I dont see why death is such a big issue with the religious anyway since they seem to regard death as little more than shuffling off this troublesome mortal coil to begin a new life in heaven (for themselves) or hell (for the unbelievers) which, tragic as it may be, is nonetheless where 'God' thinks they should be.

Eternity scorched in hellfire seems a bit harsh for the crime of failing-to-exhibit-blind-faith to me but then I am not an all-seeing, all-knowing and all-loving god.

TurnRight... Steve has not stated a case at all. Which is the point. His whole argument is that he wants to be able to do what he wants, and others shouldn't have the right to stop him.

I haven't made a case against Euthanasia, because there is no need. The people wanting to change the law need to make a case for it that is coherent and doesn't simply hinge on ethical relativism, which is all Steve has done.

As I specifically said in response to Billie, Ethics professors reject ethical relativism specifically because it is incoherent and thus an indefensible view. Curiously enough, Billie mentioned Peter Singer, who argues for consistent (although arguable) preference consequentialist views. Singer defends both euthanasia and infanticide with his arguments.

So my comments are merely pointing out that those like steve have not actually made an argument for euthanasia.

I appreciate that you see that Steve is indeed making a moral claim, as he seems to want to pretend his claim is somehow unrelated to morality.

I also appreciate that you have actually started to make some argument, unlike the others here. Note also, that I have quickly mentioned that the articles author ignored clear historical cases and british government reports that cleearly elucidate that legalising euthanasia has significant problems with flow on effects and coercion.

The BBC has a good summary of arguments against Euthanasia, although their first 3 religious ones are not arguments I would support. Many of these arguments directly relate to your argument, as the idea that there is no 'harm' to others is called into question.

Yvonne, I note you ignore the clear evidence of the Netherlands and yet continue to argue as if whether someone is prosecuted is relevant to the issue or not. You want to talk about not speaking straightly, yet throw red herrings into the discussion.

Billie, why are you so selfish? I am not talking about myself or my own welfare, but the welfare of the many people in society who will be harmed by such legislation.

Steve, I see once again that you are being dishonest. As my previous quotes clearly demonstrated, you want the right to choose. That is clear.

You continue to try and use the incoherent moral relativism. Perhaps when you use something that has rational merit, you will get a better response.

You also trot out the stupid rhetorical trick of implying that it is religion that causes me to comment on your irrationality and stupid ideas. Of course, you have your own faith, everyone does. It is unavoidable. The question is not who has faith, but whose views are correct. Your argument cannot logically be correct because it is contradictory and as you are the one arguing for a change of the current status the discussion is already over, without me needing to make a case.

Now I think we're getting a little closer to the heart of the matter.

One element I am not clear on, is how restricting access to euthanasia is not similarly classified as moral relativism.

On the surface of the matter, one can observe a rule that applies to all human beings - it is easy to draw a line here, and say there is no moral relativism, as the possibilities are set in stone.

However, this is one perception - another is, that in allowing everyone with a terminal illness the option of avoiding a painful death, you are applying it across the board: theoretically, everybody is at risk of having a terminal condition.

It isn't as black and white as the first perception, I grant you. The prime issue, as I see it, is the fact that it is restricted to the terminally ill.

What of those with suicidal tendencies, for whom medication, treatment and psychological assistance does not work? Are they to be granted the same rights?

My response is thus: theoretically, they are not beyond help and this is a key difference. The mind is different to the body.

There is the argument, that perhaps, new medical technologies will extend life.
That even the most terminally ill are not beyond help - in my view it is a dubious claim, but it is a valid comparison.

The problem is... what of the elderly, even if there is in theory, new ways to prolong life, the quality of this life will not be drastically improved. There isn't even potential.
For the suicidal, there is always the potential.

Ultimately, there is a moral aspect to this argument - you can't simply discount it on the basis of moral relativism, as moral relativism is an escapable part of the decision making process - even in law, nay, especially in law.

When weighed up against the moral imperative of ending suffering without hope of relief, well, I can't really see how the arguments stack up.

Please when will this outdated, barbaric practice of keeping the elderly who are terminally ill and in horrific pain, alive. Some people like my father who was aged 87 - could no longer swallow therefore was starving, also could not tolerate pain killers (including morphine) - he went on to suffer, an emaciated skeleton of a man - for several weeks before his heart eventually stopped beating - all this having to be watched helplessly by his loving family - the look of sheer terror in his eyes will never be forgotten. My dad had always expressed his desire not to end up in a nursing home and that he should be able to have his life ended for him if he had no control over bodily functions. I feel that I have let him down and relive with horror the last months of his life - this is not as it should be.

Ollie, thanks for your post.

This is exactly what I meant when I replied to Grey a few posts back:

"Why are you in favour of having people slowly and painfully die of suffocation (withdrawing oxygen) or starvation and dehydration (withdrawing nutrients and water) in our hospitals?
How cruel!
The alternative is to offer patients a quicker and more humane death."

It's barbaric and immoral to force elderly people to suffer like this.

People starve to death right here in Australia because people like Grey and so-called "good Christians" are opposed to euthanasia.

And why are religious people always bragging about how ethical, compassionate and charitable they are? There is NOTHING compassionate about forcing people like Ollie's father to slowly die in pain.