Angelika – you claim that potential problems with the misuse of medically assisted suicide “could be easily solved and managed”. Hmmm.

In your article you make several references to the “seriously and terminally ill” and in doing so you seem to imply that you want to see access to euthanasia limited to these groups.

But clearly that is not what Exit wants, as you cite the mission statement of Exit as being, “every rational adult should have the right to a dignified, peaceful and reliable death at a time and place of one’s choosing.” No requirement there for a person to be ‘seriously or terminally ill’.

Indeed, you refer to euthanasia as an “elementary right” and a “human right”. If you believe that then you must regard euthanasia as a right that every human being must have access to regardless of their state of health.

After all what did the founder of Exit, Philip Nitschke, state explicitly, in writing, when asked by journalist Katherine Lopez “Who qualifies? Who decides if a life is worth living?”

Nitschke: “So all people qualify . . . including the depressed, the elderly bereaved, the troubled teen. If we are to remain consistent and we believe the individual has the right to dispose of their life, we should not erect artificial barriers in the way of any sub-groups who don’t meet our criteria. This would mean that the so-called “peaceful pill” should be available in the supermarket so that those old enough to understand death could obtain death peacefully at the time of their choosing.” National Review Online, June 5, 2001

With a leader like that Angelika, how are you going to easily manage any abuse of euthanasia? Or don’t you think Nitschke’s comments are problematic?

Nitschke himself has since accepted he went too far with the "troubled teen" comment, and now believes that a certain "life experience" is needed to make a sound judgment on terminating one's own life. His workshops are typically restricted to those over 55.

My preference would be that assisted suicide should be available to anyone who has been diagnosed by at least 2 separate doctors as being inflicted with a terminal disease that will cause discomfort for the remainder of their life. For those under 18, parental consent would be necessary. This would at least make legal what doctors do already when they grant very high doses of painkillers in the knowledge that it will bring about death (but on the subtext that it will reduce discomfort).

Angelika,
I like your optimism. You say 'It is absolutely necessary that considerations and precautions are made to protect society from the misuse of voluntary euthanasia. However these are technicalities which could be easily solved and managed'. Does it not dawn on you that if that were really the case, it would have been done lomg ago? Do you know that every published report of the parliamentary inquiries into the consequences of legalising euthanasia around the world have ALL, repeat ALL, found that safe euthanasia law is impossible? Read one and find out why. I hope you don't find that banal.

bjp:

One of the most common objections to legalising euthanasia is that doing so is likely to lead to cases of individuals dying when they could possibly have gone on to live healthy, productive lives. While I agree that such an outcome is possible, perhaps inevitable, on its own, it is not a strong argument against legalising euthanasia.

As it is, a percentage of murderers are known to re-offend after being released from prison on parole. Should therefore all murderers be put away for life with no parole, no exceptions, because of the small possibility of deaths by re-offenders?

Further, people die all the time due to current existing legislation: legislation that makes it legal for people to drive, to work on construction sites, to operate mines etc. etc. If the main point of government legislation was to prevent deaths at any cost we would all be wrapped up in cotton-balls and never achieve anything. Any change to government legislation that is intended to improve society in general, and the lives of most of us, carries with it the risk of unintended negative side-effects. Euthanasia laws are no different, and like most things in life, it's a question of balancing out the benefits against the risks. I would suggest that the current system that puts such a weight on extending the lives of terminally ill patients as long as possible takes up valuable resources from our medical system, that could instead be used treating patients that are not terminally ill, but are currently being neglected (potentially to the point of death) because of an overstretched health system. It cuts both ways.

Angelika - a great very well-written opinion. I thought it presented the pro-VE argument well.

A few comments that I'd like to add.....

- the legislation that you refer to is about criminalising the TRANSMITTING OF information to an Australian via internet, email, telephone and fax. This is via The Criminal Code Amendment (Suicide Related Material Offences) Law 2005.

- I can also say that the right to life does NOT equate to the "duty to suffer".

- to Angelika & bjp, there are studies that show that there is NO SLIPPERY SLOPE in the places where VE is legal. Just google it and you'll see these reputable sites mentioning the most recent of the studies.....

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/09/070926191348.htm
Doctor-aided Suicide: No Slippery Slope, Study Finds

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-09/uou-dsn092507.php
Doctor-aided suicide: no slippery slope

http://unews.utah.edu/p/?r=092507-2
DOCTOR-AIDED SUICIDE: NO SLIPPERY SLOPE

http://www.6minutes.com.au/dirplus/images/6minutes/newsletter/26_09_2007.pdf
this is an Australian doctor's site

- another study actually found that in those countries where VE is legal people lived longer - because of the peace of mind knowing that they had a control over their future. Against any unbearable suffering that may be laying ahead. It stops a lot of people from taking their own steps.

- in Australia 3 elderly people commit suicide each week using their own methods. I'm sure many of them would be avoided if they had peace of mind.

Angelika - I'm only sorry that it's an issue that people don't really want to "confront" until they are in that position, because a lot of the supporters are those that are "elderly, seriously or terminally ill" as you've said. Not many have internet access, not many have the good health to go stage protests like other protest groups. No, unfortunately except for a brave few who have come forward for the Peanut Project, to attend workshops or for TV documentaries many supporters are silent.

And this is the main reason why it is a "silent" issue. Despite having wide support - over 80% of Australians agree with it's legalisation - there aren't many visible, active supporters. And this is a great pity.

What does everyone think?

Here we go again with that old cliche "how are [we] going to easily manage any abuse of euthanasia?" What is abuse? It seems emanate from the standards of bluenoses who think they have the right to determine what someone else can do. Seems like I hear that cliche often from people of certain religious beliefs who think their standards should be imposed on others. They don't of course put it that baldly but rely on "abuse" "slippery slope" and related excuses so that THEIR standards are imposed on others.

They have been terribly successful in getting pollies to force their beliefs onto the community. Examples abound: the banning of THE PEACEFUL PILL HANDBOOK, draconian legislation that forbids me(and everyone else) from having euthanasia information on my computer's hard disk or discussing same over the telephone, and the now thankfully departed Herr Ruddler's election stunt to try to get EXIT workshops raided by the police.(One of the items that was huffed and puffed about was a film that apparently cannot be shown as the pen pusherocracy hasn't classified (read: banned) it. Well its available on YOUTUBE, so there is little the petty bureaucrats and their wowser supporters can do about this.Tough luck chaps, you can't ban everything you don't approve of.)

As an adult I have the right to obtain information about euthanasia and to make my own decision. To those whose beliefs are that a painful death is morally ennobling, that is your choice. But do not presume to impose such on me with disingenuous arguments about "abuse" and "slippery slope".