I liked your article Brian, up until the Nazi reference anyway. They have been overdone.
I can understand policy makers being afraid to make a decision regarding euthanasia. There is no going back if someone were to rort a legal system that allowed it.
However, I watched my father in law slowly starve to death after a stroke. Despite his explicit wishes to end his life there was no way to do it without risking lengthy incarceration.
We don't even treat animals this way.

Thank you Brian. Thank the Lord for people like Dr N. Damnation to the nay sayers, I hope they get theirs

From the article: "Maybe Nitschke was born to remain restless until he had a cause to fight for."

After reading a few of Brian's recent articles I think this might be a fitting description of him as well. I don't agree with them all, but regardless they are still a good read. The alternative appears to consist of being berated by David Palmer and friends for not following their interpretation of their God's words. That does get so tiresome after a while.

Just ask yourself a few questions. Do you want to come to the end your life suffering possibly considerable pain and very likely incompetence in dealing with any of the small daily essentials of life, or should that be spelt incontinence although that may only encompass one small aspect of your misery. Do you want some almost stranger to have the authority to alleviate the pain if in his opinion he may think you are suffering enough. Of course if you believe in an all powerful being, he will not let you suffer at all perhaps unless you have been a very naughty boy.
However wouldn’t it be a great improvement if you could decide for yourself whether to struggle on with the best medical palliatives offered or whether to depart from this life with dignity and in control of this final step.
If you agree, support Dr N in every way and write to your M.P. and ask him to vote for Bob Browns initiative.

You can take any modern issue these days, and see that it is commanded by the religious (for the most part). Our political leaders conceal their extreme religious views or alliances with churches of Australia.

This back channel is extremely corrupt, as in most cases with these modern issues a majority of Australians probably disagrees with their implementation.

"Our political leaders conceal their extreme religious views or alliances with churches of Australia."

Quite so. I have to say I'm surprised Kevin Rudd turned out to be such wowserish little god-botherer. I thought he was just doing the US Republican thing of claiming Christianity for the votes while tacitly supporting self-serving and party-centric policies. I was caught off-guard by an honest pollie!

T.Sett,

Euthanasia is a difficult issue. On one hand, is the unconditional respect for the value of human life, and, on the other the unconditional respect for human dignity & the desire to alliviate suffering. Nature or God is a cruel master.

As I have aged, more frequently, I have learned that people usually do not leave peacefully, quickly in their sleep. Rather, often in pain and/or diminished mental capacity. Herein, enthanasia with pre-consent, should be permitted.

Incidently, Brian's allusion is correct. Adolf Hilter was not an atheist:

“Secular schools can never be tolerated because such schools have no religious instruction, and a general moral instruction without a religious foundation is built on air; consequently, all character training and religion must be derived from faith.” - Hitler (1933)

He was a Christian:

“I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so.” - Hitler (1933)

Regards,

O

I'd just like to add some facts that go towards illustrating the contribution Philip has made to humanity - to Australians and to the world (quite literally, since EXIT is a global organisation)

He is the recipient of the following awards

* Rainier Humanitarian award, Washington, 1996
* NT Darwin Territorian of the year, 1997
* Australian Humanitarian of the year, 1997

He is, quite literally, one of a kind.

Thank you Phillip - from everyone.

I agree Phillip Nietszke is one of a kind and he is my nominee for Australian of the year.
His proposals have been misrepresented by the raving religious right to serve their own misguided dogmas

Bravo, Brian, I think your article is a fresh breath after I've been posting on David Palmer's euthanasia thread.

Someone close to my family was euthanised a few weeks ago after a long, painful struggle with cancer and she couldn't have wished for a more kind and peaceful death, surrounded by all her loved ones and her little daughter.

I fully support Nitschke, he is a compassionate man.

Dr Nietschke is a humanist. He is a brave man and offers a rational and secular suggestion.He isnt saying that all who are suffering terminal ilnnesses and in hopeless agony and are condemned to die in agony and without hope should be taken out and put down.It is a matter of choice.The cornerstone of our political life is voting where choices are made. The cornerstone of our mature adult lives is chosing who we are going to live out our married lives with. We have choices in every other sphere of human experience but not in the matter of our death.Why is this so?

