Stickman,
One of the given reason to doubt the judgement of a person is depression. Imagine if I were ill not terminal but sick enough to limit my activity to whereby I figured it all too much. I then asked some Dr to do the deed because I was affraid of botching it would that be permitted? Under The now defunct NT laws it wouldn't have.
My longer point was that while I understand the need to protect the vulnerable. The choice to why to terminate should be the individual's alone. Suppose further, that I'm filthy rich(instead of just plain filthy) and I wanted too or had just left 95% of my money to that Dr. I'll bet that on challenging that action my depressed state would be deemed a significant factor. Two seperate issues, but one impinges on the other. Euthanasia Laws should be reflected in all other relevent laws too :-\

Choice,
I had a look at your website, it's great. How unacceptable that in the case of the example, the wife’s wishes were given priority over the patient’s.

Grim,
thank you for enlightening me about the Sabbath ;)
Although I am not convinced that Jesus existed, I don’t have a problem with imagining that Jesus –minus miracles- might have existed as a compassionate mortal.

I wonder what Jesus-minus-miracles would have done or said about the euthanasia issue.
Without his miraculous healing abilities, he would’ve been in a similar position as doctors- what to do with the incurable, suffering people who would plea with authoroties for a quick and painfree death.
I wonder what David Palmer and other Christians think- WWJD?

Stickman,
People suffering from a mood disorder (should) have equal euthanasia rights to be assessed following application to those who have no mood disorder.
A doctor handling the application “first has to investigate the background to the request. He must make a medical assessment of the patient’s physical and psychological suffering and obtain a second opinion from an independent doctor. Their joint conclusion should have a firm medical basis and conform with accepted rules of medical ethics.”
One of the six statutory criteria for due care which exempt a doctor from prosecution is that he be “satisfied that the patient’s suffering is unbearable, and that there is no prospect of improvement.”

Examinator,
I’m not very concerned about bribery/corruption where tight laws and procedures are in place.
For example, when the doctor, after thorough investigation and assessment, decides to approve a patient’s euthanasia application, s/he first has to consult another. independent doctor for a second opinion. Both assess the patient.
Also, pathology needs to be informed of the doctor’s decision and there’s also a review commission involved. Pathology performs an autopsy after the euthanasia has taken place.

Anti-religious bigotry is no more impressive than any other kind, and there's an epidemic of it in these comments on David Palmer's article. Mr Palmer does not simply argue that "the Christian God is against mercy-killing and therefore it should be illegal" - he refers to euthenasia's actual operation in the Netherlands and Oregon, and argues that there are several aspects of how things have worked out in practice that might give us pause for thought. Some of the more rabid commentators here make the very uncharitable assumption that the studies he quotes are bogus. What is the basis for this assumption if not anti-religious bigotry? (I would encourage Mr Palmer to call their bluff and cite the studies!)

Anyone with a serious interest in ethics and human flourishing should take at least a passing interest in a Christian perspective on an issue like this - and judge it on its merits, not dismiss it out of hand. In Australia today the Christian, like anyone else, has the right to argue their case in the public square within earshot of legistlators - and those who simply howl them down as would-be theocrats would do better to take a more grown-up approach.

Bearbrass you assume that all Christians support David Palmer's rejection of euthanasia, but the majority of Christians in Australia probably support euthanasia and would like their loved ones to stop the medical fraternity from life prolonging measures when enough is enough.

Celivia

you pulled this quote from nowhere:

"A doctor handling the application “first has to investigate the background to the request. He must make a medical assessment of the patient’s physical and psychological suffering and obtain a second opinion from an independent doctor. Their joint conclusion should have a firm medical basis and conform with accepted rules of medical ethics.”
One of the six statutory criteria for due care which exempt a doctor from prosecution is that he be “satisfied that the patient’s suffering is unbearable, and that there is no prospect of improvement.”

Where is it from? And how does it argue in favour of allowing people with mood disorders access to euthanasia?

"Having a mood disorder" is different from being depressed. People with mood disorders can be treated (for depression) and can recover. Are you arguing that anyone who is currently depressed should be able to walk into a doctor's office, get the assessment done and off themselves? The proposed Vic legislation SPECIFICALLY rules this out on page 6 of the PDF:

"(i) if the sufferer has a terminal illness—The treating doctor is satisfied, on reasonable grounds, that the sufferer is mentally competent. This condition is not satisfied if the treating doctor has reason to believe that the sufferer's decision may have resulted from a mental illness, unless the treating doctor has obtained an opinion from a qualified psychiatrist that the sufferer is mentally competent and that either—
(i) the sufferer is not suffering from a mental illness; or
(ii) the sufferer's decision has not resulted from a mental illness; or
(iii) any treatment of the sufferer's mental illness is unlikely to alter the sufferer's decision; and" etc etc

So the legislation would only allow a depressed person to participate if that depression was secondary to whatever incurable and intolerable illnes they were suffering from and was NOT the primary reason for their request. That's the point - obviously people suffering from terminal illness in horrible pain will quite likely be depressed but this depression cannot, according to the legislation, be the reason for requesting physician assisted suicide.

Bearbrass

'Anyone with a serious interest in ethics and human flourishing should take at least a passing interest in a Christian perspective on an issue like this - and judge it on its merits'

You are making a big ask from human secularist who are often more dogmatic about their 'faith' than Christians. The only difference is they try and justify their view with 'science'. We saw how Tony Abbott as Health Minister was sidelined by many of these bigots.