Today the parliament of South Australia is due to debate a bill to legalise medically assisted suicide in that state.

In support of voluntary euthanasia. Photo: Brooke Whatnall.

Should the bill pass, Australia’s “festival state” will assume the dubious and rather un-festive honour of being the first to make doctor assisted suicide available to its residents.

Unlike the Northern Territory’s 1996 legislation, the federal government would be unable to overturn the South Australian Bill should it pass into law.

To my mind, there are numerous of reasons for opposing assisted suicide and euthanasia. 

For one, it sends the horribly confused message that sometimes, and for some people, suicide is a valid option; that sometimes life is no longer worth living. Hardly an edifying example to the youth of the nation.

Meanwhile for many doctors, helping a patient commit suicide jars uncomfortably with the fundamentals of the medical vocation: to heal, and to do no harm.

Doctors generally do not see themselves as death-agents, which explains the opposition of, among others, the Australian Medical Association, the American Medical Association, the British Medical Association and the World Medical Association to the legalisation of euthanasia and assisted suicide.

The close association of euthanasia and assisted suicide with eugenic and totalitarian political movements of the past also gives pause for thought. Let’s just say that present day German MPs could scarcely be more emphatic in their opposition to euthanasia and assisted suicide.

Then there is the inevitable slide from assisted suicide into “mercy killing” for those who are unable to choose suicide, but for whom the choice is made out of “compassion”. Witness the routine “mercy killing” of newborn disabled children in the Netherlands.

Note also the staunch opposition to assisted suicide mounted by disability rights groups like Not Dead Yet and No Less Human. A “euthanased” patient faces obvious difficulties lodging a complaint for their unauthorised killing. These disability groups endeavour to kick up a fuss before it’s too late. 

And of course there is the inevitability of error in administering assisted suicide. Opponents of the death penalty point out that its irreversible and utterly final impact leaves no margin for human error. The same holds true for assisted suicide.

Any supposed “safeguards” are fallible, and legalising assisted suicide means resigning ourselves to the erroneous killing of depressed, scared and lonely individuals who slip through the safeguards, but who really just needed better care or support (as documented in the Northern Territory and in the US state of Oregon).

This, to me, is the truly saddening part of the assisted suicide movement. Wrapped up in the honeyed language of “dying with dignity” and “autonomy” and “the right to choose” is the sombre reality of a groundswell of mostly elderly Australians who are so terrified of how their final days, weeks or months might play out that they want to be able to make a rapid final exit.

Assisted suicide activists make up only a tiny minority of Australians, and yet they represent the tip of a lonely, alienated and anxious iceberg. There is an epidemic of isolation among older Australians.

We are wealthier and live longer than ever before, but ours is an age of social atomisation. Consumer culture exhorts us to embrace individualism, enjoy the moment, and it is doubtful that spending time with old fogies features very prominently on your average bucket list.

Historically, the elderly in most cultures were absorbed into the homes of their children in a sort of natural passing of the baton. As they became frailer and less independent, elderly parents leaned more on their grown-up children, contributing in turn to the rearing of (and imparting of lollies to) grandchildren, and to the general running of the family household.

Uncles and aunts also had a habit of moving in where the need arose. Whatever the pitfalls of such living arrangements, loneliness was not among them. Assisted suicide never got a look in.

This progression still plays out in some cultural strongholds, even here in Australia. But for the most part, older Australians today gravitate more towards retirement villages and nursing homes than to the homes of their children.

Out of the sight of their progeny, they are kept less in mind. Spending time with one’s elderly relatives (let alone strangers) has become optional. For many Australian seniors, this spells loneliness and isolation.

The good news is that, unlike terminal and incurable illness, loneliness and isolation are entirely treatable. More importantly, I suspect that if the problem of loneliness and isolation among older Australians is tackled in earnest, then, in conjunction with the continuing advancements in pain relief and palliative care, the prospect of living with a terminal or incurable illness will become a whole lot more bearable for those who are presently terrified of dying a helpless, isolated and undignified death.

All that needs to be done is for those of us who are still blessed with good health to make the effort. We can start with our own family members.

We can be that someone who holds their hand, who listens to their long-winded stories, and who tells them that they’ll have plenty of time to be dead, but that we want to make the most of the little time we have with them.

It won’t always be fun, or immediately rewarding. In fact, it will often involve an excruciating drain of energy. Our efforts may even be met with resistance. Still, I’ve never met anyone who regretted spending too much time with an elderly friend or relative before they passed on. I know plenty who wish they had spent more.

But don’t we all have better things to do? Not likely. Spending time with a lonely, dying relative or friend may just be the best thing you ever did. Compared to the grand mystery of death – that unknowable frontier – the minutiae of day-to-day living pale into insignificance.

Today’s young Australians are among the wealthiest, freest, and best-educated generations in the history of the human race. We can’t just sit by and let the people who have made this country what it is languish in isolation as they meet the challenges of illness and old age.

Whether they like it or not (and I have a hunch that they might), we should be hoisting them high in their twilight years, like veteran footy players on their final match day.

And if, like Derek Redmond in the 1992 Barcelona Olympic Games, all they have left to do is limp to the finish line in excruciating pain, then the least we can do is offer them a shoulder to lean on – perhaps to cry on – and make sure they make it all the way.

I don’t know if South Australian MPs will take the grave step of giving assisted suicide the imprimatur of the state. I sincerely hope they don’t.

But whether they do or not, the mere existence of an assisted suicide movement should be enough to jolt the rest of us out of our indifference to the loneliness, suffering and desperation that so many Australians experience in their twilight years.

82 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • David LD says:

      11:04am | 24/11/10

      Ooh, slow news day.

      Get the Christian Lobby, the Council for Children and the Media or the Family Association to send us a pre-digested piece of moralising tripe, stat!

      The only way people like you, Tim, can ever change your minds is when you personally have to watch a family member, partner or friend of yours slowly wither away before your eyes, as they lead a life filled with agony, shame and indignity.

      You people make me sick.

    • GetReal says:

      11:18am | 24/11/10

      Nothing about this comment makes any sense. Did you read the article?

      The issue is newsworthy because South Australia is set to debate euthanasia today.

      Christianity has nothing to do with anything.

      You haven’t addressed a single one of the issues raised.

      And how do you know the author hasn’t ever watched a family member, partner or friend slowly wither away?

      Play the ball, not the man.

    • Adam Diver says:

      11:23am | 24/11/10

      Surely if there is a “right to live” there is an equal “right to die”. I have heard the arguments against euthanasia but am yet to be convinced its anything more than “dying is scary”. The irony of all this, is that the support comes mostly from the religous organisations, the ones promising eternal happiness and existence after death.