If we have a dog or a cat living in uncurable disease and suffering without any hope of getting over it we OUT OF LOVE decide to have it put down because it cannot do this of its own. It is essentially an act of love that stirs us to act out of pity.

We should be able to end the painful final hours of one we love also.Not to do so is to look at them lying in bed and virtually tell them we want them to experience more of the dreadful agonies as if they havent had enough.What do the dying think of us then...as theit torturers?

socratease

Steel,

>> “You can take any modern issue these days, and see that it is commanded by the religious (for the most part).”

What?? Which issues are you talking about Steel? This is just a blanket statement with no evidence for it whatsoever.

>> “This back channel is extremely corrupt,”

What corruption are you talking about?

>> “in most cases with these modern issues a majority of Australians probably disagrees with their implementation.”

What are all these issues that the majority disagrees with and where is your evidence? Its all just waffle isn’t it.

Phillip Nietschke should be commended for doing important work with little support and facing intimidating consequences. The government should allow a conscience vote on this issue.

socratease,

A succinct and compassionate post. Well said.

O.

So many thousands of words have been written about voluntary euthanasia, its benefits and people's fears about it. The religious among Australians currently hold the balance of power with their version of love and compassion, our day will come another time!. When the younger more intelligent folk start moving into government decision making, not bound by religious views two thousand years old and, to date never substantiated claims. I believe wholeheartedly in science.

As an atheist I have no fear of the next life whatsoever and for that I am grateful. I really appreciate what Philip Nitschke has attempted on the behalf of those who for whatever reason, choose to have the option of pro choice in their end of life decision making.

I was so impressed with Brian's discussion points that I posted his article on my website www.yourchoiceindying.com Long may free speech allow us to keep the discussion open, at least here in Victoria.

We who want pro choice for the individual live in hope that we too will have rights over our own end of life decisions. I don't want to suffer unnecessarily, however others may do so if they choose!

Mary Walsh

Lets look at some issues driven by predominantly the religious:

-censorship
-intelligent design
-euthenasia
-gay marriage
-stem cell research

albeit not only the religious but they have the deepest implanted agenda in our two-faced politicans (besides feminism).

Yes Steel lets take a look at these issues.

Censorship,
I will assume you are talking about the debate over Hensons photographs which split the public opinion between the pretentious, craven or just stupid chardonnay set, and the rest of the country. Certainly most of the religious were offended, but many, many other people were offended as well.

Intelligent design
What debate? I haven’t seen any real debate on intelligent design. It's a purely religious issue. Schools aren’t teaching it, it’s a non issue.

Euthenasia,
Philip Nitschke is doing much of the driving of that debate and he is not religious. When it comes to polls I’ve seen, up to 40% of the population opposes Euthanasia so that is a far bigger group than just the religious.

Gay Marriage,
I have no opinion on this matter and I don’t know where the opposition comes from

Stem Cell Research
Ethicists in general are very concerned with the ramifications of cloning etc. I support stem cell research and my understanding is that we are carrying out stem cell research in this country.

Your 5 issues are hardly mainstream issues which concern the public. You have chosen 5 issues which the religious involve themselves in. This provides no evidence whatsoever for your ridiculous claims that “You can take any modern issue these days, and see that it is commanded by the religious (for the most part).”

Real issues before the public today are the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the rising cost of home loans, the American recession, the price of petrol, the possibility of catastrophic climate change. I could go on but I think I have made my point. The religious right has very little influence in this country. You’re reading too many loony-left blogs and have lost touch with the real world.

I notice you provide no evidence for your absurd claims that “ Our political leaders conceal their extreme religious views or alliances ... ”

or for “ ... as in most cases with these modern issues a majority of Australians probably disagrees with their implementation.”

You have a shallow understanding of those subjects, Paul and I'm not bothered to respond. Yes it's convenient