This is ultimately a completely muddled piece of writing which is predicated on the belief that euthanasia and suicide are perforce the same thing. This is entirely untrue. Suicide is the result of a mental disturbance, such as the one described in Erin's case. Irrespective of her source (being Nitschke's book on euthanasia), it does not transform her death into an act of euthanasia. It was suicide and yes, it sounds very traumatic, but let's not get the two matters mixed up.

Euthanasia is the taking of one's own life when - and only when - death (and a painful, undignified one) is inevitable. People prefer euthanasia over palliation as they do not want to degenerate to the stage where palliation would be their only option.

I would add that this article displays a very poor understanding of the concept of human rights, of the term 'rights' itself, and it misses the point about self-worth (dignity) which is paramount and inextricably linked to any discussion of euthanasia. (It is the loss of such self-worth that leads to suicide.)

The article also introduces mawkish sentimentality (eg, the post-abortion mother walking past a playground), which once again ignores the complexities of a topic such as abortion. I am pro-abortion and yet I would prefer a world where it never occurred, as it is traumatic for the mother and yes, it does result in the loss of a human. However there are situations in which it is necessary and, in a complex world (rather than the very simplistic model presented in this article), we must make - and have made - decisions on how best to deal with them.

As an aside, the author should realise that 'reason' and the notion of dignity, which led to the birth of the human rights movement, came about in the Enlightenment, best represented by the philosopher Kant, and was very heavily influenced by Christianity.

Sells

I think you are confusing physical death with death as metaphor.

What is this dichotomy you see between the natural and whatever it is you regard as the alternative? The life we are given is physical and natural and proceeds from physical birth through to physical death. Resurrection does not mitigate or reverse physical death.

You say
"This is a kind of naturalism that will easily lead to the affirmation of suicide, after all it is just natural."
You might need to explain this because it seems to me quite the opposite. Resurrection, on the face of it, suggests that physical death might be a way out of present pain, promising as it appears a real future beyond physical death.

You and I might know better than this but the Church, as a whole, has taught a version of 'Life After Death' that is entirely unnatural and untrue and which might make suicide appear a solution to present problems.

Naturalism is not the problem. The problem is bad theology

l cannot understand what people with the authors type of thinking are lamenting. Particularly when they couch it in terms of 'long-term' thinking. Given a long enough time line, we're ALL dead.

l am childless, dont intend on breeding and in terms of pure self interest l support abortion and euthenasia (whilst l dont think the arguements in support of either hold any logical/rational water... its killing, but lm OK with that aspect of the human condition).

Given that lm highly unlikely to breed, wont have any little facsimiles which l can condition with my own thinking and in the end will prolly take a dose... lm gonna take myself, my views and the perpetuaution of those views via progeny out of the socio-cultural frame.

In the end, people like me simply take ourselves outta the gene pool by killing ourselves.

Ultimately its the breeders who will shape future values and cultures. To wit, l would've though they would simply celebrate the short-term folly of self-interested egoists like myself and simply accept the inevitability that my type will not survive and theirs will.

Reality bends for no one. l would've though that one who believes in god would understand that already.

waterboy and pericles, terrific posts.

boazy-polycarpy, i appreciate your attempt to explain christian witch burning. i think you failed rather dismally.

1) i'm happy to permit you to refer to christian witch burning as "christian" witch burning. just as long as you are willing to refer to "islamic" nastiness with the same qualification and care and restraint.

2) no, i wasn't thinking of the salem trials. i was thinking of centuries of european history, in which tens of thousands of people were executed as witches in the most barbaric manner, and with the blessing of the highest powers of the protestant and catholic churches.

3) your ultimate answer, to read the good book is meaningless. i don't care what christians (or "christians") believe, more accurately what they believe they believe. i care what they do. and historically, christians and christian bodies seem as capable of barbarism as any other authoritarian system.

4) this is my point. i am not saying that such barbarism is inherent to christian belief, or that christianity is especially susceptible to such barbarism. i'm saying that christianity is not immune from it: your religion has no special status.

5) as an example, you point out that christians are not in the business of hanging gays from cranes. i believe you. but, present day ugandan christians seem quite happy to have gays rot in jail for life. and some australian christians seem more comfortable with the ugandan church than with more tolerant views.

polycarp-boaz, your religion is just not that special. it is not immune from stupidity and barbarism. that's all.

yes, there are some here who wish to trash christianity for the sake of it. but i suggest they are the exception. most are simply motivated by disgust with yours and sellick's holier than thou arrogance.

Dear Sells,

-Your comment-

The secularism evident in many threads is certainly in opposition to case/evidence for the existence of god, and, perhaps, highly focused one particularly god much favoured by Western religionists; however, is it really anti-Christian? How can one be against something that in all probably does not exist. Fairies don't exist. Because one does not believe in fairies, it does follow one is "against" fairies.

Secularists are like anthpologists trying to show traditional farmers that it is best to have fields in fallow. All-to-often, regarding old farm practises and beliefs, tradition binds the old to the new. Seculartists don't want people to live in ignorance of the marvel of the natural world/universe and transient life itself.

On the other hand, Paul/Constantine et al., usurping Jesus' life to create an institutional with a heinous, inhumane track record; well, history, provides, case-after-case, of cruelty, greed and insanity.

Others (I suspect) and I often use questions, rather than argument, out of respect for the other party. The question is usually open and gives the other party, you, the opportunity to rebut or reply in their own kind.

So, in instead of an open question, would you have one say, explicity; Jesus did commit suicide, against the teachings of the Jewish faith, and even given Yewah [God the Father] exclaims in Hosea 6:6, that He wants mercy/love (trans.) rather than sacrifice? Oops, that's a question ;-).

Given Jesus did commit suicide and we should follow Jesus' examples, and, that, there is an after-life; why is suicide wrong? Else put, to a Christian suicide should not be problematic. It's like catching a plane to a new destination.

I find it strange that no one here has commented on the Erin Berg anecdote.

I assume the author meant it as a horror fable designed to instill in us an aversion to euthanasia. If so, then it’s misplaced. Despite Erin's death being a suicide rather than a euthanasia, the anecdote illustrates that by keeping euthanasia illegal desperate people are forced to resort to illegal means and methods to end their suffering. This in turn increases the likelihood of people botching the job and possibly facing even worse deaths than what they were trying to avoid.

This is exactly how and why so many women died grisly deaths at the hands of backyard abortionists in the many decades after most countries criminalised the practice in the nineteenth century. These deaths only stopped when common sense and compassion finally ruled and the legislation was reversed.