I’ve upset a lot of people over the years. At first I thought this was due to my unwavering history of frank and fearless journalism but it turns out people just find me rather annoying.

Whistler's Mother, a haunting image of an annoying old woman.

It is for this reason that I find the euthanasia debate a little bit worrying. I’ve seen the way my mother looks at me sometimes.

There are also fiscal considerations. I am already in my mid-thirties and drink and smoke far too much. If I were bumped off now it would likely save the hospital system a great deal of money and - from what my bosses tell me - have no discernible impact on national productivity.

This is not just a fear for myself of course but a fear for all of us who are vulnerable at times.

These could be ageing grandmothers and grandfathers who might feel as though they are a burden on their families; chronically or terminally ill people who might succumb to a dark moment in a life that still has much happiness left; people who struggle each morning to fight back the black dog, forgetting they are often rewarded in the afternoons.

Just recently my own grandmother died after a very solid 94 years on the planet. It was certainly not a life cut tragically short.

For years leading up to her death, which was ultimately hastened by a stroke but really caused by the ruthless inevitability of time, she had been losing many of the things that had given her pleasure.

The tennis had gone more than a decade ago - even her rat-cunning drop shots were beyond her by then - and the hearing started sliding soon afterwards, so every family dinner was a shouting match. (Granted they had always been shouting matches, but you get the idea.)

Her mobility declined until she could barely raise herself from bed. At the same time her appetite became more and more particular until she was commanding my mother around the kitchen like a squawkier version of George Calombaris. The plating up was slightly different too.

Indeed for many years my mother was effectively the sole carer of my grandmother, at first being at her beck and call via a special ``Batphone’’ that obviously gave Tony Abbott a few ideas, and eventually spending the last few months living with her in varying degrees of cleanliness. All the while she was working five days a week as an integration aide (clearly my mother has a thing for the disabled) and also tending to my grandmother’s 101-year-old sister Great Aunt Dorothy, a large, blind, demented woman who had both the physical strength and the voice control of an Asian elephant.

That one is still going incidentally.

And it is not as though my grandmother found much pleasure in her final years, nor that she exhibited any particular stoicism. She didn’t spend any significant time marvelling at the wonders of nature or assuring her family that she would be just fine. On the contrary, she complained a lot, demanded dinner at strange hours and often wondered aloud whether or not she would get into heaven.

So let’s cut the usual ``oh you could never be a burden’’ crap. Yes, my grandmother was a burden and caring for her was enormously difficult for my mother. It was physically and emotionally gruelling work, 24 hours a day.

But it was something she did without question. She didn’t do it because she enjoyed it - she wasn’t skipping about changing catheters like Mary Poppins - and she didn’t even do it especially because she wanted my grandmother to stay alive. She did it because my grandmother wanted to stay alive. Despite her grumblings, her constant pain and her crippling depression - strong family qualities that led her to declare me her favourite grandchild (in front of the others of course) - she wanted to live each last second.

And maybe it was no joie de vive. Maybe, again like her grandson, she was just paralysed by a cowardly fear of ceasing to exist. But that is what makes us human: We are cursed by the knowledge that the only certain truth is that death will take us and yet we rail against that certainty with all our might.

This is why historically the earliest signs of human culture are burial sites. The will to live on and the delusion that death is not final is the first marker on our journey to civilisation.

Another early marker of humanity is caring for the elderly and not just leaving them behind when they become too difficult to deal with. Even the Neanderthals managed to do that.

If people genuinely want to die it is almost impossible to stop them. And once they are in any form of palliative care they are often effectively euthanased anyway via the administration of painkillers. Doctors know that there are already plenty of informal avenues for achieving a peaceful and humane death and they use these everyday.

And there’s a reason why they should stay informal: Because more important than any individual’s ``right to die’’ is the right of all of us to be free from any pressure to die - and by that I mean the slightest, tiniest, most minuscule suggestion that the world or their loved ones might get along easier without them.

If you legalise euthanasia, if you institutionalise the concept that people should be weighing up the pros and cons of their own existence, that pressure is inevitably going to follow.

People battling vicious diseases or just the onset of time may start to feel selfish for doing so, when in fact the will to live is the most fundamental and decent desire within all of us. It drives our quest for peace, for democracy and for progress.

If my grandmother or anyone like her felt guilty for living because of a new law passed in her own country, it would be a country that had betrayed its weak and muffled the divine spark in each of its citizens.

Although it would at least give her one more thing to complain about.

Don’t miss: Get The Punch in your inbox every day

Get The Punch on Facebook

189 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • Austin 3:16 says:

      06:55am | 21/09/10

      If people weren’t already weighing the pros and cons of their own existence the debate about euthanasia would not exist. 

      Surely if the “informal avenues” exist it’s only because some have already debated the pros and cons of their own existence and decided to cut things short.

      While making some good points the article does kinda contradict itself.

    • Freddy says:

      02:04pm | 21/09/10

      Contradicts itself?  The author warns against “...institutionalis(ing) the concept that people should be weighing up the pros and cons…”.  You argue that, because some people are already (informally) weighing up the pros and cons, the article contradicts itself?  On the contrary, you’re confirming the author’s distinction between institutionalised euthanasia and the informal palliative care / letting it be / massive pain reduction with a large risk that the heart may stop that exists at the moment.  The argument is not against thinking:  it’s against institutionalising such a pattern of thinking, and all the unintended consequences that go with it.
      Better be careful Austin.  If you’re going to make such thin arguments you might not get into the 8th grade debating team next year…

    • Tim says:

      05:17pm | 21/09/10

      Time to start moving forward….Too many people want out of here…and can’t get help. Euthanasia is the only way forward…besides there are way too many people on this earth who actually don’t know that they are actually on it…Get rid of them…Let’s save the planet and get the population to a reasonable level…like 4 billion…not 10 ...

    • Austin 3:16 says:

      05:24pm | 21/09/10

      Hey Freddy interesting argument,  In Qld the age of consent for homosexual sex is currently 18 years of age. Do you think if they lowered that to 16 years of age a whole swathe of 17 year old males would all of a sudden consider homosexuality as a viable option? I very much doubt it.

      Yet that is the thrust of your argument if something is “institutionalised”  then so those consequences must follow.

      In the article the author states how much his grandmother chose to cling to life, despite the great difficulties that life was bringing her.  Are we to expect that such a great will to live would automatically change sole due to a government passing a new law? 

      That we are having a debate about euthanasia would indicate that the ‘genie is out of the bottle’.  Attempting to put it back in is a pointless effort.

    • Chris L says:

      05:42pm | 21/09/10

      A better argument for legalisation is that there are some people who truly would rather be dead, but anyone giving them any assistance is likely to face charges. Keeping the issue “informal” keeps it illegal and forces some to live on when they desperately want it to end.