    • Macca says:

      11:55am | 24/11/10

      “For one, it sends the horribly confused message that sometimes, and for some people, suicide is a valid option; that sometimes life is no longer worth living.”
      Unfortunately, this is sometimes the reality, that family members are in such agony that they no-longer wish to live.

      “Hardly an edifying example to the youth of the nation.” I find this pretty offensive. Teenage suicide is completely different matter that does not belong in with this argument.

    • Joan says:

      12:28pm | 24/11/10

      I think you are the one with problem David LD….your problem is that you can’t deal with your own feelings at such a time and to end your suffering you expect a doctor to kill the patient so you can get along with own life not bothered by the natural process of dying of the other person…. speedy convenience , the throw away society mentality belongs to you ... you are the weak one, I wouldn’t want you around me if I ever got cancer or other debilitating disease. ...And how do you know , that euthanasia with injection is less violent than bludgeoning a person to death.?...You don’t know .... it just looks that way…. less messy, so the killer looks more kindly ...  ..same outcome

    • tombowler says:

      01:10pm | 24/11/10

      Righto David….

      “he only way people like you, Tim, can ever change your minds is when you personally have to watch a family member, partner or friend of yours slowly wither away before your eyes, as they lead a life filled with agony, shame and indignity.”

      So what you postulate is that because it is difficult for YOU to watch someone pass away like that, euthanasia should be legal…

      Sorry what?

      You want to kill your close relative who is terminally ill because it’s hard for you to watch someone you care about suffer.

      Fark me! i’m bloody glad I’m not your drinking buddy! Does seeing your mate dealing a hangover make you wanna just grab that bottle of barbituate?

      Sorry mate, It’d be you who makes me sick.  Weak, selfish bastard….

      @Joan; spot on!

      It’s symptomatic of a selfish world where people have become so hedonistic and self-involved that they think as long as they vote in the greens and support gay marriage they can kill off the oldies when the goin’ gets tough and play it off with the standard smugness of the lefty….

      Tell you what: ain’t no such thing as a dignified death. Ain’t nothing dignified in ducking the easy way out…

      Way I see it- going out into that last bout with your gloves on and swinging is about the closest to dignified manner in which one can meet the reaper….

      Grandad went out after a battle with cancer. He was shrunken, frail and in immense pain but that day that he died his eyes still burned with a bit of his old “battle light” right up until he breathed his last and his lids flicked shut.. He fought it long and hard and lived weeks longer than expected only missing his goal of seeing a last Ashes test by days.

      The man died with dignity. He might have been a shadow of his old self, he might have been in pain but he was proud to the last.

    • David LD says:

      01:28pm | 24/11/10

      @Joan - You know that it’s VOLUNTARY euthanasia, right?

      As in, ONLY the person with an expressed wish, either by a living will in the case of incapacitation or in person while still able, is the ONLY person that makes the decision. AND the decision is to be approved by TWO doctors in consultation.

      NOT their caregivers, NOT their family, NOT their friends.

      If a person hasn’t made a living will, they cannot take part in VOLUNTARY euthanasia as they have not voluntarily expressed their wishes.

      Your ignorance and false equivalence are showing.

    • Robert Smissen, rural SA, God's own country says:

      01:43pm | 24/11/10

      OK suppose they pass the law, in the future I can imagine an older person on low income being told, we accept your in pain but their is no $ $ $ for operations but there is funding for euthanasia. If you are in excruciating pain, which choice will the so “nicely” be pushed towards? ? ? ? Unfortunately it already happens, my 83 yo Dad was declared by my doctor to be fitter & in better health than most people in their 50s (still working) was doing bike stunts without a helmet, had a stack up & cracked his head, other than monitor his vitals the hospitals did NOTHING! ! ! If he’d been younger, what’s the bet they would have done more. Hospitals are already rationing care, what makes you think that self death wont be pushed as an option on old people

    • David LD says:

      01:49pm | 24/11/10

      @tombowler - Good to see that projection isn’t going anywhere anytime soon on this forum.

      I don’t want to kill anyone, but I do want people that are living in pain, indignity, suffering and shame to have the opportunity to choose for themselves if they want to continue living.

      Your mindless, lock-step, “No because I said so” couldn’t be more ridiculous unless you called me a lefty… Which you have.

      You do realise that the concept of left versus right is actually an economic one, and not a socially liberal versus socially conservative one, right?

      Let’s clear something up here, for the feeble of mind that can’t seem to get their heads around this… It’s VOLUNTARY. If your grandfather or loved one or whoever does not want to engage in assisted suicide, that’s THEIR choice. Restricting the choice of others based on an anecdotal experience in one case appears to be the hallmark of the conservative mindset lately.

      Don’t want voluntary euthanasia for yourself, because that’s the only person it can actually affect, don’t choose it for yourself. Just hope that the warm feeling you get while you’re up on your moral high horse isn’t just your incontinent bladder expelling itself on your leg.

    • Tombowler says:

      02:47pm | 24/11/10

      David,

      There is ‘left’ and ‘right’ in both social and economic position. You postulate that people are trying to ‘control’ your ‘right to die with dignity’ but as is so common with you (i refuse to call it ‘liberal’ because left social policy actual lean toward the more dictatorial as per the greens) lefties you fail to understand that your perfect soy-bean commune world does not exist yet.

      What can be abused, will be abused.

      I am not concerned about euthanasia affecting me.. I’m concerned about the terminally ill that will be emotionally pressured into it by their families.

      Explain to me how we plan to avoid situations like this:

      Families who will hint, ever so subtly, that:

      “it’s really okay if you decide to go ahead with euthanasia grandad… I think it’s really upsetting the kids seeing you like this anyway…”

      or

      “It’s very expensive looking after you grandad, we don’t mind though, it’s okay that the kids can’t go to private school and we will have to skip presents at christmas this year..”

      Then Grandpa looks up the government guidelines, does a bit of googling and gets his answers ready for the psyhcs….. Next thing you know Grandpa’s regretfully watching the drip pump him full of barbituate will his kids try to pretend they aren’t thinking about the family vacation to aruba with the proceeds of his sold house thinking:

      “Thank god the estate was eaten up by bloody palliative care”

      So you intellectual giant David, please I ask enlighten me as to how these situations will be avoided? It’s easy to trick psychiatrists when one knows the part to ‘play’ ...

      Should you fail to respond with something as derisive and self-assured post as your last that satisfactorily answers that question. I will assume that you have retreated to the comfort of another forum where you can still hold your populist pseudo-humanist crap as true intellect….

