Euthanasia: When Dr Death comes knocking

Sheldon says:

08:21am | 26/09/11

I got one. Greed. Any family memeber could convince a relative that they are weak and useless and it would be better for them to die. Plus they could get that person’s money as a bonus if they are in the will. Secondly, some people have been euthanased against their will as in Denmark.

catherine says:

08:51am | 26/09/11

A fitful glee? what is this? Any doctor I have ever known would certainly not be responsible enough to choose life or death, anyway I don’t think this is about my doctor choosing for me!.

Cate says:

09:05am | 26/09/11

I can think of a reason: the ‘slilppery slope’ model.  If euthanasia were to become ‘policy’, it would feature in economical decisions about care of the elderly and the dying.  Nothing to do with religion, just cold hard cash, would propel euthanasia along as a valid option to clear beds.  Lingering patients would be hurried along… anxious adult children, waiting for the money tied up in mum and dad’s house, would also be keen to get they dying process over with.  We humans have a proven track record of watering down the original intention of controversial things like euthanasia.  Remember when abortion was made legal for those few difficult cases.  Now we have about 80,000 abortions a year.  Did we as a community expect that, 30 years ago?

We are hopeless at looking after the aged, the dying and the disabled.  Let’s get real and honest about it.  Let’s not kid ourselves that we are a noble and selfless generation.  Euthanasia should not be necessary if we cared for our most vulnerable better.  Yes, there is often pain in dying, but at worst, people can be put in induced comas in their final days.  We have to learn how to ‘midwife’ people through their dying days.

Timmy says:

09:06am | 26/09/11

As a person who is religious, I find it quite easy to frame significant moral arguments against euthanasia:

* People involved in the decision often feel coerced (As covered by Sheldon)
* It involves asking another person to kill you.
* It is a cheaper option than palliative care, which will make it the only option for those of us who cannot afford palliative care or because limited palliative care beds are full

Tedd says:

09:10am | 26/09/11

Sheldon,
An overseeing “euthanasia ethics committee” would deal with that.
The argument that there would be widespread killing for gain is the slippery-slope fallacy.

neo says:

09:48am | 26/09/11

Of course. Johnnie, come on, end me, I will just drag you down, here, take my rifle and rations and put me out of my misery. Valhalla is waiting.

Is there a strong moral argument against frying a confessed serial rapist/killer in an electric chair? I dunno, take logical arguments out of the conversation, and something about state sanctioned murder just does not feel right, so I’ll go with my instinctual feeling and vote against.

Fiona says:

09:52am | 26/09/11

Cate, do you realize the cost associated with putting people in comas? In these days of stingy health care funding that just ain’t gonna happen. Palliative care expansion is our best option at present.

Neil Cadman says:

10:33am | 26/09/11

Why should religion be taken out of the conversation, “the fool says there is no God” There is no moral code apart from what God has given man. Without revelation of God people cast off restraint and become like animals. God commands us to honour our fathers and mothers. and that in their old age, we repay what they have done for us. That means we do not treat them like a dog and put them away. Man is body soul and spirit . The soul and spirit continue after death. It is appointed once for a man to die then comes the judgement. I would not like to go to the judgement in opposition to the command “You shall not murder.”

michael j says:

11:22am | 26/09/11

@Sheldon-yes you are quite right ‘’  greed ‘’ is a big factor when family members want to die to rid themselves of unbearable pain,,that such people can be classed as human is in itself a great shame on our species ,,at least the dying person would probably have an inner smile knowing they would soon leave such scum behind,,,

Kaye says:

11:40am | 26/09/11

@Neil Cadman “there is no moral code apart from what God has given man”.

That’s rubbish. I’m an athiest but I don’t run around murdering, stealing, or abusing other people because it is against my moral beliefs to do such things, not because some book sets out that an omniscient being says it’s so.

LC says:

12:21pm | 26/09/11

@ Cate

Concerning your slippery slope model:
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/slippery-slope.html
Yeah…sorry about that.

And do you know how much money and resources is required to put people in a medically-induced coma? With the healthcare system stretched far enough as is, that won’t happen unless the patient has some chance of recovery, like how younger, healthier people are prioritized to receive organ donations. And with our aging population you’ll only be able to get so far with palliative care. They’ll all fill up eventually.

Amanda McMangoline says:

12:29pm | 26/09/11

The elderly have been through recessions, depressions & world wars & now we tell then they are too vulnerable to make their own decisions on how they wish to die!
Don’t patronise them - let them decide for themselves!
I say good on you Dr Nitschke for allowing options!