      If we want to avoid making it too institutionalised we could turn it into a game show where two people compete in a game of chess or monopoly and the victor gets to shoot the loser.

    • Andrew says:

      01:26am | 22/09/10

      One billion is the right number. Give the poor animals some room to avoid becoming roadkill.

    • Wondering says:

      07:02am | 21/09/10

      I was under the impression that the debate re euthenasia was more about the individual states and territories rights to determine the law, not so much wether the actual act is legal or not.

    • Wayne Fehlhaber says:

      09:20am | 21/09/10

      Wondering :  spot on ! well said. State and Territorial rights is precisely what it is all about . On that point , i steadfastly believe that the right to determine the law on euthanasia should rest solely with the federal government. Eventually , the High Court will have some say on this explosive issue , it is a matter of time. The Greens will push a radical plan to allow states & territories to determine the law . If such a move is successful , Australia could have eight differrent laws pertaining to euthanasia . This could create chaos within communities , families and individuals trying to access a legal avenue with the least number of barriers in their path.
      The right to determine the law on euthanasia must be left in one sphere only , federal parliament , where legislation from the House of Representatives would be subject to review in the Senate.

    • DG says:

      11:12am | 21/09/10

      Wayne,

      Currently, each of the States has the right to make their own laws with respect to euthanasia, It is only the territories that have had this power stripped away.
      We Seem to manage OK with different criminal codes, road rules, employment standards and so forth, why should euthanasia be separate?

      Also, you have no stated that you think that euthanasia should be illegal, only that it should be a federal issue. Do you think it should be illegal, or its it just important that everyone has the same amount of red tape regardless of which State they are in?

      Just as a point of curiosity, what law makes suicide illegal? If it’s not illegal to commit suicide currently, who do you propose to punish and on what basis with respect to euthanasia?

      If you give Joe Bloggs, who is in the last stages of lung cancer, a plastic bag and he suffocates himself should the person who gave him the bag be guilty of an offence? Should the person who tells him that suffocation will end his life be guilty of an offence? What about if the person tells him that certain gasses, in the place of CO2, that do not create the physiological stress, or associated feeling of panic as C02 suffocation?

    • Deges says:

      12:03pm | 21/09/10

      DG the answer is if you want the territory parliments to have full rights than start lobbying for constitutional change. It is a little recognised fact that the Government of the Northern Territory exists only because of an Act of the Federal parliment. The Northern Territory has no constitutional protection against Federal interference and if the Federal Government decided to eliminate the NT legislature there is nothing constitutionally that the Northern Territory could do about it. If Bob Brown had proposed a constitutional ammendment to make the NT a state than I would be all for it as it would tidy up a messy constitutional situation. He instead chose only to raise eliminating a law that he does not agree with so this argument has nothing to do with state/territory rights but everything to do with pushing the Greens agenda.

    • RT says:

      01:47pm | 21/09/10

      To DG - euthenasia is, basically speaking, assisted suicide. Naturally you can’t make suicide illegal (who would you prosecute given they are dead?) but euthenasia brings up the legal ramifications of those who assist the person in ending their life, be it doctors, nurses or family members.

      You’ve already alluded to many of the issues of causation.

      The flip side to them being that if euthenasia is legalised, surely there has to be a defence to a murder/manslaughter charge that the victim consented to dying… opening a very large can of worms.

    • Wayne Fehlhaber says:

      04:14pm | 21/09/10

      DG :  This debate is about the rights of the Territories to determine the law on euthanasia . Yes , i am aware that the states currently have rights to legislate on this issue. What i am saying ( my belief )  is that the federal sphere should have full control over legislation on such an important matter.  Naturally , this would involve the states having to hand over those rights to the federal sphere. 
      Your question on why euthanasia should be any differrent to the state’s power to legislate on matters such as criminal codes , road rules etc.
      is rather dismissive of the volatility of such an emotive and important matter.
      I simply do not place euthanasia in the same category as the balance of states rights necessary to function as a state.
      Now as to the legality of euthanasia , this is an emotive subject , it involves morals , religious considerations , basic human values and a whole range of medical ethics . I’m sure that i have listed just a few of the things which have to be considered in determining the answer to your question.
      DG , i do not consider myself justified , nor credentialled to make a decision on such a basic issue as to whether a human life should be maintained or terminated.
      That is the reason that i have stated it should be a decision made in the Federal House of Representatives with the Senate reviewing any Legislation arising from the House. Even though the matter has to be resolved through political process , i believe that it would become an issue settled in parliament via a conscience vote , after a lengthy investigative process , which must involve a cross section of proffessionals , Medical , Religious , Judiciary and representatives of the community.
      I hope this makes clearer what i mean’t in my above comment.

    • Democrat says:

      07:03am | 21/09/10

      The proposal is *not* to legalise euthanasia at all.

      The proposal is to strike down a pernicious piece of Federal legislation,  that prevents the ACT and NT parliaments from even discussing such an issue, let alone legislating. 

      All other Ajustralian States are free to do so - if they chose.

      Despite the fact that the ACT and NT have been self-governing for decades, with their own democratically elected assemblies, the Federal Government saw fit to selectively limit the independence of the ACT and NT.

      This is not a “conscience” issue.  It is a basic denial of democratic right,  raised by Kevin Andrews from the back bench and legislated by the Howard Liberal Government in 1997.

      Your Liberal Party: undemocracy in action.

    • Deges says:

      08:44am | 21/09/10

      If it was about the rights of the ACT and the NT parliments the correct avenue would be proposed constitutional change for these entities to become full states of the Commonwealth. I note Bob Brown is not pushing to hand over the ability for new Uranium mining to the NT state parliment (also constitutionally a state power) so to call this all about democracy is pure green spin. This is about Bob Brown seeking to get Euthanasia enacted into the only jurisdictions he can (i.e. the Commonwealth territories) so how about a bit of honesty eh…

    • tracey says:

      04:37pm | 21/09/10

      The reason the ACT and NT can have laws struck down is because they are NOT states.  Prue and simple and certainly nothing to do with one particular political party.

    • Rob says:

      06:05pm | 21/09/10

      tracey, it doesn’t matter that they are not states. What matters is that they do not have the same rights as people in NSW or Victoria. And they should.

      The Andrews Bill was devised in order to prevent the ACT and the NT from passing laws “which permit or have the effect of permitting ... the form of intentional killing of another called euthanasia (which includes mercy killing) or the assisting of a person to terminate his or her life”. It is a direct overrule of the wishes of the Territorians.

