I am pro choice and believe your choice is yours I do not see your health problems as severe but that is beside the point. You have stated that you want the choice to die. We all have that choice. You want the choice to die peacefully and without being worried about it failing. That is achievable also. Why do you need the government to say it is fine to do so?

Most insurance policies will not pay out for suicide and will treat euthansia with the same reasoning I presume.

If you are of sound mind and have spoken to professionals, your family and loved ones. If you have given a reasonable time limit to think things over with the full facts of the present and future outcomes of your decision. It is ultimately your choice. You can deny blood transfustions to save your life, you can deny transplants to save your life. It is not how high we value our life but how high we value the rights of the individual.

Cardine, you make a very good point concerning life insurance policies not paying out for suicide.

Many years ago, I took a good look at the exclusions scattered throughout my life insurance policy, then promptly picked up the phone and canceled it. Most life insurance policies aren't worth the paper they're written on, although I do know one young woman who benefited greatly when her husband died in his early 20's from an undiagnosed heart condition. More by good fortune than good planning, he'd taken out life insurance just months before and his wife was able to pay out the mortgage and so keep the house.

In this day and age, I would expect insurance companies to rethink the suicide clause. More and more people are becoming overwhelmed by the stress of living in the modern world and make no mistake, as one who's job it is to try and mend those damaged psyches, I've come to realise that we all walk a very fine line between sanity and insanity!

Hi, Aime and Cordine ,
you said, “Most insurance policies will not pay out for suicide and will treat euthanasia with the same reasoning I presume”

I can clear this up for you but I only can tell you how this has been arranged in the Netherlands.
While insurance companies do not pay out for suicide, they will pay out for euthanasia.

By law, insurance companies have to clearly state in their policy if they exclude euthanasia. If they are silent about euthanasia, they will be required to pay out.

THis is because euthanasia is not seen in the same light as suicide because euthanasia cases have a valid medical reason for requesting their death, and this is always confirmed by doctors.

However, there are pro-life insurance companies that people can choose. These policies obviously exclude euthanasia from their policies.
I hope this answers your question.

Celivia, Back in the 60's and whilst being schooled in the Catholic education system, I came into contact with many children who were then called "Dutch" although "Dutchy" said as a way of denigration was the term most often bandied about. In those days, immigrants from what was then referred to as Holland, were not highly thought of by your typical Aussie, much the same as other migrants, however I learned to hate discrimination at a very early age and so often aligned myself with children of immigrants.

One thing I quickly realised from talking to them (remembering that many were not long away from their homeland) is that Australia was deficient in many areas compared to the way things were done in "overseas countries." I was particularly taken by the ingenuity of the Swedes, Russians and that of the Dutch people. Now, in middle age, I find myself applauding the Netherlands for it's stance on many of the problems we face today. Their drug and sex education and methods of dealing with these issues should be held in high regard.

It's obvious from what you write Celivia, that the issue of Euthanasia has also been handled with typical Dutch expertise.

Aime, thank you for your kind words.

I, like many others, don't see the danger of legalising euthanasia. It just means that it is available (with doctor's agreement and only if no other cure or pain relief is available) for people who want it.

I'm not sure why, for other than religious reasons, people would object to euthanasia.
If they don't like the idea, then they're not forced to use the service.
But they have no problem with forcing very ill patients to suffer a horrific, painful death against their will.
Where is the compassion?

It's obvious to me that too many times, Church and State prove not as separate as we like to think they are.

The religious are 'supposed to' preach to their own flock, e.g. about the ethics of euthanasia or abortion; and I have no problem with that. They can preach whatever they like and live by their rules, whatever they are. They're welcome to have 10 children in poverty, or allow themselves to starve to death when they can't absorb food or liquid. It's their body, their choice.

But other people should have the opportunity to choose too.

So, I am tolerant of religions only to a certain point- when they start interfering with the freedom and choices of others, then I have a problem with religions.
Their beliefs are just beliefs based on faith, not on facts and theri beliefs are not everyone's cup of tea.

There is no reason why others should have to submit to their beliefs and dogma.

"There is no reason why others should have to submit to their beliefs and dogma."

Quite right Celivia and we're not the only ones who feel this way. Religious dogma is the reason I was so angry when Kevin Andrews put up a private members bill to overturn the NT euthanasia legislation. He had no damned right to impose his religious beliefs on the general population of the NT or on anyone else in Australia for that matter.

Now, we have a situation whereby older Aussies are heading to Mexico to buy pharmaceuticals which, should they eventually decide to use it, will offer them a dignified end to the suffering they would otherwise be forced to endure by well intended, but unrealistic religious organisations.

Sadder still are those who, with no other perceived way out of their pain and suffering, chose to end their lives through truly horrible methods. What about the added suffering of their families who find them swinging by the neck or maybe suffering terrible injuries from a non fatal gun shot wound. It happens more than we'd care to know about. It's families who have to tend to their loved ones after a botched attempt has left them brain damaged, but do the likes of Kevin Andrews stop to think about those situations? Heck no! He's walking around with a self satisfied smirk on his ugly mug content in the knowledge that he's used his religious nonsense to destroy the rights of those who don't hold his beliefs.

It appears that for the time being, the Netherlands hold pride of place on this issue well above that of Australia, however, I'm hoping that given time, that situation will change. Getting rid of a few of those religious nutters who hold power in our current Federal Government would be a great start.