      (Rules: no emotive weasel words, no straw-men, no deus ex machina about ‘we’ll work it out’ or ‘the doctors will know when that happens’.. a real substantive answer please mate)

      Cheers buddy

    • David LD says:

      03:26pm | 24/11/10

      @tombowler - So… Just so I understand the ground rules of replying to your comment… You are allowed to make up fanciful scenarios and rail against those as the absolute summit of the argument (one that I am not trying to make), yet you implore me to not use a straw man? How do you even manage to contain that level of cognitive dissonance? Give it a rest, you’ll wind up hurting yourself.

      Those scenarios you describe, both hyperbolic and not in any way addressing any of the reasons why I endorse the right of people to CHOOSE the right to die, only ever seem to be presented by conservative moralists? Is this another case of projection on your behalf? Is this something you think every family would do? Is it because you think that people would be stupid to not choose to do that because that’s would you would do, given the opportunity and legal framework?

      What you are suggesting is that because some people are selfish assholes, everyone has to suffer? Here’s a news flash for you, people will always be selfish assholes.

      The actions of those people shouldn’t make it impossible for people to legitimately request the right to die in peace and with dignity. Having multiple doctors agree with the patient’s request is one safeguard against that kind of abuse.

      The bottom line here, tom, is that nothing I say will change your mind. You have demonstrated that not only is the idea of giving people the opportunity to make the decision for themselves anathema to you, but that the very act of questioning your conservative ‘wisdom’ is offensive.

      You keep saying “NO because I said so!” all you want. The rest of the country is going to move on without you. Good luck dealing with it.

    • Ras Putin says:

      03:41pm | 24/11/10

      David is correct—it is obvious that Tim has never seen a close friend slowly passing away in a painful and grossly undignified way;wishing to be released from life…                                                            Tombowler;i wonder,if you are ever unfortunate enough to be laying in your own excrement,waiting for someone to wipe your arse for you,would you still have such high and mighty views!!  I strongly doubt it..

    • tombowler says:

      04:01pm | 24/11/10

      @David

      Well I suppose I have to give some marks for vitriol and condescension…..

      Unfortunately you failed to come even close to answering the questions with your answer intriguingly devoid of any of the eloquence or cohesion of your personal attacks….

      So your essentially telling me that “the doctors will sort it out” and that my arguments won’t happen because people are good (with the exception that you noted of conservatives such as myself).

      Sorry mate, it doesn’t hold up. You or me might not use automatic weapons to harm others but there are a lot of people out there who would. This is why they are banned and this is why my personal freedom to shoot car bodies with an Armalite is restricted. To prevent the public at large from harm caused by the inevitable abuse of that freedom.

      The AMA (the doctors with whom you wish to place the additional burden of determining the veracity of someones will to die along with the responsibility for killing them) don’t seem to think much of the idea of euthanasia.

      Interesting that you should argue that ‘nothing would change my mind’. You’d be surprised mate. It is not my problem how others choose to leave this life; I am just too aware of the massive potential for serious and irreversible abuse with such a system.

      Your failure to convince me is not to do with my close-minded, inherent evil, dictatorial nature but with the fact that you are clearly endowed with greater skills in the verbal than in the rational.

      I presented you with some reasonable scenarios and asked for a rational, cogent response.

      Your response was that “It wouldn’t happen but if it did who cares because people are arseholes”

      I ask you again. In respect to the situation presented to you above:
      1) What safeguards are truly capable of preventing it’s occurrence

      2) At what point does the cost of such situations occurring outweigh the ‘right to die’ as you so emotively call it. (It is actually the right to be killed legally by a doctor.)

    • LC says:

      07:17pm | 07/04/11

      David, I’d be more willing to bet they’ll only change their minds when it is THEY degrade slowly, spending weeks/months/years in agony and embarrassment.

      But by then, it’ll be too late.

    • Anthony says:

      11:06am | 24/11/10

      The uptake by doctors will depend on the medicare rebate.

    • Lapdancer says:

      12:15pm | 24/11/10

      Bit harsh mate. Public hospital doctors are salaried regardless of the number of patients they see. I’m not suggesting too many of them are starving in doctor world but I doubt this will influence uptake.

    • Anthony says:

      12:31pm | 24/11/10

      That’s right lapdancer that is why the senior doctors work in private. So the junior doctors will be left making these decisions while the senior salaried doctors are fulfilling their academic requirements travelling the world or the ones still in town are working in private. Not harsh at all. There will need to be a financial incentive to make it work. Anyone knows making doctors to work is like making a cake: add money and stir.

    • David LD says:

      11:12am | 24/11/10

      I should also point out that your pathetic attempt to pre-Godwin the discussion is blatantly, incontrovertibly, provably FALSE.

      Earlier this year the German Federal Court LEGALISED voluntary euthanasia in a landmark case.

      But don’t let the facts get in the way of a good eugnenics/nazism scare.

      Despicable.

    • Cara Nguyen says:

      11:29am | 24/11/10

      Great arguments Tim.  I agree.  Having watched my own father die, over a 6 month period at times in pain, but managed quite well by trained nurses and the wonders of morphine. I agree…the death bit is final and certain…the pain, to some extent, unavoidable…but the need to spend time for family to gather around is uncertain and priceless.  I know family members and many others who regret not spending a bit more time at the bedside.

      Unkindly, bloggers like David LD and others, would make it appear like pain is to be avoided at all costs. 

      In the case of the euthanasia movement the cost (licence to kill) is way way to high.

      If pain equals indignity then why do we hold our mothers, who painfully give birth to us all, in such high esteem?  Pain is part of life, it helps build character and usually brings about something good once we pass through it.

      To those who are afraid….....have no fear….enter your final days as courageously and recklessly as you lived your life…a let other take the pain journey with you….or are you too chicken?

      If you are feeling sick David, I would not suggest visiting the outpatients in the Netherlands.

      Let’s not turn the healing profession into the killing profession PLEASE!

    • kyzz says:

      01:19pm | 24/11/10

      @ Cara, I will try to be polite about this, you have said that your father’s pain was managed quite well with morphine, I’m assuming that the dose was increased as his pain did…... There is a point in which the level of morphine needed to successfully relieve a person’s pain is incompatible with life….. make of that what you will
      Comparing the pain of childbirth which a person recovers from and women actually have a specific hormone to help them forget completely incompatible with someone enduring the pain of metastised terminal cancer.
      Take for example someone with terminal cancer who has to be intubated it is now too painful for them to breath on their own, which leads to feeding tubes and catheters and blockage/infection, morphine being increased all the while until you finally agree to let the doctors stop treatment but by then your loved one has suffered way more than they need to because you were simply too selfish to let them go.
      I have lost family members too.
      Pain can be good and help us grow stronger, not the case for terminal patients they are going to die and no amount of treatment will change that, all their pain does is make them suffer, not grow in character as much as you or I might “grow” (sic) from the experience of watching a loved one die painfully, I doubt the dying person gets anything from the experience but more pain.

