Good grief, the subject is about euthanasia not a battle of religions or atheist festival nor is it an opportunity to proselytize.
For the record I am a Secular humanist and I respect the right for PERSONAL beliefs.
To the point as someone who suffers from Bipolar Type 1 (the predominately depression version) I find the assumption that being depressed is a reason for denying my right to make decisions that have no direct effect on others is arrogant, misinformed, insulting if not plain ignorant.
No one has the right to dictate to another how they should feel or think. I can assure you fortunate people who don’t suffer constant or constantly reoccurring pathological depression that it is real pain not imaginary. Imagine being racked with pain that excludes virtually all else and without the hope of lasting relief. Rather than being an exclusion it IS a palpable reason for possibly choosing the ‘big’ out.
How dare anybody who isn’t in my mind or body enforce their ill-informed opinions on me. Much less some religious belief I don’t share. I don’t tell them what to believe so why should they tell me.
The law should simply catch up with the INDIVIDUAL'S right to determine THEIR fate if only because Australia is a secular country. So why should the (irrelevant) views of the religious dominate surely this is unconstitutional.

Well said, gushi and examinator.
I think we can conclude that our collective comments on this issue have plutoed Palmer’s article.
It’s mostly the fundamental Christians who are indefatigably in their pursuit to control other people’s lives.

I wonder if all this anti-euthanasia nonsense is just based on the one “Thou shalt not kill” commandment.
If so, it makes no sense, because Christians have had no problem killing others (the uncontrollable) without their consent, in the name of God.
God (if he existed) had no problem having his own son killed.
God had no problem drowning almost everyone including innocent animals and children just because he was in the mood for it and hadn’t thought of creating anger management classes yet.
God had no problem putting to death homosexuals, people working on the Sabbath, adulterers…

And now a commandment that was ignored by God and Christians is conveniently being used to deny people control over their own life and death?

damn you Celivia. I wish I had made those points.
Bravo.

A small, pedantic point, Celivia.
Jesus actually had to defend himself and his disciples against a claim about working on the Sabbath. (They were gathering wheat, I believe from memory).
His defence was: The sabbath was made for Man, not man for the Sabbath.
As a secular christian -I have great admiration for the ethical teachings of Christ, the religious mumbo jumbo was... religious mumbo jumbo- I read the gospels frequently, and am always amazed that ethics really haven't changed over the centuries.
The christian churches, however, tend to change more than the weather.

Examinator said: "To the point as someone who suffers from Bipolar Type 1 (the predominately depression version) I find the assumption that being depressed is a reason for denying my right to make decisions that have no direct effect on others is arrogant, misinformed, insulting if not plain ignorant."

While I agree with all those who have spoken in favour of the right to voluntary euthanasia, you won't find euthanasia legislation anywhere that does not attempt to exclude people suffering from a mood disorder from participating. I work in an emergency department and we get people in EVERY day who have tried to off themselves. Following your reasoning, we should just let 'em walk back onto the street and throw themselves under the next bus. Obviously, there is a legal duty of care to those who are suffering depression, predicated on the fact that most of them are able to be treated, at least to some extent, and may not feel the same in a week's time. You may be right in making an argument that the suffering created through continuing to live may exceed (for some, severely depressed) that created by ceasing to live, sort of a utilitarian basis for euthansia in the mentally ill, but trying to enact legislation to cover this scenario is next to impossible.

Palmer's article is dishonest twaddle, attempting to re-cast voluntary euthanasia as state-sanctioned murder, and as you can see David, none of us are buying it (other than your co-deluded flock).

Kipp said: "Assuming you are a male your prinicples are respected, but when you can give birth to a child, your comments on abortion are meaningless!"

If you are looking for anything other than meaningless Kipp, runner's posts are not where you look.

Ah, I loved the post that reminds the audience that without God being brought into the equation there is really no validity in denying any person the good death of their choice.

Throughout life, we make decisions about important issues regarding the health and wellbeing of not only ourselves but in many employments, that of the public at large and also our families. We are treated with the respect that we are capable of making important decisions in life and death outcomes.

I don't care what anyone else chooses to do with their own end of life decision making choices, but I do care what others decide for ME. Because I am becoming weaker physically does not mean I am necessarily mentally less competent to decide what is good for me, but in the event that I am, I really do believe that Living Wills, Advance Directives and Respecting Patient Choices documentation should be legally binding on any health care worker that comes across my inert body.

I have Do Not Resuscitate tattooed on my chest at great discomfort to any fashion sense, but its message is more important than my "looks",
I don't mean PERHAPS, DEPENDING, POSSIBLY! I mean DON'T and it is stamped on my body, not yours.

My life, MY choice, Your Life, YOUR Choice!

Mary Walsh
www.yourchoiceindying.com