I am seventy years old. Chronic Diabetic on insulin and many medications.
I dread the day that I cannot live at home and have to be 'placed' in a nursing home or some such.
I have tried to live a useful life having volunteered for many jobs and been enthusiastic in fields such as the Arts and Politics.
Surely, when things get worse, I have earned the right to expire peacefully?

Ah, Foxy, you can sometimes cut so close to the bone!

It is, of course, a vexed issue. The way I would attempt to resolve it (were I to be setting government agenda) would be to put the question to a referendum, or perhaps more correctly, initially, a plebiscite, in order to formally determine the view of the Australian electorate at large as to what they thought of this whole situation, that of 'in extremis', but nevertheless one conducted in close accord with the provisions of the Referendum (Machinery provisions) Act 1984.

Suspecting that, in a general sense, somewhere around 70% of Australians might favour the right of a person suffering some unrelievable medical situation, to call a halt via medication that would terminate their life, to do so, I would seek to emplace that right in the form of a Constitutional amendment that restricted the Parliament from legislating in this area so as to effectively restrict or deny this choice.

In so doing, I would strive to ensure that avenues remained open to address issues deriving from this most vexed area of legislation. But note, my first action would be to put the issue beyond the meddlesome reach of those who, never approaching the likelihood of really influencing the likely outcome of such a plebiscite, would seek to nevertheles interpolate some dogmatic prohibition upon the determination of an Australian Parliament to permit such choice. If'n you get my drift.

There would be many tangential issues that would require to be addressed with legislation if such a right to choice in this matter were to be so entrenched. For example, the law relating to life assurance contracts: there would have to be some form of protection against what could be considered abuse of such contracts, whether by the assurer or the assured.

My main objective would be to put this matter on the public agenda in such a way as to effectively preclude the dogma-merchants and would-be grandstanders from leading or channeling the debate, and thus coming to have a greater say in it than anyone else.

Thanks so much for all your comments.

This is a tough problem, and I
realize that many of us aren't really
sure of what we'd do - when faced with
such a difficult situation of having
to make a "life or death" decision.

I totally agree with the organisation -
"Dying with Dignity NSW" who feel that it's time
lawmakers had a full debate on the issue.

My personal experience with a family member
who'd suffered a series of severe strokes,
and continued to have them, who was in a
semivegetating state, had lost their
functional and mental independence - and yet
was being given fluids and other vigorous
support to preserve their life, despite the fact
that the family member was in great pain, and suffering,
with no chance of getting better.

I could not understand why the doctors just could
not let them die in peace and serenity.
Why did they pursue such vigorous therapy that
would benefit no one except their own satisfaction
in thwarting death, regardless of the consequences?

"Why did they pursue such vigorous therapy that
would benefit no one except their own satisfaction
in thwarting death, regardless of the consequences?"

There is profit in it.

Foxy
I'm back! From the naughty corner! I keep writing a list of nominees to become Soylent Green perhaps they wouldn't agree....(naughty laugh) (Sigh) Back to the corner? :-(

Seriously though, I believe that the only person whose life it is who can/should determine their OWN (premature?) demise.

I would debate strongly that neither church, government, Dr nor some well meaning 3rd person has that right let alone the ability to comprehend the individuals choice

There are few issue that come to mind here.

We allow people to choose illogical often unfathomable emotive reasoned life styles
(e.g. I have a sister in law who is a nun in the order of perpetual virgins) in her vocation she doesn't do anything she couldn't do out of the order. While I don't agree with her choice of either vocation or beliefs, it is none the less her choice.
Why then do we become all omnipotent and dictate to someone who believes that 'that's it, enough is enough I want out'.

Most people argue that it's OK in cases of terminal disease etc. But we fail to acknowledge the insufferable misery pointlessness of old age to some. That is terminal. The idea of sitting in a nursing home waiting for the end bothers me no end.

Likewise we acknowledge that mental illness is often incurable and medication may or may not work or in many cases reduce one's life to that of a feeling-less facsimile.
In a recent show STEVEN FRY (bi polar) discussed this in detail. It is a common complaint of sufferers of this disease. And reason sufferers stop medication.

I remember one call where BP (F) 60's rang after taking a lethal dose to talk to a non demanding person. Tired of 'the emotional pressure to acquiesce to everyone else' needs' and years of of HER unrelenting pointlessness,emotional torment and pain?. She was calm , resolved and logical ( the worst type of call ) . Any intervention would arrive too late. You couldn't stop it what do you do?

How about the doctors preference in life and death decisions. Doctors have a concience and feelings and are not robots I had a stroke 3.6 years ago and the doctor said I wouldn't make it till the morning. I am still here and life is still sweet. We have a court case in Qld about a doctor killing patients and euthenasia wants to legaly make doctors kill people. I havn't said it very nicely but it is the still same result. When you take away the absolutes anything goes. Most people complain about the safety and the loss of freedoms that I enjoyed as a youth and most trace back to watering down absolutes. Give a little here bend the rules there and very soon you have a society out of control. It is sad to see loved ones suffer for it is not easy to die but bending the rules is not the answer.