      So on what pretext is this interference justified? The overruling is just a result of the personal opinions of a few, who are not even Territorians. Regardless of what the rest of the country thinks, the NT and the ACT are generally pro-Euthanasia. So, democratically speaking, if we want to introduce it, we should be able to. And be damned to the rest of the country’s personal opinions.

      The same goes for Section 51 of the Constitution, though I do note that that is a matter for the entire country, and not just the territories, to amend.

    • Shane From Melbourne says:

      06:35pm | 21/09/10

      @Tracey- So people living in ACT and NT don’t have the same rights as other Australian citizens in other States? That’s a very anomolous situation….

    • acotrel says:

      08:12am | 22/09/10

      The proposal is to strike down a pernicious piece of Federal legislation,  that prevents the ACT and NT parliaments from even discussing such an issue, let alone legislating.

      And which dictator created that cynical piece of legislation?

    • Kate says:

      07:05am | 21/09/10

      This issue divides the closest in my case, my family is split right down the middle.The trouble is many that are opposed to euthanasia cannot begin to understand, as they simply are not in the terminally ill state - guess we could forgive them for that. However what I struggle with is the unyielding failure to try and understand the plight of those facing the daily chronically afflicting plight they endure. My husband and I are in complete agreement, but my very controlling mother with her religious beliefs has verbalized she cannot and will never begin to entertain the thought of euthanasia should we ever face the dire circumstances that comprise the need to end a miserable existence, despite my best wishes, therefore I could never have her as next of kin. I urge everyone to discuss this issue like organ donation, you have to verbalize your wishes (despite legal issues), it’s paramount those you love know your wishes.

    • Sam says:

      12:48pm | 21/09/10

      Kate, I have always found it interesting that the religous among us, who believe there is something to look forward to “in the alleged afterlife”, are the ones most fearful of dying, and more insistant on meddling in the affairs of others.
      If you watched QandA last night you would be aware that the panel was willing to debate voluntary euthenasia, but the catholic in the group (C.Pine) had a closed mind and would be voting against it.
      Sadly, I think we are many years away from having a secular parliament with the balls to legislate in favour of VE.
      Those of us who must, will just have to continue with the old messy and painful methods.

    • deb says:

      07:16am | 21/09/10

      i agree that legalizising the right to die is very scary.the older and nastier i get the more it worrys me too.old age is never far away once we cross that 50`s line and illness hasnt caught up with me yet but i hope if it comes   i will have a choice, not be pressured by money?because i am pretty sure that is what it will come down to in the end.poor people will be shuffled off assembly line style.will we be inspected every year and have a use by stamp put on our butts?dont get me wrong i hate to see people suffering,they should have their rights.just dont make it an expected thing that infirmity goes hand in hand with death.

    • kyzz says:

      12:25pm | 21/09/10

      @deb, no 3 doctors independent of the one treating you must agree that you are suffering a terminal illness and have exhausted all options for treatment. You would also have to submit to extensive psychological testing to determine your competance and psychological state.

    • Beware says:

      06:47pm | 21/09/10

      Deb it is good to read an intelligent reply. Someone who has really thought it through and not following the crowd. I believe you have every right to be scared, this is just Greens social engineering and extremely dangerous by people following their own form of religion - lives of trees, plants, rivers are sacrosanct,  but apparently not so humans to the Greens, legislating to kill human beings is tantamount to following Hitler’s “final solution” - his euphemism for murder - now the Greens use “euthanasia” to legalise murder and assisted suicide. 

      Kyzz you are quite wrong - in the countries where it is legalised it comes down to individual doctors to decide complex social issues - issues their training does not fit them for. They are trained to heal, not kill.

    • grace pettigrew says:

      07:17am | 21/09/10

      I feel sorry for your mother Joe.

    • Laurenzo says:

      12:58pm | 21/09/10

      I feel sorry for her too, Joe. Did she have anyone helping HER?

    • Skinman says:

      04:26pm | 21/09/10

      I also feel sorry for Joe’s mum.

      Unless it was an immaculate conception I assume she had some help.

    • JB says:

      07:37am | 21/09/10

      Spot on Joe. I was a health care worker for many years & yes we all used the informal euthanasia mechanisms you mentioned quite regularly. But here’s the difference. They were only used once people had lapsed into a coma & usually only after long discussions with & tacit approval from, family/loved ones. They were used to hasten death, NOT to pre-empt it by giving terminally ill folk a handful of pills or a vial & syringe & waving them off to end their own life. Trust me, every terminally ill person I looked after expressed a wish to die at some stage & then when the end got closer every single one fought to stay alive.  I don’t believe Euthanasia should ever be legalised. It’s a Pandora’s Box we don’t want to open

    • Rosie says:

      09:35am | 21/09/10

      JB & Joe totally agree! One would never know until you are faced with the unfortunate circumstances. Like you I don’t believe in Euthanasia and it is because of my background.

      As a Fiji born I spent my first 21 years living there and it would be a disgrace for any family to allow euthanasia to take place with any member of their family because it was too difficult to care for them. Fijian families would be insulted if “euthanasia” was ever mentioned to them. However, today they are beginning to understand the use of the informal euthanasia mechanisms you have mentioned when it comes from the Doctors like you say while in hospital care and their loved one has lapsed into a coma & after long discussions with the Doctor and approval from the family.

      Fijian families will ask if the word “euthanasia” was mentioned; ” who took care of you when you were born? Isn’t it time for you to repay that unconditional care that was once given lovingly to you?”

    • iansand says:

      09:54am | 21/09/10

      Remember.  This does not make euthanasia compulsory.  If euthanasia is against your personal beliefs, whether for religious, cultural or any other reason, you can await the inevitability of nature.  However you must accept that other people will not share your views, and you have no basis to impose your views on others.

    • T.Chong says:

      09:56am | 21/09/10

      Nice story Rosie, but as someone who works with pallative care patients, I havent noticed Fijians as any more reticent than any other group.
      What the underlying issue is , is mostly the religious beliefs of the families.
      The Very Devout of any religion tend to baulk at the idea, with the more secular usually more accepting.
      In this Fijians appear to be like everyone else.

    • Rosie says:

      11:22am | 21/09/10

      I don’t want the pressure of having to hear from a loved one that he/she had the legal right to end their life because they felt in anyway they were a burden to me. On the hand I don’t want to be feeling pressurized to end my life because I felt I was nothing more than a burden to my family/loved ones in my old age.

      I am confident I will be taken care of until the end unless there is an agreement made between my doctor and family/loved ones that some kind of informal euthanasia mechanisms should take place.

      These are my views and I am not imposing it on anyone!

    • Evan Findlay says:

      11:40am | 21/09/10

      Have to disagree JB.
      Having worked many years in aged care and now in hospitals it still astounds me that it has taken so long for this debate to happen.