    • Kika says:

      02:00pm | 25/11/10

      Cara - don’t bring childbirth into it. Completely different thing. Procreating is a selfish thing driven by your genes to procreate. Nothing is noble about childbirth. Nothing is noble about dying in agonising pain like when you have a terminal disease like cancer. My Nana also died of cancer and like your Dad was probably given just a little more morphine from the doctors to let him go finally.

      I actually believe in euthanasia because I don’t want my loved ones to suffer. We put our animals down if they have a terminal disease because we don’t want to prolong their pain - why don’t we allow the same freedom for ourselves? What makes humans so damn special?

    • Cara Nguyen says:

      02:43pm | 25/11/10

      @ kyzz, thank you for tactfully raising the point about morphine.  I understand that, yes, many dying in pain have the pain managed by incremental doses.  However, this is a difference in intent.  if you intend to kill the patient with morphine…that is wrong that is murder.  If you intend to ease unbearable pain of a terminal ill person my a slight increase in morphine, that is ethically sound. 
      You mention the breathing and feeding tubes etc. Of course, it should not need to be clarified but removing burdensome treatment or artificial lifesupport is NOT euthanasia…there is no ethical problem with refuses a futile or expense treatment after weighing up the costs and benefits.  Euthanasia is always direct intentional killing or assisted-suicide.  And as soon as we say ‘this is a right’ then someone else has a ‘duty’ to do the killing…doctors should not be forced into becoming killers.

    • Elaine says:

      11:32am | 24/11/10

      Those people who are dying with incurable diseases don’t need to be told that they are not ‘dying with dignity’ - That is the implication in the current debate.

      This will definitely change the culture - and those with terminal illnesses will not want to feel like a burden for others and ‘do the right thing’ and take their own lives.

      Also, its not about the persons so-called choice - this is about society as a whole, as doctors will be expected to give the lethal injection and families would have to accept this new paradigm. We are not isolated beings, we depend on each other and we need to take steps to ensure life is always protected.

    • Grant says:

      11:33am | 24/11/10

      Tim Tim,

      Come on, can you be any more transparent.  You should try and imply your tone and meaning.  There is an air of unsophisticated use of language in this piece used to fabricate your argument and justify your cause.

      When in reality you are just trying to hide your religious background and agenda.  Own your belief’s and come out and say what you really mean and why. 

      You suggest a conclusion about euthanasia based on the origins of something like eugenics, and try and relate euthanasia to totalitarian political movements, german MP’s and death agents. 

      You have invoked Godwin’s Law at the start; we don’t even need the commentators to initiate Reductio ad Hitlerum, themselves.

    • GetReal says:

      02:44pm | 24/11/10

      Another comment that doesn’t address a single issue raised in the article.

      Grant Grant, don’t be patronising.

      And please try not to hide behind silly internet memes like Godwin’s law just to avoid using your brain.

    • Peter says:

      10:29pm | 24/11/10

      Grant Grant,

      Text book stuff.

      Intelligentsia debating methods 101:  when you can’t win an argument on merit accuse your opponent of being “unsophisticated” or “simplistic”.Works a treat.

      “fabricate your argument”, “Imply your tone and meaning” your post is incoherent twaddle.

    • Alex Fernandez says:

      11:36am | 24/11/10

      Couldn’t agree with you more Tim.  It’s all too convenient to kill off people who disturb our narcisstic pusuit of happiness by self indulgence. As individuals, and as a society, we lose our own dignity and self worth when we choose to destroy the life of a beautifully gifted but disabled child, or kill off an elderly relative who carries the collective memory and history of our family and society, for short term personal convenience. Worse still, we are creating a new industry for people to profiteer from death. No civilised society can entertain euthanasia.

    • Joe says:

      01:20pm | 24/11/10

      Why are we so scared to face the suffering that comes with death?

    • BR says:

      02:22pm | 24/11/10

      Conversely no civilised society would continue to demand needless pain and suffering when a simple, humane alternative is available. The very notion that we are “civilised”, then turn around and require an individual to linger in agony, is paradoxical at best.

      If you wish your loved ones to suffer through an agonising death, by all means do so; please don’t infringe on the rights of others to consider a more humane alternative. Such a stance only reinforces the idea that it is you who is indeed narcissistic.

    • Sam says:

      05:44pm | 24/11/10

      Joe, ya dork. I think you will find it’s not the suffering that comes with death, but the suffering that comes with living when death is inevitable.The dying part is easiest, if only you lot will stop interfereing and allow us to get on with it.

    • Sheba says:

      11:44am | 24/11/10

      People should be able to choose to die with dignity assisted by a competent technician.

      Or would you prefer that they crawl out the back behind the shed and blow their head off with a shot-gun.

      Hopefully, SA passes this legislation and other states follow.

    • JanetLT says:

      11:49am | 24/11/10

      doctor assisted suicide has always existed unless you’ve been living under a rock that you don’t know this. We should be rational enough to ask the patient/victim/candidate/client: Are you glad/happy being alive? No leading questions allowed. If the answer is NO, then surely a peaceful death should/can be arranged.  You look young Tim try imagining bed sores all over your body, blindness, paralysis, incontinence, dementia.. Don’t think of yourself, think of the person longing for freedom from a hell in life. Yes, I attend Exit International meetings and no, I don’t think Dr Philip Nitschke is doctor death. He is in fact doctor compassion because he wants to relieve people from unnecessary suffering and extreme pain.

    • True Believer says:

      02:04pm | 24/11/10

      JanetT & Macca

      I think you are the ones living under a rock.  The reality of legalising killing fellow human beings or assisting/encouraging them to suicide has such wide and diverse ethical implications it deserves much more thought than either of you are prepared to give it.

      As I understand it Dr Nitschke’s book written with another promoter of death advocates troubled teens and depressed prisoners as also being on the list of those whom he would apparently happily help on their way with his nasty little machine.

      The reality is where this murder/suicide under the euphemism of euthanasia, mercy killing etc there are involuntary deaths - that is, people are put to death who have not requested it.  That is the reality, 32% in Belgium, 500 in the Netherlands. One person put to death by the hand of another in peace time is one person too many.

      To legalise the putting to death or the encouragement of suicide in our community will cause our community to degenerate more rapidly than it currently is and that is sad enough.

      Before any of you dash in with “have you sat with someone who suffered” and all your other mindless chatter - yes I have - a person who suffered for years, not days, not months, certainly not hours of two dreadful diseases. 

      What sustained her? Her indomitable faith in God. She died a gentle, peaceful death as she had prayed or and no human intervention was asked for, desired or needed.

    • True Believer says:

      02:04pm | 24/11/10

      JanetT & Macca

      I think you are the ones living under a rock.  The reality of legalising killing fellow human beings or assisting/encouraging them to suicide has such wide and diverse ethical implications it deserves much more thought than either of you are prepared to give it.