AFR says:

12:53pm | 26/09/11

I’m an athiest but am against both abortion and euthanasia. Religion doesn’t come into it - I just believe in the preservation of life. I don’t really have any reasons to justify it - its just how I feel.

Marj Lawrence says:

01:25pm | 26/09/11

Thank you Dr Nitschke!  for your perseverance and drive to relieve people of unnecessary suffering when faced with a certain death.  Your dedication to this cause will be welcomed by many people including myself.

The fact that we will now have the same relief as animals in a similar situation is a great comfort.

Comments from narrow minded people who obviously have never had to nurse or watch a loved one suffering pain and general indignities when totaly reliant on someone to care for their every needs including feeding, bathing, toileting (including wiping bottom and often cleaning up terrible messes) make me very angry.

We cannot seem to get through to some people that it is impossible for any one to terminate another’s life unless the person concerned has expressed a desire for it to happen.

Euthanasia has been legal in many other countries for many years without any problems.  These countries include:  The Netherlands, Switzland, Germany, Montana, Washington to name a few. No charges have been laid in England when cases of assisted suicide have been before the courts.

80% of the worldwide population want to have an end of life choice.  Why then are a small minority so vocally against it?  Are they afraid of floundering around in the fires of hell through eternity?  Their argument that family would put pressure on the patient to seek an end is totally invalid.  Before any doctor would prescribe the required medication he would make sure no pressure was put on the patient.

Can the people who oppose the right to have end of life choices please get it into their heads that this is not for everyone.  People who want to see life out to the bitter end may do so without any problem - but PLEASE do not try to stop those of us who want to have a choice.  We don’t want to interfere in their life - PLEASE do not interfere in ours.

If my family tried to pressure me I would rather be dead.  On the other hand - if my family wanted to keep me alive in pain and suffering - I would consider them to be very cruel. 

At the same time, I would not allow my family to give up their lives to nurse me if I was unable to look after myself.  I would consider it a very selfish act to expect my family to do this.

I have been scarred for life from looking after my terminally ill husband, mother, mother in law and father in law.  I would not let my family go through this hell.

I don’t believe in heaven or hell after death but I do believe there is hell on earth for the unlucky suffering and heaven on earth for the lucky ones.

Congratulations and thanks to Dr Nitschke for taking up the cause for suffering people.  I cannot thank him enough for giving me great peace of mind.

Angel says:

04:07pm | 26/09/11

@ Tory
Some journalist are up front and reveal their position re Dr Philip Nitschke fair and clear with out cheap rhetoric. Others come in disguise, pretending to be fair and looking at both sides of the issue only to launch a cheap and rhetorical personal attack against Dr Nitschke.  You certainly belong to the latter category. Regardless of
your defence that it is the issue you have target and not the person your article doesn’t read at all like this.  Statements like ‘The ghoulish right-to-die campaigner…..  and made his career enthusing about euthanasia’  are appalling and offensive. Since the
overturning of the Northern Territory’s Rights of the Terminally Ill Act (ROTI) in 1997 Dr Nitschke did something which should have earned him a medal. He is providing the seriously and terminally ill with practical information about peaceful end of life options.  In the absence of Voluntary Euthanasia Law in Australia thousands of people are grateful to Dr Nitschke for this, including myself and you,
quoting you:  ‘ I’ve been to a Nitschke workshop. It was fascinating, informative, and I’m glad I now know how to go about ending my own life, when and if that becomes the only option’.  According to you he goes too far, but let’s face it without going so far you wouldn’t be in the position to know how to go about ending your life peacefully. You are not by any chance a ‘double face’ ? Furthermore, if you would have done your homework you would know that many Doctors in Australia do help seriously and terminally ill to die. They only don’t make it public. Dr Philip Nitschke plays it straight. He doesn’t play the game and by doing so he becomes the target of undeserved and ridiculous blame. Blaming Dr Nitschke for stupefying the euthanasia debate shows a lack of understanding of the complex political reasons why we don’t have a Voluntary Euthanasia Law in Australia.  That Dr Nitschke got the approval to import Nembutal will put him a very difficult position. The balance between helping the terminally ill to die peacefully and being aware that with one wrong step he could end up in prison will be a very difficult one. But that is Dr Nitschke, a man who fights openly and straight forward. He certainly could have an easier life, playing the nice Law obeying doctor,  writing submissions re Voluntary Euthanasia and, en passant helps the terminally or seriously ill to die peacefully, earning a handsome fee, too.