      A lot of the problems stem from the family members who are unable to come to terms with a love one dying. So rather than accept their emotions in dealing with the inevitable, they continue to consent to an onslaught of medical procedures and a plethora of pills to stave off having to come to terms with a loved one passing and their own feelings of grief.

      I have witnessed people into their nineties, in the throes of the death rattle, being wheeled off to surgery. It is unlikely that they will ever mobilise after the surgery and it is highly unlikely that their quality of life will improve that dramatically.  But it is the family members that refuse to let go.

      I remember a man that I used to look after in aged care that had an advanced health directive which stipulated that he was Not For Resuscitation and that there was to be no interventions in keeping him alive. He suffered a massive stroke, was kept alive at the whim of his family, subsequently he suffered, like many, from dysphagia after the stroke and he was put on a PEG feed. All against his wishes and all against his health directive. Until his death his life consisted of staring at the ceiling, being fed by a tube and being doubly incontinent. And the irony was that his family stopped visiting because they could not bear seeing their father who had now become, and excuse the expression, a vegetable, who could no longer communicate, and he had become sullen and aggressive.

      So even if euthanasia becomes legal, as I feel it should, then you want to ensure that your loved ones are completely aware of your health directives and that they respect such wishes. If you have come to terms with your mortality then they need to come to terms with it too.

      And for once can we leave the god botherer’s out of the debate. We know where you stand. We respect your opinions but we need rationale debate not moralistic clap trap based on a mythological figure.

    • HB says:

      11:53am | 21/09/10

      Well said.  Those who consider this option are in pain and are not “of sound mind”  Ask every woman who has given birth if she was of sound mind during her labour or those who have suffered chronic back pain - the answer is no!!  Pain affects the mind and changes how we live and view the world.

    • Rosie says:

      11:56am | 21/09/10

      T. Chong

      You must have dealt with the Fijians that have great respect for the way in which first world countries deal with such issues. The Fijians that are grateful for being allowed to live in this wonderful country of ours. They are the ones that will put aside their traditions etc and accept easily the western way of dealing with such issues if it is legalised.

      I don’t want to have it on my conscience that because euthanasia was legal it was the right thing to agree to end one’s life as they would be a financial burden to society.

    • Pudel says:

      01:23pm | 21/09/10

      I also worry that legalising voluntary euthanasia is but a step toward the authorities deciding who has the right to live and who doesn’t.  I do not beleive most who agree with voluntary euthanasia would consider that the choice would ever be taken from the person euthanased, but it could.  As a society gets used to something the next step is not as abhorent.  So the next step may be allowing family to choose, then it may be medical staff, then maybe at diagnosis.
      I think a large reason people want vokuntary euthanasia is because pain and death make them uncomfortable.  We have removed death from our homes and from our lives, we fear death and no longer understand how those last few hours can be a comfort, for the dying and their loved ones.  Yes increasing pain releif can shorten life, but it is done to relieve pain, the dosage is increased, even though it may shorten the persons life, but the person is still having pain relieved.  I have seen people die, I have sat with someone while they were dying, and I have seen the change as they go past fear and come by acceptance.  If allowed to die naturally, it does happen.  We all have a time, a time that is right for us, our bodies know that time better than we do.

    • Delhic Oracle says:

      07:51am | 21/09/10

      My life.  My death.  My way.

    • Baden says:

      01:42pm | 21/09/10

      Yep, that’s it. It’s that simple and other people’s conscience or values are not mine or yours. I decide, not you. Same thing with abortion. My choice.

    • G says:

      02:24pm | 21/09/10

      Okay. You be the one to kill yourself then. Don’t ask someone else to do it for you.

    • Bruce says:

      04:33pm | 21/09/10

      Delhic Oracle: Agree. I am no supporter of the ‘greens’. However, I will support them on this issue. People should have medical options on how they end their life. Both the ALP and Liberals have run away from this issue like frightened, cowardley little kids.

    • npb says:

      08:06am | 21/09/10

      “... if you institutionalise the concept that people should be weighing up the pros and cons of their own existence ...”

      Imagine that? Institutionalising the right to freedom of choice. Sounds suspiciously like a bill of rights. And we don’t need one of those. Our rights are already protected. And if those funny little ‘territory’ thingys happen to exercise the wrong right, our all knowing federal protector and saviour will come and ‘protect’ us from ourselves.

    • Sam says:

      01:02pm | 21/09/10

      This is another thing I never forgave the meddling Howard mob for.

    • Lyn says:

      08:10am | 21/09/10

      Very well said, Joe.  It is a slippery slope & no one should ever have to feel the pressure of having to battle thoughts of “am I being a burden to my family?”

    • Matthew says:

      11:27am | 21/09/10

      So instead they must think (for an extended time i might add) “why am I such a burden on my family?” and also “I feel so useless dribbling all over myself, why can’t I be put out of my misery?”.  Living without being able to do things for myself would weigh on my mind heavier than anything I’ve accomplished in my life.

      Maybe it’s just me but I’ve found that most people are selfish, especially as they get towards the end of their life.  Why would they care about the burden on their family?

    • Gary says:

      01:13pm | 21/09/10

      Doesn’t anybody find it ironic that the Howard Govt. that so famously usurped the rights of the Northern Territory to ‘preserve life’, spent so much time and effort educating us all that the
      growing aging population were a financial burdon on society in general ?

    • Diane says:

      08:17am | 21/09/10

      Absolutely Joe, you’ve seen the writing on the wall!

    • Geeper says:

      08:20am | 21/09/10

      We seem to want to live forever. The world population is booming to unprecedented and probably unsustainable levels. As people age the amount of resources they use reduces but not that much. The preciousness with which we hold human life may be out of kilter with the best interests of the species - it will all sort itself out in the end. Our demand on this planet will limit our life expectancy in the future and indeed the viability of humans at our current levels. Pragmatism will overtake this debate

    • Mr Pastry says:

      09:39am | 21/09/10

      @Geeper - well put, nature will decide our fete as it has always done, nature is in charge, contrary to Canberran egos.  I have every confidence that over stepping our proliferation and consumption will be dealt with by nature.  Earth did very nicely without us before and its existence does not require a government department with forms and a web site to save the planet, seems little has changed in high office since King Canute.

    • Chris L says:

      05:54pm | 21/09/10

      Renew at age 30! Mind you, I would have been dead for eighteen years if we instituted that.

    • Sally says:

      08:37am | 21/09/10

      I completely agree Joe.
      Palliative care is pretty good thesedays anyway, and if delivered properly, no one needs to live in pain in their last days.
      If we institutionalise the “right to die” we threaten the vulnerable, and we also make it part of people jobs to kill others. Can you imagine training medical students how to kill people through lethal injection? Do we really want that?
      Stick to palliative care, and withold live-saving treatment if the decision has been made to stop the fight.