      As I understand it Dr Nitschke’s book written with another promoter of death advocates troubled teens and depressed prisoners as also being on the list of those whom he would apparently happily help on their way with his nasty little machine.

      The reality is where this murder/suicide under the euphemism of euthanasia, mercy killing etc there are involuntary deaths - that is, people are put to death who have not requested it.  That is the reality, 32% in Belgium, 500 in the Netherlands. One person put to death by the hand of another in peace time is one person too many.

      To legalise the putting to death or the encouragement of suicide in our community will cause our community to degenerate more rapidly than it currently is and that is sad enough.

      Before any of you dash in with “have you sat with someone who suffered” and all your other mindless chatter - yes I have - a person who suffered for years, not days, not months, certainly not hours of two dreadful diseases. 

      What sustained her? Her indomitable faith in God. She died a gentle, peaceful death as she had prayed or and no human intervention was asked for, desired or needed.

    • Brisbane says:

      11:58am | 24/11/10

      I have some questions, if choosing assisted suicide is dying with dignity does that mean that dying without assisted suicide is dying without dignity?
      And secondly, the catch phrase ‘the right to die’, does that mean the right for you to take your own life or the right for someone else to take your life?
      Does euthanasia marginalise vulnerable minority groups by suggesting that at some circumstances its better to die than to live?
      Would this create a poor precedent to the younger generation by making the older generation seem expendable?

    • Duff says:

      03:32pm | 24/11/10

      Hi Brisbane, my answers would be:

      1. No, because one can presumably maintain dignity in both cases, it depends on the circumstances and the individuals point of view.  But don’t get to hung up on the sloganeering.

      2. I think ‘right to die’ means the right to choose to die, with the State’s blessing, rather than continue to live in unacceptable and unavoidable pain and suffering. 

      3. I don’t see how euthanasia has any bearing on the well being of vulnerable minority groups.  Sorry, just don’t get the implication.  As for a “precedent” being set that old people are expendable.  That’s a stretch, don’t you think?  Again, I think you’d have to expand on why you think that.

    • Sez says:

      11:58am | 24/11/10

      Tim, if you are struck down with an incurable and painful disease, you have the right not to pursue euthanasia.
      You do not, however, have the right to deny it from others for whom this course of action is the preferred option.
      Do what is right for you, let others decide what is right for them, and leave your moral judgment aside.

    • Bobster says:

      12:01pm | 24/11/10

      To an extent I agree with some of Tim’s point but his platform of outright rejection and use of eugenics gives away his desire not to address the fundamentals of the very arguments he has raised.

      Legitimising suicide is a big concern for me, despite my in principle support for legalised euthanasia. (I refuse to use the term voluntary euthanasia - if it’s not voluntary then the correct term is “murder”)

      The main reason I am uncomfortable about this aspect is because it has not been debated - we always get sidetracked and drowned out by the christian lobby (oh sorry, I mean ‘family’ lobby).

      Anyone who has worked in suicide prevention will tell you anything that legitimises or rationalises suicide to someone in a fragile mental state is a big concern - so, let’s hammer this one out. Don’t just bring it up as a self-evident proof that euthanasia is wrong.

      As the South Australian legislation stands I would like to see it rejected, simply because there has not been sufficient public debate on the issue. This is not something that should be done without serious, long-running and rational discussion.

      To achieve this, the christian lobby needs to butt out unless it has something constructive to say.

      Let’s hear from doctors, psychologists, cancer support services and academics.

      The opinions of research officers from “voluntary, ecumenical and non-party-political organisations” are as predictable as farts after curry.

    • Andy Mullins says:

      12:14pm | 24/11/10

      Well writtten Tim. Demosthenes wrote, “Men believe what they want to believe.” My experience is that the strongest arguments too often are dismissed by prejudice. Let’s hope you have more success.

    • conversely says:

      03:02pm | 24/11/10

      Poorly written Tim. Demosthenes wrote, “Men believe what they want to believe.” My experience is that the weakest arguments too often are guided by prejudice. Let’s hope you gain more enlightenment before you contribute again.

    • OchreBunyip says:

      12:36pm | 24/11/10

      Doctor-assisted suicide already happens in Australia. It might be called other things but it happens nonetheless. I think it is better to have openly discussed safeguards than covert decisions made without any terms of reference. The relevance of “voluntary” is that it must be the clear and unequivocal choice of the patient; it cannot be decided by others for their own good.

    • kyzz says:

      12:42pm | 24/11/10

      Tim sometimes “Doing no harm” IS allowing the person to die.

    • GetReal says:

      02:19pm | 24/11/10

      Big moral difference between “allowing someone to die” and “helping them to kill themselves”.

      You’re not criminally liable if you stand and watch a man drown, but if you actively drown him, that’s murder.

    • kyzz says:

      04:00pm | 24/11/10

      & if the choice is between a quick death after experiencing months of pain or continued sufferring?
      No you are not liable if you watch someone drowning, preventable, not a terminal illness get real. apples oranges?
      BTW if someone was drowning would you gather their friends and family to watch?
      If comparible to the euthanasia debate and one person was drowning with no hope of rescue or relief and they had with them the means to end their life quicker than the drowning would through a syringe given to them by their doctor before they left on their fateful trip, the choice lies with the persone drowning wether or not to use the syringe to end their life.

    • GetReal says:

      05:50pm | 24/11/10

      1. Just using an extreme example to clarify the huge difference between allowing someone to die, and killing them (or helping them to kill themselves).

      2. What on earth do you mean when you ask “if someone was drowning would you gather friends and family to watch?” I am struggling to connect it with anything else you, I or the author have suggested.

      3. And yes, you are right - a person is ultimately free to actively end their own life rather than wait for nature to take its course. That’s called suicide. But that person has no right to expect doctors or anyone else to help them. And there is no obligation on society to facilitate suicide assistance in the law.

      Just to labour the point a bit,  we are not talking about whether the person’s desire to die is good or bad, or whether they are free to choose suicide. We are talking about whether the laws of our society should give them the right to request help in committing suicide.

      It seems entirely reasonable to say to someone who wants help committing suicide - look, death is such a big unknown that we, as a society, are not going to let people help one another commit suicide.

      One good reason, as it says in the article, is that whatever safeguards you put up, you will end up with depressed people committing suicide through little loopholes in the assisted suicide laws. That’s a pretty good reason for parliament to play safety first, and make sure that all forms of assisted suicide are illegal.

    • Blazes says:

      12:49pm | 24/11/10

      The fact is if you look at other places which have legalized euthanasia - such as Holland or the state of Oregon in the US - it’s been a disaster. Many people who “choose” to have others kill them never received counselling, the quality of palliative care has gone down, and many doctors get away literally with murder because the laws are near impossible to enforce. It is crazy to think that Australia should go down that path.