Bettina O'Meara says:

08:17pm | 26/09/11

YES, b y all means take religion out of it, why should it even feature.
Many good christians would prefer to die with dignity, and so would many who are not christians.  It is the person’s choice only, no-one else makes it.
Who would want to die if they are happy and well and who would be weak enough if they were in that state of mind and health to be pressured by even one person…..be real. Exit deals with the older generation.  I have seen people leave whatever they intended and preferred to do rather than suffer a prolonged death until they have lost the chance.  Not because they did not want to follow their beliefs. Also, we, as a geriatric society, are   minute at this time,!! compared to what we see happening to young people using drugs & causing physical damage or loss of life to their peers.  These young people are the country’s future, concentrate on their wellbeing….what is their future going to be like after so much abuse in their early years.

Leave Dr Nitschke alone, he knows what he is about and we are very grateful to him for his huge amount of input into this subject.  Who else . would do it.  He is continually harrassed.  He is a GOOD man   Not ONE person would ever be co-erced into an action which is not of their choice.        I am very proud to be a Chapter Co-ordinator for Exit and I have considered this problem for the older generation, long before I ever heard of Philip Nitschke.  Keep it up….Philip & as always, I wish you much success.  You will always be remembered. Bettina O’Meara

acotrel says:

06:56am | 27/09/11

@Cate
I agree with your comments.  My old mother-in -law has dementia, and my wife is caring for her in her home 200 KM away from me.  I love the old darling, and I’d never wish her dead.  However the going never gets easier, and an option could be to shove her into a nursing home and walk away.  Already the quality of life is suspect in those places !  Why would you expose someone you love to the risk of maltreatment, and if euthanasia was permitted, possibly an early death ?

Tima says:

06:31pm | 27/09/11

it’s there a notion that there should be equality amounts physical and metal health? How can euthanasia delegate to one half and not the other? Its at the point now where as people in the netherlands are calling for the law to be changed for people over 70, so they can be euthanised if they are simply “tired of life”. If the law is pasted, i dont see much relevance to the age limit. What if a 30 year old is tired of life.

Is this just a small step toward legalising suicide??  Even promoting it, making it a norm in society.

Aren’t doctors suppose to heal people, are hospitals suppose to be places of saving and recovery. It seems like a primary school argument, but aren’t we just blurring the lines between life and death. Maybe there is something bigger than just preserving someones dignity.

Charlie says:

05:06pm | 26/09/11

and the religionists give fuel to the anti religion debate…whilst leveled headed discussions from level headed people seems to not rate a mention, perhaps there is a interest in following the most dramatic of the lot from both sides of the debate rather than focusing on the facts, and in the end if people make a deicison on an important issues like this based solely on what they see in the media then theres no hope for us all.

Timmy says:

08:56am | 26/09/11

Mahhrat,

“Surely, the freedoms and responsibilities that come with liberty are those that include the right to end your own life.”

This is called suicide.

Euthanasia is using someone else to end your life. Should I have the right to ask someone else to kill me? Should you trust a process established by politicians to get your death right?

adam says:

09:18am | 26/09/11

Timmy,

You have a right to ask anyone anything, they have a right to say no.
Anyone who loves you sufficiently to assist in this most sincere request should have the right of protection from prosecution.

Mahhrat says:

09:18am | 26/09/11

@Timmy,

“Should I have the right to ask someone else to kill me?”

Yes, you should.  Further, you should be able to do so at a time and place of your choosing, to have a party immediately before and have whoever you want watching it. 

If you’re going to equate suicide with euthanasia, then you get the stupid answer.

marley says:

09:31am | 26/09/11

@Timmy - should you have the right to ask someone to end your life?  Yes. I think you should.  Some doctors will agree to do so, some won’t, and they should have that right as well.  But if you’re in extreme pain, with no prospect of recovery, then yes, I think it’s reasonable to have an option open to you.  Euthanasia is, after all, not very ethically different from having a “do not resuscitate” order on file.

AdamC says:

02:22pm | 26/09/11

I am inclined to agree with Timmy. People being able to kill themselves is quite reasonable. Likewise, I see it as quite reasonable to allow physicians to withold, at patient request, treatment that will prolong life if the patient is in pain and does not wish to persevere.

However, where someone takes an active step to kill another, the issue is much more complicated. It is a major moral challenge to allow someone to kill another, even if it is requested in the strongest terms.

