Meet Chantal Sebire.

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/news/world/court-rejects-disfigured-frenchwomans-plea-to-die/2008/03/18/1205602424048.html

A malignant tumour in her nasal cavity has made her blind.
Her sense of smell and taste are gone.
She is horribly disfigured.
She is in immense pain.

The french woman has made a request for voluntary euthanasia, arguing that not even an animal would be subject to this kind of pain without being put down.

She wishes to depart peacefully, rather than enduring more pain before her death.

I know it's an emotional story and it's probably difficult to explain why people are opposed - but if people are indeed opposed to voluntary euthanasia, I would like to know why they believe this woman should be forced to suffer.

Aside from emotional reasons, I don't see the practicality of forcing a sane person to remain alive.

Update: In the last 24 hours since I posted this thread, Ms Sebire has been found dead in her apartment.

At the end of the trial, she said with resignation, that she would find another way to end her life.

What an incredibly sad story. I don't see how anyone could justify denying Chantal access to euthanasia if that was her heartfelt request and it's hard to see that it wouldn't have been.

The clearly emotional cases like Chantal's, and I know there are many of them, do make the case for euthanasia at first glance a compelling one. I accept this and would never argue against its compassionate use in these cases.

Having said that, I can't shake the niggling unease I have regarding the slippery slope argument as it is applied to this debate. My concern with euthanasia is the long-term consequences and I'm talking twenty, thirty and more years down the track. By then, on current trajectories, the proportion of older people in the community will be much higher than it is now. Far fewer of them will have sufficient superannuation to live comfortably than is now the case. And the health system, again on present indications, will be stretched to absolute breaking point.

There is a very real danger in my mind that there will be increasing pressure, both subtle and not so subtle, on older people to take the euthanasia option whether or not they wish to do so. With hospital beds and nursing home places in short supply, which they undoubtedly will be by then, except for those with the means to pay the high prices that will be needed to secure them, the pressure not to be a burden and take up precious space will I think become quite difficult to counter, especially for those without the means and the family support.

I just can't help feeling that if euthanasia is an accepted part of our healthcare options and its practice does become routine, that it will place an added burden onto older people and one that until that time hasn't been an issue for most of them.

Chantal Sebire is a very sad case.

But I agree with Bronwyn. I too have a feeling of unease about accepting euthanasia.

The concept of helping someone else shorten their life carries with it such potential for abuse that there has to be legislation both as a deterrent and as a proper sanction when it is abused.

I don't believe that trusting to the courts' discretion is an 'entirely satisfactory' way of dealing with euthanasia, should the community approve of the concept.

And could legislation be drawn up with enough administrative safeguards to prevent abuse?

At the moment our representatives don't hear pro-euthanasia crowds beating down the gates and so they do nothing.

What would embolden the MPs to action would be the support of the Australian Medical Association. That support is also important because of the role doctors would inevitably have to play if active euthanasia became accepted. However the AMA's position to date has been, "for a doctor to help someone kill himself - goes against what we're all about!"

"The basic duty of a doctor is to preserve life, not end it.
If the patient was terminally ill, the doctor should and could only make them comfortable."

However doctors sometimes turn off life-support systems of irreversably and terminally ill patients. This already happens.

If it came right down to it I prefer another definition of the doctor's duty - one which, incidentally, would be compatible with euthanasia.

I see a doctor's role - "is more to preserve dignity than to preserve life." As for euthanasia - "In the end it's the patient's right to choose."

Doctors can not be held or put in that situation and to do so would fight against all that they stand for. So that rules that one out. The government cant change the laws cause it wants you all to know, that we don't want our hands with blood on it and fear of repercussions from the people that disagree with the whole matter and not to mention, christians beliefs and family objections. So what is the answer?
Well, there is no legal way of doing it, but that doesn't mean you cant. It will just have to fall under the laws of suicide and that as they say, is that.

All I can say is, if you know you are going to die without a doubt, and there is no chance of you serviving the disease, make sure you can still walk, before the bitter end.

For those who cant move or are unconscious, bad luck! But please don't involve anyone else. That's murder! or man slaughter.

Personly, nothing on this earth will stop me if it ever happened, and there is no way I am going to rot in pain for no-one.

P/S ITS MY LIFE! and not yours

Foxy. Your logic is outstanding as usual. And to all the rest of you. All the best.

Evolution.