Ollie and Celivia,

What you have expressed and what Steve expressed before is what respecting the wishes of the terminally ill is all about. Respecting wishes of autonomous human beings about their own end of life decisions.

Every one of us has to make our peace with how we live and die with ourselves and our beliefs (or not) in a higher power. These decisions are too important to leave to others who may not have our beliefs and our values.

It is also manifestly unjust to burden anyone in the medical profession having to make end of life decisions on behalf of others without knowing what their patient's spiritual needs are.

There is nothing wrong with having a strong Christian faith and knowing that this will carry you through at the end of life, but this is not something that can be forced on anyone. That is what free will is all about. Having read the bible, I cannot find anywhere that you could be 'saved' against your will. Regardless of how much you suffer in this life if you do not repent. No matter how much a caring Christian may desire your salvation and place in heaven.

This is why I asked Grey a few times why it is wrong to respect the wishes of the terminally ill. This is what we have been discussing, not the merits or otherwise of professors of any ilk. Over the years I have yet to hear a valid argument from a Christian's point of view why their interpretation of what God wants should be forced on others who do not hold this view.
Salvation, if you will, has to be the free choice of each individual. Grey's comments are pretty typical. Lots of bluster and lots and lots of sneering, but no substance.

In secular Australia we should not have laws that are only relevant from a theological point of view. Isn't it why we are so concerned about fundamental islam with its sharia law that is imposed on all?

I think that our society finds it difficult to allow Euthanasia because of concerns that it could be used illegally by some families or others in positions of trust. There must be ways of overcoming these concerns.

For myself, although I do have a religious background, I also believe that God is merciful and would forgive my decision. I would not want to live in an extremely painful or vegetative or undignified state. The undignified state comes very high on my list.

Another problem is that despite the wishes of the person wishing to die, family members often overturn such decisions with unfortunate consequences.

Let's hope that Euthanasia is made legal, than most of these issues can be resolved without leaving families or members of the medical profession.....dare I say...in limbo.

Tillietee - In Queensland any competent adult can express their wishes formally and in the Advance Health Directive (AHD), a legal document that binds doctors on issues such as resuscitation, artificial feeding, hydration, use of antibiotics etc. It also contains a section that appoints a health attorney who would have the power to say yes or no to a treatment - for instance, in the case of a new technique not envisaged at the time of the AHD. If every adult stated their wishes in some such document much unnecessary angst and unwanted treatment could be avoided.

Just to clarify: euthanasia, being illegal, is not included in the AHD.

Through many posts there has been confusion between unlawful killing of the terminally ill person and bringing on an earlier death as a side effect of a treatment to relieve suffering. Our laws recognise what is often called the "doctrine of double effect". That is, that the intention of the treating doctor is to relieve the patient's symptoms (such as pain, fitting, agitation, suffocation), not to actively kill the patient.

Like Yvonne, I have worked in a palliative care unit. Maybe some of the furore against euthanasia would subside if the public were more aware of how terrible the process of dying can be for the patient, despite all that medical science can offer. People live much longer with their diseases than they did 50 years ago, partly due to modern medication, and may live with levels of pain, disability, and increasingly frequent interventions that may eventually render life unbearable.

Palliative Care will continue as a movement and practice regardless of whether euthanasia becomes legal in Australia. One is not a substitute for the other.

I have yet to hear a sound argument against euthanasia. I agree that there would need to be many safeguards, and there would be risks - but that's life, and death.

Peggy, that was very well said.

I've had a debate with a practising Catholic lawyer, but the debate basically became an issue of semantics, talk of 'Double effect', intention, and why passive euthanasia was OK, but active euthanasia wasn't, but then, what exactly is passive or active euthanasia?

Nicolas Filip-Tontini (a Catholic bio-ethicist) in an article argued that turning off the ventilator on the request of a competent women with end stage motor neurone disease was not active Euthanasia. Semantics like this frustrates me. Obviously he has never personally had to turn off a ventilator.

While we hide behind word games and argue about some definitions, we deny total frank discussion on end of life decisions by those most affected.

For anyone to simply believe that refusal of continuing treatment is enough better think very carefully about possible ramifications later on when starting on that high blood pressure medication or cardiac medication now. As you said, medical science has allowed many of us to have significantly improved length and quality of life. but at the end of the day that can be a horrible double edged sword.

Steve and others, you may know of Phil Nitschke, the Australian Doctor, whose stance on euthanasia has been brave and persistent.
His latest book, ‘The Peaceful Pill’ was pulled of the shelves last week for promoting euthanasia.

This is an example of how Australia is being controlled by government interference.

Below is the website Exit International – I thought you would be interested in it as well if you don't already know about it.

http://www.exitinternational.net/

"Australian Government Bans The Peaceful Pill Handbook

At 2am on Sunday 25 February 2007, the Australian Office of Film and Literature Classifcation overturned their December 2006 ruling and took the unprecedented step of banning The Peaceful Pill Handbook from publication & sale in Australia."