    • MD43 says:

      12:50pm | 24/11/10

      My great-grandmother is 104 years old and has deteriorated to the point that she struggles to recognise her family (this is compared to when she was 100 going on 70) and her quality of life has sharply deteriorated.  She’s outlived her son (my grandfather) and she’s has said repeatedly for a while now that all she really wants to do is die peacefully and respectably, rather than in the fetal position or as a vegetable.  The writer and no one else should have the right to make decisions overriding her own and our families, whether she chose voluntary euthanasia or not if the option was available.  The writer does nothing more then getting on a moral high horse, restricting choice and causing more pain and suffering, which puts him MUCH closer to nazism than anyone who is pro-choice.

    • Kate says:

      02:16pm | 24/11/10

      My great-grandmother was the same. She died last year at the age of 95, but spent the last five years of her life unwell, unhappy and waiting to die. She would frequently talk about how she wished she could die peacefully rather than undergoing various medical treatments and suffering indignities such as loss of bowel and bladder control, not to mention Alzheimer’s disease.

      She had as much love and family support as it is possible to give - it doesn’t change the fact that she felt like she had gotten all she could out of life and was ready to die.

    • Jotun says:

      12:57pm | 24/11/10

      Just a thought for you all - in many cultures, before the modern Abrahamic ones swept the world, suicide was a function performed to restore honour, and euthanasia was a part of this. Has the killing of oneself being frowned upon by some parts of our population purely because it represents freedom from the restrictions placed upon our Christian-based society?

    • Marilyn Shepherd says:

      01:11pm | 24/11/10

      Utter drivel.  If people want to die it should be their right.

      We get no choice about being born, we should get a choice about dying.

      And doctors since the beginning of time have allowed patients to die or upped their morphine to make sure they do.

    • Kika says:

      04:43pm | 25/11/10

      Agreed 100%. Doctors have been doing this already for ever.

    • Fruitcake says:

      01:56pm | 24/11/10

      If I had a terminal, painful illness, I wouldn’t want to suffer and I wouldn’t want my loved ones to have to watch. I don’t know where you get your statistics from, but I can pretty much guarantee you that many doctors would applaud being able to legally end the suffering of the terminally ill.

      If I get sick, I’m moving to SA.

    • Jen says:

      03:45pm | 24/11/10

      I absolutely agree. This debate isn’t about me wanting to off my grandparents to hasten any inheritance I might be up for; it’s about me knowing that if I’m old and sick, I don’t have to hang around just to suffer.

    • Duff says:

      02:18pm | 24/11/10

      What a funny society we live in when you can - without anyone blinking an eye - shoot dead a racehorse simply because it’s broken a leg, yet we cannot even face the possibility that we should help each other end our lives when an individual is faced with insurmountable pain and suffering, zero quality of life, no hope of recovery and wants it to end. 

      Sure, we are human and they are just animals, but doesn’t the huge gap in logic make you wonder what this issue is really all about?  Perhaps, maybe, we’ve put ourselves on a such a lofty pedestal of importance in the uniiverse that we would rather see people suffer unnecessarily just as a matter of principle.  God would not be pleased.

    • Shane From Melbourne says:

      02:26pm | 24/11/10

      There should at least one state in Australia that allows the option of voluntary euthanasia and to hell with what the Catholic lobby thinks…..

    • MarK says:

      02:36pm | 24/11/10

      State sanctioned murder chills me to the core.

    • PaulB says:

      04:08pm | 24/11/10

      people are being kept alive in ICUs and HDUs across the nation on machines, suffering endless pain and torture at the hands of we medical people because our hands are tied when it comes to end of life issues, largely thanks to the efforts of religious morons such as the Australian branch office of the odious American Family Association, of which Tim represents.  These idiots are ultimately more concerned with the tears of baby jesus than they are with the lives and suffering of real people in the real world.

    • True Believer says:

      04:46pm | 24/11/10

      PaulB:

      What a nasty, cynical and most unhelpful, poorly thought out post.  People like you seem incapable of looking at the larger issue, the implications for our society if this is legalized.  You are being manipulated by the Greens who seem to have a strong desire to put legalise murder/suicide under the euphemism of “euthanasia”.  Any ethicist worth their salt would show you that this is not the way to deal with the suffering in our community.  Not giving treatment as you describe and I agree with your concerns about some of the medical heroics indulged in.

      Withholding these, or withdrawing them is not euthanasia.  Euthanasia is actively killing another person or aiding that person to kill themselves.

      It is often families who push for these efforts against medical advice, just as it will be families who could put pressure on for euthanasia. There is no legislation that will protect the vulnerable if this vile legislation goes through.

    • True Believer says:

      04:46pm | 24/11/10

      PaulB:

      What a nasty, cynical and most unhelpful, poorly thought out post.  People like you seem incapable of looking at the larger issue, the implications for our society if this is legalized.  You are being manipulated by the Greens who seem to have a strong desire to put legalise murder/suicide under the euphemism of “euthanasia”.  Any ethicist worth their salt would show you that this is not the way to deal with the suffering in our community.  Not giving treatment as you describe and I agree with your concerns about some of the medical heroics indulged in.

      Withholding these, or withdrawing them is not euthanasia.  Euthanasia is actively killing another person or aiding that person to kill themselves.

      It is often families who push for these efforts against medical advice, just as it will be families who could put pressure on for euthanasia. There is no legislation that will protect the vulnerable if this vile legislation goes through.

    • stephen says:

      07:10pm | 24/11/10

      If you are a Doctor, as you imply, then your expertize is in Medicine, not life.
      So start saving them, or develop a controlling substance that eases pain.
      Because if you would kill patients when you can’t save them, pray, do tell us where you practice,
      and when I get sick I will do it myself and save you the strain.

    • Mark_R says:

      04:33pm | 24/11/10

      Its already happening… and they are not doctors of death…they are doctors of mercy and compassion. I know of Doctors/nurses who will off the terminally ill “Would you like a good sleep tonight and a long sleep” It is better to go this way than as a vegetable that makes things worse for those left behind. As for any Christians hand throwing up in the air of “playing god” using life support machines are playing god…as its keeping people alive when with out it they would die naturally. My mother has about 4 months left (suffering for MDS a blood cancer), she does not wish to be a vegie in hospital waiting for the pain and suffering to end, being feed via a drip, not being able to communicate. And that is not they way she wants her grand kids and us to remember her.

    • P. Darvio says:

      05:50pm | 24/11/10

      More Christian distraction from the real issue of our generation, the brutal rape of children by Christian priests and how it is funded by Christians through their Christian schools, Christian charities and through tax payer subsidies.

