Fractelle,

I said what I did based on the following extract from the webpage I posted above.

>>He says he could still be persuaded not to end his life.

"I'm asking for further advice from an experienced palliative care doctor," he said.

"After I speak to a medical professional - he could persuade me. I have to seek advice. There's a possibility that I could still be persuaded [to accept food]."<<

If what's reported is true, the ball is still in his court.

RobP

It is still Mr Rossiter's choice. Not yours.

Accept it.

Hello RobP, you make a very poignant point when you write " but what if there is a palliative solution found or even a way of repairing his paralysis in his life time?". I feel that therein lies the "moral" conundrum. Regarding this man, chances are almost certain that a palliative solution or cure will not be found anytime soon. But what "if"? I guess society, and the patient involved, must weigh up the odds and act accordingly. Of course if one is opposed to euthanasia on moral or religious grounds, then the odds have no bearing on anything for them. I believe that everyone is entitled to an opinion, but that nobody has a right to force that opinion on others, my opinion included. For me, the problem with religious opposition to euthanasia is that they wish to force the entire population, via law, to conform to their moral standards regarding euthanasia. Thanks.

Mary:”I feel that therein lies the "moral" conundrum. Regarding this man, chances are almost certain that a palliative solution or cure will not be found anytime soon. But what "if"?”

He wouldn’t know so not likely to be looking down on creation going “oh bugger”.

He could always volunteer for a brain transplant operation; a gamble with nothing to lose.

Hello TPP. If he chose to live, and he says he still might, then he WOULD know if better palliative care became available or if a cure was found. Also, is the brain transplant comment supposed to be some kind of joke? Did you understand what I meant by "moral conundrum" as it applies to this situation? Thank you.

*For me, the problem with religious opposition to euthanasia is that they wish to force the entire population, via law, to conform to their moral standards regarding euthanasia*

Mary E, I completely agree with you.

What the WA supreme court has found is that we can choose to
starve ourselves to death and the palliative care staff won't be
held liable. The court could not decide on any kind of euthanasia,
as the legal framework for that is lacking.

What is lacking here is community outrage, only that will change
public opinion.

So we really have an incredible double standard here, due to the
small but noisy religious lobby.

If I had a really crook dog and publicly announced that as it was
terminally ill, it was best that I let it starve to death, the
RSPCA would be here tomorrow, for good reasons. Yet we seemingly
accept this as a fate for humans, when there would be so many
possible humane and dignified options.

This is was blows me away. That we let the religious lobby so interfere
with our lives, that we are seemingly accepting this,
without huge outrage at their interference, for very few of us
actually agree with them.