under say 30 they still owe a debt to society (they won't have paid enough taxes to cover the expense of getting them to this point in their life)and there maybe some tenuous economic reason to get involved. But after that? No hands off and go live your own life and allow the rest of us to live ours for as long as we deem reasonable.
Mind you there are those that are of the mind that think euthanasia is the 'thin end of the wedge'. Yeah right they think that it will be used to snuff them out against their will. In your case that might be true, I don't know. Perhaps the 'wedge' people don't trust their friends and relatives---perhaps they have reason to be scared?