I have never been able to understand by those so against Euthanasia are so rabid about forcing their beliefs on those who want the freedom of choosing if it ever becomes necessary. Are they afraid that they may falter and may choose Euthanasia themselves if it was legal if they ever had to face a long prolonged death? It is unbelievable that there are adults who think they have an obligation to prevent other adults from 'committing a sin'. As a nurse with 30years experience I can tell you that pain is not the only consideration. What if a cancer obstructs your airway and you slowly suffocate to death? You have chosen the legal option and refuse treatment, including surgery to make a hole in your throat. One man I looked after took 2 days to die, eventually the massive doses of Morphine, not for pain, but to dull his breathing urge had the desired 'side-effect' and he died. For all you deeply religious people, Jesus Christ took 9 hours to die on the cross from the moment he was nailed on and the death of the Son of God was enough to atone for the sins of all humankind. What sins do ordinary humans have to atone for that they have to outdo Jesus Christ? With our marvelous medical knowledge we can prolong life and improve quality of life, but a side effect is that our deaths can be very long drawn out. In the Netherlands it has been proven that it is a very small number of people who die through Euthanasia. Even those who have expressed a wish do not necessarily end up dying this way. It sometimes can just be the comfort of being 'in charge' of the self that is enough and the dying person can finish all the living left instead of worrying, fearing and stressing over the death itself.

We treat our pets better than we treat our aged parents. When your elderly cat has a stroke that leaves it unable it walk you put it down. When your widowed mother breaks her hip and is no longer able to get outside for a fag or have a white wine and unable to see what's on TV you insert feeding tubes into her stomach because the children and the hospital are more afraid of dying than she is.

Yes, we should respect the wishes of the terminally ill, especially when their stated wishes for euthanasia have been formulated during their professional career working in geriatric health care. [Is geriatric health care an oxymoron?]

Leslie, If you wish to consult all or some of the published reports listed below, you will find that every inquiry found that it would not be possible to safely legalise euthanasia, 3 of them unanimously, though they all included some who were in favour of euthanasia. None used any argument based on religious belief.
1. Select Committee on Medical Ethics. House of Lords. January, 1994.
2. When Death Is Sought - Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia in the Medical Context. The New York State Task Force on Life and the Law. May, 1994.
3. Of Life and Death. Report of the Special Senate Committee on Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide. Senate of Canada. June 1995.
4. Report on the Need for Legislation on Voluntary Euthanasia. Community Development Committee, Parliament of Tasmania. June 1998.
5. Report of the Inquiry into the Voluntary Euthanasia Bill 1996. Social Development Committee, Parliament of South Australia, October 1999.
brian.

When the abortion debate commenced a long time ago the arguement was about the 14 year old girl who was raped and was to young to have her life 'ruined'. In a couple of decades the debate has shifted to the 80000 abortions in Australia alone each year who kill babies largely due to convenience. I would be a lot more comfortable with the debate if people were honest about it. I think people should be able to refuse medication or choose their own death if they want to. When we start talking about assisting this process all the alarm bells ring again. The pro euthenasia always pretend that they are the compassionate ones not wanting to see people in agony. The truth is that their are compassionate and uncompassionate peoole on both sides of the debate. I gather Mark LAtham was pr euthenasia (apologies if wrong). Does that make him less compassionate than Mr Rudd who I assume is against it?

I really do not care what reports say, I am personally confronted by this issue. Not a family member , not an aging parent, not a friend, ME at 52 years of age.

I have incurable cancer, I have fought it for many years. There will come a time, sooner rather than later, when I will be faced with the fact that there is nothing more my gifted, skilled, team of medical professionals can do.

When this time comes my quality of life will rapidly decline (not that it is great at the moment but you play the cards you are dealt). I am prepared to die, I have no religious beliefs and expect no afterlife. I am comfortable with this inevitable fact.

So we come to the crunch, I go into palliative care, knowing I am going to die. The wonderful nurses do their best to make my final days a little more comfortable. The level of analgesia needed rises, the effects are less effective. Do I ask the nurse to increase the dose to a level we both know is possibly fatal? I end up a zombie and die.

Or do I have my family and friends around, while I am still coherent, where I can help them. Yes in my death I can help them accept it, lessen their grief and end this life with dignity and a sense of control.

But to achieve this someone must break the law and possibly face prosecution with serious penalties, surely it is not difficult to frame laws to assist me.

Who has the right to deny me this, my choice. To those whose morals and ethics tell them this is wrong, get stuffed. If you want to die a protracted death, alone, in a incoherent morass of drug induced stupor, your choice. Don't insist it should be mine.

You have to love it when people argue that peoples who hold to a different morality that thinks euthenasia is bad are wrong because people should get to decide according to their own values...itself a moral judgement they want to oppose on everyone else.

The incoherence of the ethical relativistic argument is obvious. Those who hold to it are not being rational or honest. (Which is why you will be hard pressed to find an ethics professor defending the view these days as they get massacred in any debate)

Its one thing if you want to argue that we should have the right to euthenasia, but at least do it on more coherent grounds.

It was also interesting to see the author ignore the evidence that legalising euthenasia ends up meaning that involuntary euthenasia is inenvitable, as the netherlands shows quite clearly, and the UK government report concluded. (Funny how people argue against the death penalty based on the chance of executed the innocent...such consistency)