    • David says:

      11:50am | 21/09/10

      You see no difference in witholding life-saving treatment according to one’s wishes and administering suffering-saving treatment according to one’s wishes?

      It wouldn’t be hard to ensure that no one is required to terminate a person’s life if they choose not too. I’d say most medical students would have a fair idea of how to kill someone without making them too uncomfortable by the end of their studies.

    • sue says:

      05:34pm | 21/09/10

      i wish my mum and dad had “effective” palliative care!! my mum suffered for a long time with misdiagnosis and then ineffective pain relief before she died. some pain is very difficult to control i.e. bone cancer. my mum wished to die but had to do it the hard way my she rest in peace now.

    • Angela says:

      08:38am | 21/09/10

      I like that this article gives voice to the other side of the euthanasia debate. When ever anyone speaks for euthanasia, they always refer to people who are dying of terrible, incredibly painful conditions where to die peacefully would be a blessed relief. But I worry that once we have taken the lid of this particular Pandora’s Box, the situations where it will most often be applied will be those where caring for the individual has become the burden, not the life itself.
      I have just spent a great deal of time working through an Advanced Health Directive with an elderly couple who after much discussion with their families had decided that they “don’t want to go on” if their quality of life can not be assured. They don’t want to be a burden. A couple of weeks down the track and the gentleman gets sick and is taken to hospital. He undergoes a range of treatments and both he and his wife a overjoyed when he comes home well. I point out to him that according to the AHD he signed, he shouldn’t have been given quite a bit of the treatment he received. They were all things he said he didn’t want if he was hospitalised.
      It was easy to sit at home with his wife and children and say that he didn’t want his life un-necessarily prolonged but a completely different thing when faced with the actual prospect of dying.
      This is a complex issue and people need to look past the highly emotive instances and see all the effects this can have.

    • RATM says:

      08:47am | 21/09/10

      People should be able to choose for themselves how they live, or in this case, die.

      If people want to believe the fairytales from a book about magic men and sky-fairies then that is up to them.

      If people want to choose to die because they can’t stand the pain of living then that should also be up to them.

      No-one should seek to impose their beliefs on others. Everyone should be free to choose.

    • Miss Lizzy says:

      11:45am | 21/09/10

      Thankyou RATM….I don’t give a shit what other people think….I watched my father BEG and I mean BEG for release from his pain, but no, we just made him suffer more, it destroyed me. No person or authority had the right to deny my father his dignity when he was dying and it makes my blood boil reading all these comments from those people advocating the undurance of pain from terminal cancer…CRUEL.

    • Beware says:

      06:56pm | 21/09/10

      RATM Well if people think they are but an animal they can take themselves off to the vet if they want to die, vets can euthanase animals legally - no problem for them, but don’t try to foist you ignorance on the rest of us.  I am not an animal.

    • David says:

      01:24pm | 22/09/10

      Yes you are Beware, we are all animals.

    • Beware says:

      04:40pm | 24/09/10

      David Sorry, you choose to be identified as an animal, your choice. I am made in the image of God the Father so nope he never described me in His revelation, the Bible as an animal. That is what sets us apart, we have a spirit, but most people’s spirits are dead because of their unbelief. I have chosen to be fully alive. I hope and pray you too will come to know what an amazing life that can be. Don’t miss out by following the crowd. :0)

    • Vicki PS says:

      08:49am | 21/09/10

      Anyone is free to end his/her own life, but there is no such thing as a right to demand help to do it, which is in reality what the pro-euthanasia zealots are clamouring for.

    • Tom says:

      12:03pm | 21/09/10

      How do you propose someone in the throes of terminal illness ends their life? Many such people are not free to end their lives as you claim. If I am a zealot for wanting to have the option to end my life should I be in such a state, then so be it.

    • Kate says:

      01:35pm | 21/09/10

      Good point Tom!

      I find it interesting that it is considered cruel to make an animal suffer, but we wont allow people to make up thier own minds about there own life. 
      FYI Vicki - people are not allowed to kill themselves, if they try and dont succeed they end up locked up under the mental health act.

    • rick says:

      04:03pm | 21/09/10

      Actually Kate, those who GENERALLY end up in the psych ward (I work in one, btw) are those who call 000 saying ‘I just ‘tried’ to kill myself br taking 10 valiums’ or who leave the empty packet for it to be found by relatives - IOW, seeking attention (as I said, generally). Those who really want to kill themselves don’t go crying wolf. They don’t make it to the psychiatrist, only to the pathologist.

    • Holly says:

      08:53am | 21/09/10

      Yes the legislation to be introduced is not about euthanasia as such, but about the territories’ right to determine their own legislation regarding euthanasia.  Unfortunately the discussion has already been hijacked and become a pro / anti euthanasia discussion.  So how about we stick to the point.

      Joe your Mum sounds like an absolute angel but how much support do you yourself give her in her caring role?  We talk glibly about caring being a family responsibility - but it mostly seems to devolve into a “Mum” responsibility. 

      Perhaps people who oppose euthanasia should reveal whether they have ever cared for someone in the last dying stages of cancer, or cared for a loved one slowly dying from Alzheimers.  Did their loved ones die with with what they would have considered dignity?  Did they even have a choice?

    • Karly says:

      08:58am | 21/09/10

      Your grandma is very fortunate Joe. However for as many toughies like her there are more like my Grandpa who was a proud old man who slowly lost all of his faculties until he was incontinent, incapacitated and unable to communicate then suffered a slow excruciating death suffocating on his own lungs. No one should have to die like that. Your assertion that doctors can shorten a life of terminal illness with pain killers is true but you are affirming the very point that human mercy is neccessary and needed in some cases. Why should doctors be the ones that risk legal action and their careers to be the only humane ones in the whole picture? Is it that we are too afraid to make the decision ourselves? Out of sight out of mind? Is it that fear mongers like you are trying to convince us that the legal system
      Is not competent of ensuring doctors, family and patients all agree before a procedure is performed? We do this routinely every day. Don’t let your imagination run away with you. Legalising Euthanasia is the only humane and considerate option.

    • Tom says:

      08:58am | 21/09/10

      Isn’t there somewhat of a contradiction in the argument here, when the author points out that informal euthanasia already exists, but claiming we shouldn’t legislate to specifically allow this? Surely enshrining it in legislation would be preferable, in terms of spelling out exactly when it can and cannot be applied, and having a formal framework with which to go through the process of euthanasia?

      Allowing euthanasia won’t force anyone to undergo the process, it just recognises that many may wish to do so. Perhaps it should be that people should create advanced care directives so they are not pressured into the decision whilst sick, in pain and/or not of sound mind.