Mahhrat says:

08:08am | 26/09/11

Um, Chris, it’s an opinion piece.  Tory no more needs to clarify her points than you need to justify what you ate for tea last night.

Michael says:

09:57am | 26/09/11

All the more reason for a media inquiry Mahhrat.

Leto says:

01:37pm | 26/09/11

Because it sounded like you support voluntary euthanasia, but couldn’t resist a little bit of name calling (it is an opinion piece after all…) just to show you aren’t ‘with that guy’ (The ghoulish, gung-ho, gangrenous merchant of the macabre extremist Nitzsche).

How does something become legislation if there are no advocates for it? And how can an advocate ignore that the absence of such legislation does not mean that people aren’t suffering NOW.

There is a difference between encouraging people to consider euthanasia as an option, and encouraging people to consider euthanasia as THE option.

The language in your piece is very disingenuous. I especially liked the bit where you linked the execution of a possibly innocent man with Nitzsche.

Mahhrat says:

08:10am | 26/09/11

@Joan, “There is no such thing and can never be legally controlled euthanasia…”

- why?

Tedd says:

08:14am | 26/09/11

Wow Joan.  Suggesting people harass Vets to kill them, or the State develop gas chambers seems a bit harsh.  Suicide is messy, too.

Babs says:

08:55am | 26/09/11

But Joan is right - why should another human being be expected by law to kill someone else.  Suicide is the right way and I’m guessing that’s what Dr Nitschke intends with the imported sleeping substance. I wouldn’t mind knowing where to get some so if I get a diagnosis of something bad I can work out how to take action. It’s mathematics - work out how many days are probably left, think about the quality of those days and then aim at the tipping point and kill yourself before it all gets too awful. Maybe you’ll miss out on a few more weeks, but it’s better than being stuck with a hideous death you can’t hasten because you’re too ill to top yourself.

Labs (d)rool!!! says:

09:21am | 26/09/11

So, how do you commit suicide if you’re bedridden? Should you stock up on sleeping pills and/or guns and ammo while you are still healthy enough to move on your own? Bit hard to tie a noose to the rafters when you can’t even get out of the bed to go to the toilet.
And if you can still manage to off yourself without anyone’s help, my oh my, what a marvelous surprise for the family members when they come home to find your brains splattered all over the bedroom wall….

old fart says:

11:26am | 26/09/11

take a look at the netherlands

Kayleigh says:

11:31am | 26/09/11

My best friend’s father had a stroke five years ago and now suffers from locked-in syndrome. He still has his mind but the only part of him that can move is his eyes. Euthenasia is the only option if he chooses to end his life, he has no way of committing suicide himself. It is for people like him that euthenasia is a consideration.

LC says:

03:04pm | 26/09/11

This post is insulting to those dying of terminal illness and the families who have to witness them go through it.

Dying with DIGNITY. Personally, I don’t see how that is dignified.

And it’s emotionally damaging to people who have to clean up what’s left of you from the road/railway, or the family member who walks in to see you hanging from the rafters, wrists sliced open and bleeding everywhere or your brains splattered all over the wall. Bet you didn’t think of that did you?

Molly Daveson says:

09:12am | 26/09/11

Sarah, in my humble opinion, if you are choosing to have someone else kill you at a time of your choosing, then you like a suicider, could well be accused of emotional instability, depression, confusion, and irrational choices?

Sarah says:

10:25am | 26/09/11

Simply from personal opinion, Molly.

My father committed suicide - and it was a world apart from someone making a controlled decision to end their life due to their personal health circumstances.

He made an irrational, snap decision during a period of mental instability.  - I personally think that is worlds apart from the potential of voluntary euthanasia.

Only IMHO though.

Jhondarc says:

09:31am | 26/09/11

Why is death - the total end of your life, forever - an easy way out?

tren says:

10:06am | 26/09/11

depending on what you beleive, a quick end to suffering or a shortcut to heaven are both easy ways out.

Chris L says:

07:59pm | 26/09/11

“without a pill that does the dirty work for you.” - can one at least use a gun that does the dirty work or do we have to strangle ourselves with our bare hands?

The whole idea of these drugs is to supply a peaceful option that doesn’t leave a mess for the family to mop up. It sounds a lot better than belting yourself in the back of the head with a hammer or whatever way you wouldn’t consider “the easy way out”.

marley says:

08:47am | 26/09/11

Nobody lives forever.  At some point palliative care will fail.
Forcing people to live with extreme pain devalues their lives.
End of story.