    • Ange says:

      06:08pm | 24/11/10

      I think that Tim’s article is thoughtful and compassionate.  Having had the experience of seeing two close relatives die from cancer, I have to admit that time with them in their suffering was distressing, enlightening and amongst the most poignant times in my life.  I was proud that they could face death and fight all the way to live.  While it was terrible to see them suffer , I was proud that they chose to talk intimately with me about their own lives, their hopes and fears.  It brought me closer to them in a way I could never have imagined.  I still mourn for them and miss them.  Yet I am so proud of them for their courage, strength of character and vulnerability.  I think that it was a terrible mix of pain and pleasure for all of us.  I would not change it.

    • stephen says:

      06:56pm | 24/11/10

      It seems here that the first argument in favour of assisted suicide is the alleviation of pain ; not the patient’s pain, but sometimes an obscure relative who just cannot stand by and watch.
      (I suppose it would be the height of tragedy - or is that only irony - that the patient may be too sick to complain.)

      Let me put this to you ‘soothsayers’ : if Medicine would produce a drug that would stop all pain and discomfort, would you then be so keen to want to kill?
      Or is perhaps your own discomfort at seeing ‘life’, possibly for the first time in your lives, away from the comforts of home and what the TV says death is meant to be, just outside your feeble emotional range ?

    • Kika says:

      01:41pm | 25/11/10

      Well, as someone who has witnessed someone slowly die from the ravages of an aggressive cancer in her liver I can only say that maybe you yourself has not witnessed what death is in real life.

      If you love someone, how can you let them die such a horrible, slow, agonising death? Or would you rather just let them slip away in their sleep comfortably and in peace? When my Nana died she was an incoherent talking skeleton completely out of it and completely ravaged by her cancer that it was just a moment in time before she slipped away. The doctors finally gave her just a tiny bit more morphine that night and she passed away in peace and dignity.

      We say we care about humans, but we let them suffer so poorly. We don’t even let our cats and dogs die in such misery.

      Because of so called ‘ethics’ we prolong human suffering in case the big bad man in the sky will punish us. Come on, it’s 2010. I’m sure ‘God’ understands that euthanasia is not done in hatred and anger, but out of love and compassion for our loved ones so that they need not suffer.

    • Phil says:

      07:31pm | 24/11/10

      “To my mind, there are numerous of reasons for opposing assisted suicide and euthanasia.
      For one, it sends the horribly confused message that sometimes, and for some people, suicide is a valid option; that sometimes life is no longer worth living. Hardly an edifying example to the youth of the nation.”

      Oh wont someone think of the children ....

      This is the whole problem, who are you to tell me or anyone else how they can or cant end their life? No one is forcing you to use these options if they become available but you dont want anyone else to have them?

      This wont stop suicide or people wanting an assisted death who have though about it in great detail and have made arrangements prior to their deteriorating health from seeking other means, unfortunately means that can often mean other people are liable after they are gone.

      I do find it extremely frustrating with people who take your same line of though as its always about them not the people who would actually go through with it as clearly you have no idea of what people go through to come to that decision.

    • Shann says:

      08:31pm | 24/11/10

      To die with dignity begs the question what is human dignity. I have now been with three close people when they died-two from cancer. I think I have experienced a fair bit in my time on this earth.
      Dignity of the human being is now associated with quality of life. Your ability to be in control, to have your senses, to be well fed and clothed and so on. But do these things have anything to do with human dignity?
      I have dealt with people who were uneducated, impoverished, and at times also deformed. Yet it was when I was with them I found human dignity. They taught me that my dignity did not depend on any ‘quality’ trappings.
      To say that to die without pain and in control is to die with dignity has in fact devalued our human dignity. Human dignity is much more fundamental than that. If our laws do not give recognisance to that then they will end up equating human dignity and quality.
      This is not a debate about the artificial support of human life. I do not know of any world religion or group that demands such a thing.
      To face life (and death is part of life) as it comes makes human dignity real to ourselves and to those about us.

    • Chris says:

      09:31pm | 24/11/10

      I’d like to think that if I become a vegetable, an alzheimers sufferer that can’t remember my own wife and kids or spend each day in pain waiting to die that my own family would pull the cord. That’s not any kind of living. And I’m sure the big guy upstairs would understand. Screw what the church thinks.

    • True Believer says:

      07:57am | 25/11/10

      Thank God the legislation was defeated. Answer to many prayers,and but no doubt the death dealers will peddle their grim message again next year the battle will be on again.

    • True Believer says:

      07:57am | 25/11/10

      Thank God the legislation was defeated. Answer to many prayers,and but no doubt the death dealers will peddle their grim message again next year the battle will be on again.

    • Mickey says:

      11:33am | 25/11/10

      and the battle will continue until we get the church to keep their hands out of “non believers” lives. They can peddle their message to the throng of willing acolytes to their hearts content, but stay the bloody hell away from the rest of the community.

    • True Believer says:

      10:47am | 26/11/10

      Mickey:

      It is not churches only pushing for more thought and wisdom in this debate it is those who have a concern for the nature of the society in which we live.
      Legalised murder/assisted suicide under the euphemism of “euthenasia” (beware the watering down of language, Hitler used it to carry out his “final solution” - sounds so innocuous doesn’t it?)  is a step too far for intelligent, thinking, caring, concerned people.

      The clamour for it is in the main being made from people who have not the maturity, experience or depth of thought to realize what they are endeavouring to impose on all of us who live in our nation.

      They are being led by the nose by a political party with whacky ideas and the propaganda of a few disciples of a handful of those committed to kill innocent people in peace time.

      This is not something that should be rushed into on a burst of ill-informed emotional response to the fear of suffering.  I encourage you to think more deeply about this, read more, learn more, care more.

    • Andrew says:

      08:37am | 25/11/10

      Read the Classics, they are by the way what our entire moral, legal, political and social beliefs are based on.

      When you read them, Tim Cannon has clearly displayed he has not read them, you will find that many of the most honourable, glorious and influential deaths were suicides.

      Today’s moral opposition to suicide is a construct of the Catholic Church thousands of years ago in order to control death, and thus control the peoples of Europe and their Princes. This has spread across the globe.

      There is nothing wrong with suicide, the right to live goes hand in hand with the right to die. If our society believes in choice as it claims it does, then its Government will step back from preventing a person from making the most fundamental personal choice available. The choice to live or die.

      Let us take back the right to die that was so cynically taken away in the name of power through deception.

    • GetReal says:

      09:12am | 25/11/10

      Ah, some very big, very unsubstantiated calls here Andrew.

      The most offensive: “there is nothing wrong with suicide.”

      Any of your friends or family ever committed suicide Andrew? It’s not real fun, and I wouldn’t wish it on any family.

