The religious lobby is doing exactly what every other lobby group does, including the lobby that's pro euthanasia: Everybody want's THEIR morality to prevail, and for it to be enshrined in law. The religious lobby sees euthanasia as suicide/murder, and the pro euthanasia lobby sees euthanasia as humane, welcome relief. So no matter what happens to the law of the land, one side will always genuinely feel an outrageous wrong has been perpetrated in the name of the law. I feel there is no solution, and for as long as people are different there will always be conflict on this matter, regardless of what any law may state.

*Everybody want's THEIR morality to prevail, and for it to be enshrined in law.*

Ah Mary E, but our legal system should be based on substantiated
evidence, most of it is. On that basis, morality is simply our
opinion and no more. There is no substantiated evidence for any kind
of objective morality, as is claimed by the religious. It is purely
their belief, no more.

They are of course free to believe whatever they want, but I can't
see how they should have the right to enforce that opinion on the
rest of us legally, given it is just a belief and no more.

I give them credit for great lobbying, nobody does it better then
the Catholic Church. If those Catholic politicians don't rally
around in times like this, perhaps they might not get that promised
ticket to heaven!

Only public outrage will change that kind of mindset, only then
will our politicians sit up and take notice of public opinion.

Mary:”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.”

Evening Mary, he would know about all of that but I thought he had decided he wanted to leave?

The brain transplant; I actually thought it one of my good ideas, take a chance, help science in the process. And if it works he is cured, if not he gets his wish.

I got that conundrum means “puzzle” – nah seriously have no idea what you meant. I’m going to go stand in the corner with Examinator.

But first! My thoughts on the god squad, they really do feel that if you choose to leave you will not get to heaven, they really really are trying to help because of their beliefs. Annoying that it is that we cannot convince them we are right they are talked about as if they come from some wish to inflict cruelty on other humans and I don’t think they do; I think the opposite is true. I to wish they would shut up but hey that also goes back to “what if?”.

Now how pathetic are all of we that cannot win because the religious are more committed, try harder, have their collective faith.

Hang on Examinator baby I’m on my way!

Mary, apologies if I misunderstood you on mental illness. I have participated at times in the 'rights' and 'wrongs' of legislating for voluntary euthanasia and a frustration of mine is that there's almost always somebody who thinks it's just a simple matter of somebody being depressed and that's why they are asking for assistance to die.

Though strictly speaking voluntary euthanasia is assisted suicide, the term suicide we necessarily associate with the extreme result of depression. It is weighed with great emotion and a sense of helplessness to those left. Suicide is a real and dreadful issue in our communities. That's why I think it is very important to make the distinction between a request for voluntary euthanasia to hasten death due to a terminal illness and somebody committing suicide because of a *feeling* of utter hopelessness.

In our society the majority of us have no direct personal contact with death and dying. It is mostly sanitized by being tucked away in hospitals. Death is only seen as an enemy to be avoided at all costs for as long as possible, so somebody seeking it makes us uncomfortable.

Like you, I have had direct experience of death and dying. I'm a bit curious as to your descriptions of death. I seem to find it a lot less disturbing than what I think how you describe it. Between you and me, the struggle of birth (for both baby and mother) is not a cake walk or anything romantic whatsoever, but we seem to accept that as an OK struggle.

Reading your posts we seem to agree very much on this subject

Mr Rossiter's case is interesting in that even in the Netherlands it would be a difficult situation. He is paralyzed, but death is not imminent and unavoidable. Though, he would have every right to refuse food and fluids, but not to be actively assisted to hasten death.

"It is still Mr Rossiter's choice. Not yours. Accept it."

I absolutely accept that it's his choice, Fractelle. That's exactly what I've been saying. What is not clear from his own comments in the transcript I quoted is what his final decision is.

.

FREE TO CHOOSE

.

Now that society has authorized Mr Rossiter to choose whether he prefers to live or to die, I beg to raise the question as to whether he is free to choose or not.

What degree of control, if any, do we as individuals have on what we think and believe? To what extent are we independent of the ideas and beliefs to which we have been exposed since our birth? Are we truly free to choose or are we constantly being "assisted" one way or another, perhaps unconsciously?

And when the choice comes down to the lesser of two evils, what sort of freedom is that?

How can the so-called "inalienable" individual human rights apply if we have doubts about the freedom of individual choice?

Some would have us believe that there are objective responses to all those questions. However, I suspect that it is only when we are faced with cruel reality, like Mr Rossiter, that each of us becomes capable of revealing his true identity, including to himself.

.