    • dw says:

      11:16am | 21/09/10

      Despite our best intentions - in time this decision would be made on behalf of the sufferer.

      I have seen the elderly stifled from having a voice in their own care and completely disregarded in critical decisions about their own lives. These decisions are made in a democratic way (in whispers outside the room) between family and doctors - the only one without a vote is the elderly patient.

      At one time education was a privilege - then it became a right - now it is a legal obligation. I can see euthanasia following the same path. Perhaps just in time for the baby boomers to hit their nineties.

    • JJ says:

      09:00am | 21/09/10

      i think you are spot on Joe.  People already have the choice, but the last thing we want is the government getting in the way.  As you rightly point out it starts to fundamentally change the way society thinks about these issues.

      In a way it is similar to capital punishment.  Societies that have capital punishment are more violent than those who dont, simply becasue people in that society are aware that it is considered ok (under special circumstances) for the someone to be killed by the State.  While only effecting a tiny portion of the population directly, it significantly changes behaviours throughout the society.

    • David says:

      09:01am | 21/09/10

      The debate about euthanasia (call it legalised, voluntary, whatever) isn’t a political one or a discussion on what federal, state or territory rights/laws should or should not be.

      Anyone who takes that view is missing the debate entirely, in my opinion.

      Joe’s story is a heartfelt view from the perspective of experience and he’s right when he says that having the formal or legal choice to choose death in any context shifts the goal posts in a dangerous way.  The potential flow on consequences in a social, cultural and operational setting are diverse (and Joe sums up well with betrayal and guilt).

      I couldn’t have articulated my own view better so I say “what Joe said” and hope he doesn’t mind.

    • David says:

      12:31pm | 21/09/10

      Having a formal or legal choice remains just that a choice, it is an option where there previously was none.

      What people like you and Joe are doing is smuggling in a hidden premise, that it is wrong to decide to end your life on the basis that you are a burden to others (friends, family, the state, whatever).

      It isn’t your life to value, it is theirs, they are free to choose to value their life by whatever method they want, including whether they are a net contributor to those around them and the society in which they live.

      In fact, people do this already, you and Joe don’t like it because you now feel guilty, but for what? For existing? For being in their life? For being a member of the society they are too? These are absurd reasons for guilt, you are not responsible for simply existing.

      It isn’t a slippery slope if you can’t demonstrate the direction is wrong or immoral, you simply don’t like it but have given no reason against people valuing their life in such a manner. So you don’t like it? Why? Because you feel guilt and betrayal for letting someone make a choice you don’t agree with? It isn’t your choice, but it’s not as if you can’t discuss it with them. Also any legislation would have stipulations and requirements to separate decision from action and require counselling… Who are you to tell your long suffering parent, sibling, relative, friend, etc ‘no you must suffer to the end, no checking out early because I don’t want to deal with my own emotions’.

      It’s not your life.

    • Phil says:

      09:05am | 21/09/10

      “If my grandmother or anyone like her felt guilty for living because of a new law passed in her own country, it would be a country that had betrayed its weak and muffled the divine spark in each of its citizens”

      - I think you have missed the point.
      This isnt about how gran will feel guilty about hanging aroung,  the point of euthanasia is about those who are terminally ill and know that they will never return to any form of a normal life, one which isnt assisted with either machines or dozens of pills and treatments to cure something that people decades ago would have simply died from.

      The quest to prolong life in some cases is selfish and misguided.
      Life expectancy is much longer than it use to be but we cant seem to get away from wanting it to never end, the fact is it has to.

      People in these positions just want and end to the pain and suffering that can go on for years before it ends, and in somecasees when it does its not smoothly or quickly but painful and dragged out.
      Its a horrible situation for someone to be in and not allow them to take the pain and suffering free way.

      Maybe you should take a walk around a hospice and see the people who have been left there to die, how long they have been there, how long they have been suffering from what put them there in the first place and then reconsider why you would refuse someone a peaceful end but give it to an animal that was suffering.

    • Naomi says:

      11:36am | 21/09/10

      There are other versions of this. My grandfather had a terminal illness and spent the last year of his life in hospice. He was very ill, couldn’t get out of bed, and his mind was definitely not what it used to be.
      And he was terrified of dying. He didn’t want to. The fact that his life would eventually come to an end was not something he wanted to acknowledge, let alone hasten. There is no doubt that he didn’t have the faculties to make a legal and informed decision, but that doesn’t change the fact that he didn’t want to die. Where is the line drawn? His quality of life was rubbish but he was alive and that’s all that mattered to him. There were various family discussions regarding what to do. For years my grandmother slaved away, catering to his every whim because he didn’t trust any of his children or indepedent caregivers to take care of him. Putting him into an aged-care facility was stressful and created many family rifts. But it wasn’t about us. It was about him. Just as his life was.
      A person might be suffering, and may even be without the mental capacity to understand their options, but that doesn’t give anyone else the right to decide when they should die.
      Was he a burden? Yes. Was he a mean, horrible man? Yes. Long before he became ill. Towards the end he couldn’t distinguish between his wife and the nurses and couldn’t remember his children. He lived on a respirator, had several terrible skin conditions, and his paranoia made it almost impossible for him to sleep. But he knew he didn’t want to die.
      So who should make the decision in that case?

    • iansand says:

      11:48am | 21/09/10

      Where do you get “that doesn’t give anyone else the right to decide when they should die”?  He chooses, not anyone else.  And, in this case, the NT regime would deny him euthanasia because of his lack of capacity (unlike, incidentally, the backdoor method championed by Joe Hildebrand).

    • Phil says:

      12:13pm | 21/09/10

      @Naomi,

      If those were his wishes and it was made clear earlier in life to those who would be there when he was reaching the end they should respect his wishes.
      It would still be a choice, a choice we dont currently have.
      Some will do everything they can to remain alive even though they are little more than a vegetable lying there looking at the roof, have no comprehension of where they are, who they are or what’s going on but just knowing they are constantly in pain.

      Myself I wouldn’t want to be subject to that, that’s not something worth staying alive for in my eyes & I wouldn’t want any of my family to have to know that’s what my life has become in the days, weeks, months or even longer left.
      Everyone has to die one day, why cant it be on our terms?

    • Hannah says:

      09:08am | 21/09/10

      You’ve changed my mind - especially by raising the point that informal euthanasia happens every day anyway. Thank you for helping me crystallise my opinion.

    • ZSRenn says:

      09:09am | 21/09/10

      Well said Joe! This is a slippery slop that never should be entered and becomes more slippery when it is introduced by legislators as part of a power broking deal that Australia did not vote for.

