Foxy

While I agree with much of what you have to say I believe that euthanasia is a private decision between doctor and patient, just as I do with abortion. These are personal life decisions which have nothing to do with politicians. I arrived at this opinion after hearing from the likes of Christopher Pyne and Tony Abbott who let their private beliefs dictate public policy when they were in power (there are probably similar Labor pollies as well, I am uncertain about Rudd who is very religious). The minimum of government intervention should be to decriminalise euthanasia, thus freeing a doctor to treat for pain and allow a patient to die with dignity.

I know you claim to be a Catholic, but to me you embody the original teachings and thoughts of Jesus or Buddha - without all the strings attached. That's it - a freethinker who can take the best of what religion has to offer without being tainted by doctrine.

Moondoggy, that's exactly what every opponent to voluntary euthanasia should do. Work for a little while with terminally ill people.

The fear of decriminalisation of voluntary euthanasia is illogical as there is now enough data and information available from countries where euthanasia is allowed, like the Netherlands and since relatively recently Belgium.

For those who advocate vehemently that death should only occur 'naturally' have little concept of the effects of modern medicine, from those anti-hypertension tablets you take over years and years to aggressive intervention during an acute episode.

Besides that, it is not for another to dictate to another autonomous being how much, how long and in what form end of life suffering is acceptable

I generally support legalised, voluntary euthanasia for the terminally ill, under strict medical supervision ONLY.

But there's a big problem however with voluntary euthanasia. That problem is that a person's situation often changes over time. Generally I'm not talking here about terminally ill people, although even in this situation people still recover; it happens every day. Often depressed people, mentally ill people, displaced people and abused people wish to end their lives, but later on their circumstances often change. I believe these people should definitely NOT have the option of voluntary euthanasia. The only people who should have that option in my opinion are the terminally ill, and only after medical consultation, and only under strict medical supervision within the context of a legalised system of voluntary euthanasia.

Yes MaryE I agree that any legalised euthanasia should always be attended under strict medical supervision.

However, I have come across some very physically or mentally disabled people who may not necessarily be terminally ill as such, but for whom life is totally untenable for them.

Therefore I believe that all applicants for euthanasia should each be assessed on their own merit. Every case needs to be checked by both Physicians and Psychiatrists, who will then decide whether they are able to make that informed choice freely.
It should never involve any religious input unless the patient requests it.

This thread is about some one who is not mentally ill.
In fact his brain is the only part of his body that he has use off.
We should in all things, look only at what is not what may happen.
I doubt very much, we would ever see needless ending of life if we let people end such pain.
I can first hand, report Doctors, Nurses, thankfully with great love have been helping in these cases long before any of us existed.

RobP “Don't make decisions that affect the rights of others to make their own decisions in life,”

I am not making any decision. I am leaving the entire matter in the hands of those affected by the decision and not suggesting either the course of abortion or not is the correct option in any circumstance.

However, I do not assume responsibility for that decision nor authority for either making such a decision or demand to impose my limits on the options of others.

Regarding

“I suspect, continue to have a nice comfy life whilst preaching to people from your "superior" position.”

My position, as you call it, is quite humble, I leave everyone free to decide for themselves.

Actually, regarding my own position, the “superior” element is in the quality of the argument I bring to debate (not that I suspect you would necessarily agree).

The real “superior position” is that taken by people, with no involvement with the consequences of a decision, demanding to make it on behalf of other people they do not know and accept no responsibility for.

“If you acknowledged that abortion was wrong, the whole edifice of your argument would fall apart. So you don't.”

No, my argument stands. However, if you accept you have no responsibility for the actions of other cognitive human beings and thus no authority to deny them the right to sovereignty over their own body’s, your argument falls apart,

And your comment to guard rails is fallacious rubbish. A guard rail is there in case of accidents. It helps prevent but does not insure against accidents. We are not talking about accidental euthanasia or accidental suicide but intentional acts. You can put up lots of guard rails, wrap everyone in cotton wool and make them wear safety harnesses;

but some individuals, intent on a particular course, will remove their harnesses, discard the cotton wool, just climb over the rails and do their own thing anyway…

and they might be libertarians disillusioned with the waste of resources and limited personal liberty engendered by an all powerful, institutional nanny state..