“…at least 50 per cent of patients killed under the Dutch euthanasia program…”

“Killed” is a very strong word for a peaceful, requested death by euthanasia; it’s use a very dishonest ploy to repel people from euthanasia.

“A 1991 study showed that an average of three people a day underwent euthanasia without their knowledge or consent.”

Another claim to be ignored until the author produces proof of this study.

Dutch parents are able to collude in ‘killing’ children aged under 12. This character uses some very emotive language and ideas to cover up his complete lack of real argument against euthanasia. Nothing new for religious dogmatists.

And, who says, apart from this narrow-minded Presbyterian, that many elderly people in Holland are afraid to seek medical help for fear of being euthanized? Are we supposed to take his word as a ‘good Christian’ who believes in suffering?

Who is this fellow to presume that what might or might not be happening in Holland would happen in Australia, anyway?
It seems that the Presbyterian Church has gone even further backward than it was when I gave it away 50 years ago.

Only a few days ago, a TV programme had on a doctor who openly said that he had been involved in euthanasia; so have many more doctors.

It’s only a matter of time before people will be able to legally request an end to their sufferings; in the meantime, good luck to all those people who now have the means to choose the type of death they want, rather than suffer as the do-gooders and fanatics want them to.

Once again, people who worship a particular god demand the right to impose their morals on everyone. You don't have that right, and I am not aware that that right exists in any Constitution or UN Charter. Your god may say that it is OK to prolong life to the nth degree, regardless of the quality of that life or the wishes of the possessor of that life, but I will not subscribe to, or be bound by, the rules of any such heartless cruel, uncaring religion. It is my decision, and my right,in these circumstances to to determine the nature and timing of my death.
David makes the common mistake that politicians should be subject to the rules of his church. I don't imagine that he would be happy if they were subservient to, or led by, non-chrictian churches that differed in their approach. Similarly, I take great offence that because David believes something, I should be bound by his belief. Such arrogance is appalling in a member of a church that preaches humility. For David to assert that he is not ignorant of the issues of great pain and suffering is clearly delusional, as he appears to wish to inflict it on those who differ in their approach to life and death. I doubt that a non-subscriber to his faith would get much pain relief from a visit from a chaplain.
I sincerely hope, for David and his ilk's sake, that they do not end up suffering a prolonged, agonising death, with their only relief being massive doses of drugs that keep one semi-conscious, or the prattlings of a chaplain. In that case, I would fervently wish for the blessed relief of death.

None of the United Nations human rights instruments contain a “right to die”. They are all about the flourishing and development of each human individual, not the deliberate and orchestrated ending of an individual’s life.

The Bill claims to contain certain safeguards, something emphasised by Ms Hartland in her second reading speech. However, did Justice Menhennit, in his 1969 ruling on abortion, realise that his ruling would lead to one abortion to every three live births in Victoria a few decades later?
I would put it quite differently. Why should the United Nations or the State have the right to deny a terminally ill or worn out elderly person the choice of calling it quits? Living wills should be legal. Now in my late seventies I hope someone will follow my instructions when I have run out of the ability to contribute. I suggest that it is unethical to deny me my last right.
What evidence does the author have that the abortion rate before 1969 was lower? I suggest the rate then was merely unknown. Now at least the woman has adequate care and a much better chance of survival. At a time when it is obvious to even the more dull that we are running out of food and fuel why does the human rate need a birth rate above the replacement rate?

Leaving aside all issues of religious belief for a moment, this article is simply deceitful.

>>A 2005 study showed that at least 50 per cent of patients killed under the Dutch euthanasia program were suffering from depression. A 1991 study showed that an average of three people a day underwent euthanasia without their knowledge or consent. Studies in 1991 and 1995 showed that, despite Dutch law requiring physicians to report physician-assisted death, the majority of deaths went unreported.<<

Four "studies". None specifically identified.

>>Holland - a country where many elderly sick people are afraid to seek medical help because they fear being euthanised without their consent<<

No citation at all.

>>Ms Hartland quoted statistics from a Newspoll poll to the effect that 80 per cent of Australians support euthanasia and only 14 per cent oppose euthanasia. But the results of polling is highly dependent upon who is polled, the information provided and the actual wording of the questions. I suggest caution be exercised over the Newspoll poll.<<

Caution, Mr Palmer? If you ask us to exercise caution over this, how do you suggest we approach your other assertions?

Cynically, perhaps?

“Give me that old-time religion!” The author seems to be steeped in the old dour Scottish Presbyterianism which campaigned against the introduction of anaesthetics for use during childbirth. It decreed that minimization of occasions of extreme pain in birthing situations was un-natural.
Such extreme preaching did not stop the advance of the high standard of medicine in that country. Perhaps there might be affinity by the author with the then locals on Scotland’s island of St. Kilda (now abandoned) when they killed the last Great Auk, after it waddled out of the sea, on the basis that it might have been the reincarnation of a witch.

David's last point is "the" point for me. He speaks of Drs maintaining "life" which raises the question of how we define "life". Life which has lost all quality is not "life", for me it is "existing". Medical science has brought us many great outcomes but it can also extend our existence beyond the point where it is really living. Society needs to recognise this fact and not cling to the norms of the past or impose the constraints of religion or any other dogma on intelligent people who spend their lives making choices and who seek to continue that in their final choice. I want only to make the choice about when "life" ends and "existing" begins at which point I prefer to check out thanks all the same.