    • Claire says:

      09:13am | 21/09/10

      Beautiful piece Joe. Well done - you’re insightful and thoughtful (and still funny).

    • Steely Dan says:

      09:14am | 21/09/10

      @ Joe

      “If you legalise euthanasia, if you institutionalise the concept that people should be weighing up the pros and cons of their own existence, that pressure is inevitably going to follow.”
      The pressure to commit suicide?  i don’t see what this has to do with euthanasia laws.  Euthanasia is not suicide, it’s assisted suicide.

      I look forward to hysterical comments warning about Bob Brown herding people from nursing homes to abbottoirs.

    • Sam Chowder says:

      09:41am | 21/09/10

      Bob Brown will then reveal he is a member of the Soylent Green Party

    • Steely Dan says:

      12:00pm | 21/09/10

      @ Sam Chowder

      You, sir, have my Comment of the Day nomination.

    • Elphaba says:

      01:04pm | 21/09/10

      Hahaha, @Steely Dan, seconded!

    • Kylie says:

      09:29am | 21/09/10

      The burden argument is redundant, people can’t just go to the doctor say i want to die and get handed pills. Three independent doctors have to sign off that the person is terminally ill, if even one disagrees no euthanasia, the person who wishes to end their life also must submit to psychological testing to determine competence etc, if the person is deemed incapable of making that decisions no euthanasia. Therefore those suffering from dementia would not be allowed to end their life. Family members would be incapable of petitioning someone to end their life. Aditionally feeling that you are a burden to friends/family etc would not be grounds to end your life. Petitions based on those reasons would be soundly rejected by the three independent doctors and the psychologist required to assess any petition for euthanasia

    • ZSRenn says:

      03:30pm | 21/09/10

      Oh and there is corruption in other area of Australian life
      and therefore you can expect none here!

      Yeh sure. For a start the scenario you have posted cannot exist yet so how do you know this will be end result!

      If it is the end result how long will this remain before others start pushing for easier methods as the legislation is too prohibitive

      Sheeesh Naivety at it’s best!

    • Clem says:

      10:07am | 21/09/10

      Whether it’s a feeling of guilt or a feeling of utter misery, people should be allowed to make a decision on ending their lives, so long as the quality of life isn’t there any more. My grandmother went out much the same way as Joe describes, and it was hell for my mother and her siblings for the last couple of years of her life. I don’t think my grandmother would have changed anything if euthanasia was legal: she still would’ve fought death to her last breath, she really didn’t care about the grief she was causing in her family. I remember seeing her in the last weeks, she was utterly helpless and utterly miserable. All I could think is that there’s no way that I’ll go through that when I’m on my death bed.

      As someone pointed out above, there’s a flaw in the argument of this article. If there are already informal ways to be medicated out of existence, there would already be people coming to the conclusion that they’d rather die than be a burden on their families, and would seek out the means to end it. I don’t see that there’s a problem if this is a motivator, so long as there is no quality of life left for them, and so long as they really do want to die. If they do not want to die, but feel guilt about the burden of being alive - well, ultimately that’s their problem to resolve. That’s death.

    • Shane says:

      10:18am | 21/09/10

      People are not seeing the biggest picture. Sure, on some level this is about state/territory rights. However, all indications are that once the territories have the right, they will go ahead and pass the legislation. The ACT would do it at the drop of a hat. NT too. *BUT THAT’S THEIR RIGHT!*

      No. It’s not. People have the concept of a “right” completely confused. The Commonwealth has a RESPONSIBILITY (A duty-of-care in wank-speak) for each and every citizen. If the commonwealth decides that certain legislation is detrimental to society, it has the RESPONSIBILITY to intervene. For instance, if the NT legalise euthansia, the commonwealth can decide that it is a detrimental bill that will cause more harm (through exploitation, guilt-deaths, and family bickering) than good. If Tasmanisa decides to legalise herion and drink-driving, the commonwealth as a RESPONSIBILITY to step in.

      I agree, euthansia is a slippery slope to legislate. It opens too many doors that can be exploited by too many. The current system is correct.
      And if NT/AACT want to legalise a process that will cause Australia more harm than good, I’m glad JGill and her ilk are able to cut the bill down.

    • AdamC says:

      10:23am | 21/09/10

      Joe, this piece is wonderfully written. Congratulations.

      I can’t believe some of the commenters here are engaging in such a washed-out obfuscation of a discussion. Arguing about ‘state’s [sic] rights’ when what is at issue is the right to die is ridiculous. Would all the Greens’ supporters be equally passionate about the rights of states and territories if the issue was nuclear energy or recriminalising homosexuality? Let’s be a little more honest.

      My problem with much of the debate about euthanasia is that it is conducted in a way does not relate back to the realities of terminal illness and palliative care. It is all very well for (relatively) young people, often atheists, to demand they be able to end their lives should they choose. And, in the abstract, I agree with them.

      But the fact is, governments often restrict the absoluteness of our rights in order to protect us, often with far less justification than in the case of euthanasia. It is even more common for governments to impose regulatory or taxation burdens on activities that, while strictly permitted, damage our wellbeing.

      It is fine to talk in principle about issues like euthanasia, but it is also limited. When people come to make any such decision, they will be in a highly vulnerable state, in pain and suffering from illness. For many people (like me) who notionally favour voluntary euthanasia, we would need to be convinced that vulnerable, elderly people would be protected from any coercion or other forms of pressure to end their lives.

    • Tom K says:

      10:25am | 21/09/10

      Joe, I can’t agree with your conclusion, but I agree with Claire that this is a beautiful piece and so filled with humanity and compassion, it deserves to be read all the way to end ... and entered into the annals of the euthanasia debate. Bravo!

    • Austin 3:16 says:

      05:27pm | 21/09/10

      If you want a good version of the other side of the argument try and find a transcipt of Terry Pratchett’s Dimbleby lecture. (try google)

    • Zeta says:

      10:36am | 21/09/10

      Euthanasia is an abomination. It’s the ultimate abdication of personal responsibility.

      There is nothing more personal than death. It’s the human milestone that cannot be shared. You face it alone. To institutionalise the mechanism of death is frightening and obscene.

      If you want to die, kill yourself. If you want someone else to kill you, it should be a crime. Forget the burden of a lingering demise - what about the burden of letting some else take responsibility for your death?

      If we allow cringing committees of doctors and do-gooders to decide and legislate our fates what then is left of the human condition? Every waking second, even those spent in the womb and in the twlight moments of life regulated by methadone metranome of your Government gods.

      The circumstances of your birth and conception - mandated, legislated, allowed or disallowed - your education or lack thereof - your job - your lovers - your children - your marriage - your old age - your money - your every possession - the food you eat - the air you breathe: every single moment in your life and somewhere, some great monolithic shadow of an impenetrable bureaucracy looms over you like a bad dream.