MarkS says:

08:54am | 26/09/11

Euthanasia devalues life
Banning euthanasia devalues freedom

Give me freedom or give me death. I among many others value freedom over life. Others may be willing to sell their freedom for a little safety, I am not. You made our choice over what you value most. But the problem is that you force your choice on me as well.

Elizabeth1 says:

08:57am | 26/09/11

My understanding of palliative care is that is a breath away from euthanasia.  Doesn’t it involve slowly increasing doses of pain killers until the respiratory system shuts down? I know of a pharmacist who refused to prescribe morphine because the increasing doses to maintain patient comfort were slowly killing the patient.

Mahhrat says:

09:05am | 26/09/11

@Jonathan, I’d like to rebut your arguments line by line:

“It is impossible to get legislation that gives the patient enough protection.”

I suggest this argument comes from the notion mentioned elsewhere - one of greed - where a person is talked into ending their own lives by grasping family members.

Even if we accept that we’re so incompetent that the professionals we would entrust with overseeing the euthanasia act itself can be so utterly deceived, I think everyone here would agree that euthanasia must be voluntary, by someone of sound mind and judgment.

Given that agreement, why should they be any less able to be influenced by the desire of their “support” groups?  My own grandma wanted to end her life exactly BECAUSE she was a burden, though none of us ever viewed her as one.

The other side however, while abhorrent to me (and evidently you) is no less valid - we are convinced (so to speak) of different things every day.  We are sold bad food and told it’s good, we are sold gambling and then told it’s evil.  Why is euthanasia any different?  Is ending a life so very different from ruining one?

Effectiveness of palliative care is continually advancing.

I have no problem with palliative care.  If you choose not to die, then you receive palliative care.  Why can’t you extend the same courtesy to those that would choose not to?

Euthanasia devalues life.

By what yardstick do you value life?  Simply saying “All life is good” pre-supposes that all life is good.  Victims of the plague would probably struggle to find positive things to say about that virus, yet it is life.  Laying in a bed for the last four years of your life because your body is broken and you can’t do anything devalues life. 

“End of story.”

No, end of any thought on your part.  Even death isn’t an end according to an awful lot of people.  Don’t be so fatalistic in your campaign against fatality.

Dan says:

09:24am | 26/09/11

Elizabeth1, your understanding of palliative care is somewhat mistaken. It is about managing symptoms (pain / discomfort) without having a curative effect. It does not apply exclusively to terminal patients, though that’s the context in which you hear about it most.

Fiona says:

09:49am | 26/09/11

Elizabeth1, I wonder how that pharmacist would feel if he found himself or a loved one in the position of needing palliative care. I’d say his views on pain relief would do a radical u turn. It is well known and accepted that with increasing doses of narcotics, the respiratory drive will be reduced. If someone is in severe pain, then who are we to deprive them of pain relief to salve our conscience? Ie: well so what if they were miserable and in pain, at least I didn’t contribute to their death, today…..Shame on that pharmacist.

Elizabeth1 says:

10:33am | 26/09/11

Fiona - I nursed this patient.  Its not something I will forget.
Shame is an understatement.  He should have had to come over to the ward and watch her struggle over next two weeks . I was young at the time and there is no way I would tolerate that kind of neglect now.  We should have sourced someone else to prescribe.

Bruce says:

09:25am | 26/09/11

Agree Sunny: The leading voice regarding an issue of personal choice. Unfortunately, most of our COWARDLY POLITICIANS and religious leaders find this issue to contentious. In years to come, long after Nitzche passes away, he will be held up as a person of vision, a pioneer, while our ‘dark aged politicians’ will be seen as backward thinking morons.

Kika says:

12:11pm | 26/09/11

Cate - doctors do it already. Thousands of people with cancer are given increased morphine by their doctors to allow them to pass on… it happens ALL the time already… the difference is that to acknowledge that it already happens and to give the patients a clear legal choice doesn’t exist.

Bruce says:

10:26am | 26/09/11

Knemon: Agree with your comments. Once you have seen someone die a “horrific” death, with the assistance of palliative care, bleeding from the soles of the feet, stuggling for breath, pleeding for the next shot of morphine so that you can go back into coma like sleep, you will change your mind. Maybe those people who oppose euthanasia should volunteer their help to the nursing staff and families who have to experience these tragic events.

pat says:

10:39am | 26/09/11

Agreed, nitschke is a brave man for standing up against the religious right.  Want to see ghoulish, take a walk through the dementia ward at your local nursing home.

