Celivia,

Whatever I might think and say about the quality of some on these threads I cannot say about you.

I think you wish to pursue a line of argument but you're unwilling to engage with an argument already presented to you.

I freely acknowledge that there has always been a few people who take their own lives, with or without the aid of others, regardless of the law.

I understand the Christian faith (and maybe other faiths) has always been a source of hope in viewing death as entrance to life eternal, and perhaps paradoxically for a Richard Dawkins, such people value their life now, even when it is very difficult (I know what I’m saying!).

What the Dutch experience shows is that many of those euthanised (three people a day - 1991 study) underwent euthanasia without their knowledge or consent. Additionally, 50 per cent of patients killed under the Dutch euthanasia program were suffering from depression. I simply don’t want to see this happening in Australia, I don’t want to see the elderly fearing that their doctors, relatives will have them euthanised. I recoil from children up to the age of 12, including newborns, may now be killed by lethal injection with parental consent. This is not a civilised society. Just don’t tell me you can put in legislation to prevent this kind of thing. The original strict regulation of euthanasia in Holland collapsed under the pressure of presenting cases and the same thing will happen here, as with the Menhennit ruling.

Regarding your point, “I don’t understand why you find it more moral to force people to suffer against their will than to give them free choice over their own life or death”, my question to you is why change the conditions of life and death that have been in existence and accepted for all of human history? Suffering is a part of human existence – the opportunities for suffering are boundless, can you stop all human suffering. I tell you, if I need compassion and understanding, give me a person who has been through suffering themselves.

Bronwyn and David,
I’ve found no evidence that euthanasia laws will result in worsening of palliative care, quite the opposite.
http://www.dignityindying.org.uk/information/factsheets.asp?id=71
”Some critics of the ADTI Bill are concerned that legislation for medically assisted dying could undermine developments in palliative care. However all the evidence from Oregon and the Netherlands demonstrates that the opposite is true - end-of-life care in both places has improved since legislation was passed”
“Research in Oregon and the Netherlands finds that patients who choose medically assisted dying are typically strong-minded, independent individuals who like to be in control of their lives. No amount of palliative care can address these patients' concerns regarding their loss of autonomy, dignity and control, and their inability to engage in activities that make their lives enjoyable.”
http://www.dignityindying.org.uk/news/news.asp?id=253
“Study finds voluntary euthanasia in Belgium complements palliative care”

I don’t deny that there’s a possibility that people can be pressured into euthanasia. I’m saying that we need to be aware of the slippery-slopes but that positives outbalance negatives, IMO.
If there’s no valid medical reason the patient’s application won’t be approved. Two-thirds of the requests for euthanasia are refused in the Netherlands.
David, Yvonne has already pointed out that older than 2001/2002 cases have nothing to do with legal euthanasia because there were no euthanasia laws before 2001.

“why change the conditions of life and death that have been in existence and accepted for all of human history?”
Why not?
There are other things that were, for all of human history, regarded as moral and necessary and later changed. Slavery, for example.
Surgery, medication, vaccinations, and better working conditions… many things have changed that influence the conditions of life.
People, who don’t like euthanasia, don’t have to request it.
I still find it immoral to deny people the right to die with dignity.

“give me a person who has been through suffering themselves.”
And a patient who can just go through suffering and come out of it will not have their request approved.
Euthanasia approvals cannot just go ‘through suffering’- they’ll be stuck in the middle of it till the day they die.
These people cannot overcome their suffering- there is no end in sight, only death. There is nothing that can be done to get them through the stage of suffering.

Celivia

I doubt very much that the provision of health and aged care in Australia in 2050 and beyond will be anywhere near the standard it is in Oregon, Belgium and The Netherlands in 2008 or whenever these studies were done, but I won't labour the point any further. Hopefully, I'm wrong and you're right, and that the few who choose to die will not win this new freedom at the expense of the many who don't.

Bronwyn,

Sterilisation and abortion have been legal or effectively legal for a long time. There has always been a significant minority of parents who neglect or abuse their children, often because of mental illness, drug addiction or intellectual disability. These people impose enormous costs on the rest of us, as their children have to be taken into care and the damaged children may perpetuate the cycle of abuse. Yet no one is dragging these parents off to be forcibly aborted or sterilised. In fact, there was outrage a few years ago when it was found that a charitable foundation in the US was paying drug addicts to be (voluntarily) sterilised. Why do you think it would be any different with euthanasia? The issue of pressure from others would certainly be considered before any approval was granted.