    • Andrew says:

      11:00am | 25/11/10

      GetReal - No one has the right not to be offended, slighted, or caused emotional pain.

      If you believe that you have that right, think about the precedent you set and the subsequent slippery slope to step onto.

    • Muttley says:

      11:40am | 25/11/10

      my word there is something wrong with suicide. But suicide and euthanasia are two very different things. And while the classics of literature may have had some kind of influence, you certainly cant state they are the base of our legal, moral and political beliefs. Absolutely ridiculous.

    • GetReal says:

      11:59am | 25/11/10

      Andrew - you make an interesting, although irrelevant point.

      And though you boldly assert that one right does not exist - the right not to be offended - you nevertheless claim that there is a right to suicide, with absolutely no attempt to justify the right other than some vague allusion to “The Classics”.

      I’m not even claiming a right not to be offended.

      But the fact that your comment would be gravely offensive to the family grappling with the suicide of their young son (to give one example) should give you reason to reflect on your position.

      Why would they be offended? Why might they disagree that their son had a “right” to take his own life? Just think about it.

      How do we balance that right in respect of depression, teen suicide, etc?

      If you want to talk about slippery slopes, you need look no further than your glib demand for a right to suicide. I repeat: it is gravely offensive.

    • Andrew says:

      04:10pm | 25/11/10

      Life is a tragedy and the sooner you accept you cannot change that fundamental fact, the sooner you will cease to attempt to enforce your own personal moral beliefs upon others.

      By whose morals are we to live by if not our own?

      The fundamental right to choose your own path and make your own choices, both right and wrong, is paramount. This debate is about the right to choose and to confuse it with anything else is misguided.
      I understand that suicide and death are difficult to those involved. I don’t dispute that and it goes without saying. The unanswered questions that linger after any death echo forever.

      Nonetheless, euthanasia is suicide. But I believe it is an opportunity for an Australian have the fundamental freedom to make the most basic personal and private choice, to live or die.

      Yet you try to drag this debate into the world of teen suicide and depression? This legislation is about doctors being allowed to assist someone to end their own life. The doctor is still allowed a choice. It would be another issue entirely if a doctor assisted a victim of depression to euthanize teen or adult.

      If you are comfortable with the State making personal and private choices for you I feel you should have a good hard look at yourself to find out why.

      Food for thought.

    • Amy says:

      10:12am | 25/11/10

      I dont like the idea of euthanasia however if I was told I was going to die of a long, painful illness that had no known cure, I think I would like to have the choice to say ‘No, I dont want to suffer, I want to die peacefully’.

    • Kika says:

      01:51pm | 25/11/10

      I really don’t understand what the fuss is all about with these things. 9% of Australians are church going. Which leaves 91% with a lot of other things to do and think about. Why should a minority dictate the rules for the majority?

      This same argument is the same for every other one out there. If you don’t like euthanasia, don’t do it. If you don’t like abortions, don’t have one. If you don’t like gay marriage, don’t another man (or woman).  Simple.

      We live in a free society and we are so lucky to live in a country where we can all pretty much live our lives without worrying about outside interference. If people want to die with dignity, or if people don’t want to prolong their loved ones suffering, why can’t they go ahead and organise with their doctors for a little more morphine to be included in their drips? Instead we have Christian lobby groups out there saying Baby Jesus is going to have a tanty if we allow this to happen.

      Tell me this Tim. Where is the limit? Is chemotherapy wrong because you’re potentially changing the course of nature of what may have been a life terminating tumour? If God gave you a tumour - you should damn let it ride its course!

      If you need a blood transfusion to save your life, would you take it? Of course you would. But there are Jehovahs Witnesses out there who think this is playing God too. Most of us would think this is ridiculous, but they aren’t out there lobbying to get rid of blood transfusions for everybody else out there. Just because they don’t want them, doesn’t mean we all cant’ have them.

      All I can say is that if I ever suffer from a terminal illness, or is maimed and injured beyond all hope of ever having a fulfilled life again, I would want my family to let me go. Like I always say we wouldn’t let our dogs suffer the way we let fellow humans suffer.

      Do what you want, and I’ll do what I want. That’s the joy of living in a free DEMOCRACTIC society.

    • David says:

      02:08pm | 18/01/11

      I am 34 years old and I have a chronic illness. I have a future of suffering to look forward to as my illness progresses. There is no cure and the destruction that the illness is causing to my body is irreversible. I am scared that I will have to endure a future of pain and suffering. It makes me furious that churches and religious groups have the nerve to dictate to me what is best for me and expect me to endure a torturous ordeal of pain and suffering. The last thing I want at this moment is to die, but when I get to the point that I decide that I am suffering too much to enjoy any quality of life, I want to be able to exercise the right to pass away in a peaceful manner and end the suffering.

    • Right to Die says:

      09:29am | 27/09/11

      I don’t think David has ever seen someone die in agony or despair.  Or does he think suffering is good for the soul?  There is a time to live and a time to die and I’ll decide when and not have any religious Right to Lifers tell be what to do.  I’m joining the Ringt to Diers.

 

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

ToryShepherd

Cheeky beers with morning papers in unexpected sunshine http://t.co/MD7VPRne

Anthony Sharwood

http://t.co/Zq0nGxkf nice pic of Thredbo this morning

Paul Colgan

@seamus yeah it's now called Smooth or Soft or Douchey Dad FM or something

Paul Colgan

It's a Sydney thing, but 95.3FM... Why? It used to be all Bohemian Rhapsody and Walk this Way; now it's Father to Son and Country Road. Wah.

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

We don’t deserve this huge, exciting scientific project

We don’t deserve this huge, exciting scientific project

I’d like to be able to say that sharing the world’s largest radio telescope with South Africa…

Mining money talks the loudest in Australian politics

Mining money talks the loudest in Australian politics

When North Queensland Liberal MP George Christensen got the idea of launching a new political organisation…

Please enter your password

Please enter your password

Help! I’ve succumbed to a crippling modern illness that can strike at any moment. Symptoms include:…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

Michael S says:

"A teacher at Geelong Grammar had criticised her for using words that were too long, which had left her confused and had made her doubt her ability to write essays. She became ''quite distressed'' when her English marks began to fall." I can sympathise. My scholastic mentors conveyed to me a causal relationship… [read more]

From: Welfare for breeders is a bonus for everyone

Change Up! says:

I have no problem paying my taxes. As a single, childless person on a very decent income, I can afford it and not have my life severely altered. Plus I understand that my taxes paying for things like schools, childcare and infrastructure is ultimately a good thing. A better community is better for me… [read more]

Gentle jabs to the ribs

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

A private school girl’s family is sueing her elite, extremely expensive private school for not… Read more

243 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free daily Punch newsletter