Kassandra says:

02:09pm | 26/09/11

“Something I don’t understand, is WHY some doctors insist that it should NOT be the patients right to determine when they end their life.”

Doctors have practised euthanasia for as long as there have been doctors. It is seen as an act of kindness to relieve needless suffering. There are many famous examples such as Sigmund Freud who was given morphine by his doctor when dying from cancer.

Most doctors would see this practise as allowing nature to take its course, or hastening the dying process for the patient’s comfort. This is quite a different thing to requests to use the doctor’s medical skill to kill someone who would not otherwise die which would be a breach of codes of medical ethics. Some doctors, like Nitzsche, see no ethical dilemma if the patient is requesting help essentially to suicide because of subjective intolerable suffering, or even the prospect of it. Other doctors would disagree with him on ethical grounds.

The problem with these sorts of issues is that it is always easy to be dogmatic one way or the other when dealing with extreme situations but in real life many situations are not extreme. Where then do you draw the line? Who decides? A gaggle of lawyers and ethicists? (urgh!) Or just leave it at the patient’s request? Or their family if they can’t communicate? That’s the problem - it would be much less contentious if all cases were dying from terminal cancer but they aren’t.

subotic says:

03:50pm | 26/09/11

@Tory Shepherd. What’s feminism got to do with anything? Srsly, I ask myself this very same question about everything in life. And death. And shopping…

richard.perin@gmail.com says:

01:05pm | 26/09/11

Ditto XO@

James1 says:

01:19pm | 26/09/11

If you are going to continue with these posts, I am going to seriously consider euthanising myself.

Chris L says:

08:05pm | 26/09/11

No James1, we can euthenise him! That’ll be the beauty of it!

James1 says:

01:48pm | 26/09/11

Given that he argues for people to have the choice, wouldn’t it be right if he went ahead and exercised that choice regardless of the outcome?

Kika says:

02:06pm | 26/09/11

I would… I don’t want to die horribly, painfully and slowly. If I knew my time was up and I had little hope I’d want to be able to choose when and how I pass over. I saw my Nana suffer from bowel cancer and by the time she died she was a living skeleton being sustained by morphine. There’s no way in hell I’d want to die like that.

Donny says:

02:38pm | 26/09/11

Agree 100% Kika.  I have had to watch two grandparents go through similar things.  Not very pleasant for anybody.  Would much rather be able to make that choice myself before any disease took away the option.

Kika says:

02:00pm | 26/09/11

Oh… I know… it’s so boring now.  I agree with Greg Martin’s comments, if one team gets to do it, everytime should do it.  The Irish should pretend to be drunk leprachauns who want to glass you outside the pub after the game, the Poms should pretend to be Knights ready for a duel, the Australians should do an Aboriginal war dance and the Scots should do a William Wallace war cry… and so on and so forth.

Chris L says:

08:11pm | 26/09/11

Are you saying that anyone who administers euthenasia should undergo it themselves soon after? Perhaps it would still be possible if they formed a ring and handed the drugs to the person on their left.

Shama says:

03:58pm | 26/09/11

I am not a believer but I am against euthanasia for several reasons including its capacity for misuse.  You don’t have to make it compulsory - like botox it has the capacity to become de riguer (being facile but human beings can be lemmings).  And polite to kill yourself even if you are willing to suffer pain.

Not everything can be attributed to religious belief.

I suppose you also believe that suicide should be legal? Ideologically no one has the right to stop a 17 year old wants to jump off a cliff, it’s that person’s right.

iansand says:

10:07am | 27/09/11

Do you have a source for this assertion?  I have seen various figures claimed, but have never been able to track down definite statistics.

Richard Dixon says:

06:29pm | 28/09/11

Quote your evidence!

Anne Stocks says:

10:08pm | 03/10/11

Jay says…If this is how euthanasia is to be implemented then I am against it…It sounds cruel but when you see it first hand you will change your mind.

Dear Jay, I’m so sorry to hear about your father in law how hurtful for you, I was told they gave my sister an overdose of a drug when she was dying of cancer but they would not say when I asked,  even though I was told by two people they had done this because they had given them permission to do it…perhaps it happens more then we know.

I hope Jay that you can feel comforted in knowing that your father in law will always be with you as long as he is in your heart, I sometimes feel that Julie is very close and I smile when I remember the special times we shared. 

Thinking of you and your family - Kind regards Anne.