Good on you Bill, I couldn't agree more. My grandfather has just had to go in to a nursing home in the city as his country town does not have facilities for high care. After 87 years in one small town (apart from his years fighting in WWII), he has been moved in to a place where he knows nobody. Sadly, while his body has deteriorated, his mind is still intact. He spends his days mixed in with residents who have severe dementia. Everytime we visit, he tells us he wishes he was dead - it is heartbreaking to someone you love in this position, he ought to be able to make the decision to go peacefully and with dignity at a time of his own choosing.

While there is obviously a vocal minority pushing their religious beliefs on all of us in relation to euthanasia, nobody I have ever discussed this with has disagreed that individuals ought to be able to make the choice. I sincerely hope that the baby boomers raise their voices on this issue and bring about the change that the majority seem to want.

Religious beliefs aside, its a massive step for any government to take. We live in a society that condemns the taking of life in any other form (include capital punishment). Suicide isnt illegal, but to get assistance from someone else, well that's murder no matter what way you frame it. Its might be compassionate murder, but its still murder. Whilst I dont necessarily see that a change in laws to allow this is a bad thing (so long as all the necessary safe-guards are in place), I still think its a big jump to make, and one that probably wont be made for some time. Once the step is made we stand at the top of a very slippery slope. Eg, if we make it legal to help someone die because they are terminally ill or invalided through old age, why dont we make the same allowance for those that are mentally ill, or chronically depressed. particularly the latter have a tendency to commit suicide (or try) anyway, so should we make a humane option available to them too, or is that different? I dont see that there is that much that seperates the two, although I think that very few would support the second option.

Country Gal
To provide someone with information as to painless and humane means of ending one's life is not murder.
Don't cloud the issue. It was not a massive step for the Northern Territory Government. The law worked well for a couple of people who chose to end their suffering before Kevin Andrews and his ilk intervened and quashed the law because the N.T. is not yet a 'State'

Ah Bill, your message is straight from the heart...It is always about choice for the individual, taking into account that individuals ability to cope.

I get so angry with the Right to Life people assuming that everyone lives by their values. I believe that if a person thinks suffering is an enriching part of the living process they're most welcome to their additional brownie points on this earth by all means.

As an atheist and a humanist, I believe that man was not meant to suffer unnecessarily which is why the body has such a sensitive threshold to pain.....I've never been one for kicks for sake of it, so I don't gain any pleasure out of the experience. I don't want to suffer unnecessarily without the prospect of a cure or a return to a life worth living.

The Health Profession can tart up a building with flowers and fresh paint, but at the end of the day....it is what is happening to the person from within...that makes the difference. If the essence of the person, the spirit from within is dead! - then all else is superfluous.

Mary Walsh
www.yourchoiceindying.com

When the pain of living outweighs your pleasures in life and there is no hope for improvement then it seems reasonable to let you go.

Well done Bill it's about time this debate was opened so the little people could be heard.Because the People that run this country do not listen.I had a beautiful Wolfhound aged 8 years old.She fell sick over Christmas 2005 as soon as I could I got her in to the vet.He ran some tests and a week later he operated on her.I got a phone call asking me what would I like done.She was riddled with cancer.The vet could patch her up but she might only live another 3 weeks and that would be in the vet Hospital.It broke my heart but I chose to let her slip away while she was under the anesthetic.Whats this got to do with this debate?I will explain. My Father fell ill for 13 weeks his Doctor treated him for Flue.My Brother phoned me with his concerns.I live in another State,So I organised over the phone for a different Doctor in a Different Practice to see my Father.I phoned my Brother and told him the arrangements.The Doctor did a lot of tests.Finally he was sent to a specalist.Who sent him to Adelaide for exploratory surgery.He was riddled with cancer,nothing could be done for him, so they sewed him back up and told him He had 3 months to live,My Brother and I spent every day and night at the Hospital for Ten days,He couldn't eat and in the end even an eyedropper with water he couldn't take. He would scream out with the pain.He was on automatic morphein drip and even that couldn't relieve the pain.So which is the more Humane way.?
Certainly not to sew him back up and tell him he had months to live.Why couldn't he have been allowed to slip away on the operating table, like my dog.At least She died with dignity.Yes we do need to be able to decide for ourselves when we have suffered enough.Not have some politician take that right away from us.That is what we vote for The Right TO Be Heard.Thank you again Bill