      In death. Strapped to the tracks of the mortal coil, with the freight train of impending oblivion hurtling towards you and they’re still there - clicking their clipboards in white coats. Deciding when you can die, when they can pull the plug.

      Two things in life and death scare me: Alzheimers disease and some terminal illness that sees me shuffle off in a hospital bed surrounded by cringing hand wringers and doctors and dour unionist nurses.

      The only thing that gives me solace is that I’ve never known any one to not see such an end coming far enough out that there’d not be time to take a walk, off into some winter national park, to sit under a tree and wait for hypothermia.

      Just my luck some plucky Parks and Wildlife Officer would pin a fine to my corpse for illegal camping.

    • Captain Scott says:

      11:08am | 21/09/10

      @Zeta - where have you been?  overbearing cradle to grave control by bureaucrats is the Australian birth right, why not let them dictate death as well.  Human life is hardly a diminishing resource and with the over population we need to reduce the time of our “go”.  I admire your - “I’m going outside I may be some time” perceived end (do it after lots of alcohol, its works well for European homeless) but reality for many in an end of life predicament is that some help is required even though it is a personal decision.  BTW Dutch film Simon gives the subject a sensible go.

    • Liz Swanton says:

      10:38am | 21/09/10

      Why is it that we can be humane to animals than we can to humans? I’m still trying to work out what size bribe will convince my local vet to help me out when the time comes. We need laws so it isn’t illegal, and the relatives and friends don’t suffer when their loved one has made a choice. And I’m sure we’re intelligent enough to create protocols that should prevent (most of the time) any third party involvement for the wrong reasons. It’s my life. If things get so bad that it is no longer a life but just an existence, I want to be able to end it my way.

    • stephen says:

      10:39am | 21/09/10

      It’s a very nice article, and it’s kinda’ changed my view of things.
      So what your saying Joe is that if euthanasia is legalized, the infirm may suffer psychlogical pressure to end their lives, lest they feel a burden on their carers ?
      That they will euthanaze because they don’t want to put anyone out ?
      I used to think it a matter of choice between a Doctor and patient, but having read this, the Law, if changed, make the weak, weaker.
      I have to agree with the writer and hope the Law stays put.

    • Brett says:

      10:45am | 21/09/10

      Until you’ve watched a close family member die of a very painful terminal illness, you can’t really comment on this properly. Drugged to the hilt but still in pain, they sit around waiting to die for a good while, then when they end up in hospital on pal care you end up wanting them to die so they can just stop suffering. Death is a relief, not a sadness at this point, for all involved.

      My father would never have chosen to die, it is contrary to our beliefs, but having watched him die I don’t lament anyone else making this decision and wanting to die. Better to do it humanly.

    • iansand says:

      10:48am | 21/09/10

      I don’t understand why an uncontrolled process that depends on the abuse of the concept of palliative care, and which has no checks and balances, is preferable to an open process that ensures that the person seeking euthanasia is genuinely terminally ill and understands the consequences of their decision.  Abuse is far easier in the former case than the latter as it is possible that an overdose of palliative drugs could be given on the decision of one doctor or nurse.

      My brother died with the assistance of his GP (AIDS in the bad old days).  I respected his choice but his doctor and those others that assisted him were required to risk prosecution to prevent the suffering my brother would have endured in his final weeks or months.  The risk of prosecution and the burden of one person making a decision about life or death is an unreasonable imposition to place on any person.

    • Richard says:

      10:49am | 21/09/10

      Tremendous piece Joe! It actually changes my opinion, because you’re right: euthanasia isn’t a triumph of free will, its a triumph of despair and fatalism. Bad things happen, people suffer, such is life. But life is always worth fighting for, right until the end, even if the odds are insurmountable. I’m not a religious nutjob, I don’t believe in sky fairies or flying spagetti monsters, but I do think life is precious; that the desire for life is a noble and positive pursuit, and the desire for death is an ignoble and negative pursuit.

    • Tim the Toolman says:

      11:09am | 21/09/10

      “and the desire for death is an ignoble and negative pursuit. “

      Yes, a body wracked with pain and suffering to hang on to someone elses ideal is noble.  You might not believe in a god, but you’d sure as hell fit in with the catholics and their belief that suffering is noble and desirable.

    • JH says:

      11:35am | 21/09/10

      richard - ‘people suffer, such is life’  What twaddle!  yes, life is precious, but only when that life still has value to the person.  Try watching someone you love, because their disease is slow and insidious and because euthanasia is not an option, being forced to vomit up their own feaces, being forced to continue living in pain, indignity,  and fading in and out of a drug haze.  Try knowing that they would, if they could, end that pain at a time of their choosing with their loved ones with them.  Try knowing that if the person you love is physically able to end their own life, they will have to die alone, because you can’t hold them and tell them that you love them and how important they have been in your life because you will be arrested for helping them , or at the least, not preventing them from taking their own life.  Euthanisia is not about getting rid of the burdens in our life.  It is to help those people burdened by life to be able to leave it with dignity, with their most precious lives, their loved ones, with them.

    • Richard says:

      11:43am | 21/09/10

      From the depths of suffering comes enlightenment. It would be a shame for someone to die with enlightenment in their grasp, only to miss their chance and take the easy way out.

    • Tim the Toolman says:

      03:09pm | 21/09/10

      It would be a shame for someone to die with enlightenment in their grasp, only to miss their chance and take the easy way out.

      No, it would be a shame for people with half baked ideas like this to get a say in how someone else lives or dies.

    • Richard says:

      08:04pm | 21/09/10

      But that’s the point Tim, I shouldn’t have a say in it, and neither should anyone else. Nature always takes its course, whatever will be will be, don’t try to fight it (or you’ll get all worked up).

    • Jaime says:

      09:22am | 22/09/10

      Richard - So you always let nature takes its course? I’m assuming you never see a doctor for anything? If you have kidney stones, you don’t take pain killers, you just wait for ‘nature to take its course’? You will never see a doctor for appendicitis?

    • Elphaba says:

      10:51am | 21/09/10

      It should be offered to people who want it, and those that don’t want it don’t have to have it.

      If I was gasping on a ventilator, unable to poop without someone cleaning it up and in terrible pain, I’d want the nearest loved one to take me out the back of the palliative care unit and shoot me.  I say give us the option, at least.

    • N says:

      11:38am | 21/09/10

      Elphaba; this is what I don’t understand about those who are dead against euthanasia (no pun intended). If they want to suffer through their final days, no one is stopping them. However if you wish to check out early and save yourself the humiliation and detriment of lingering in agony, you now have an option.  Those who say it’s immoral and state sanctioned murder are the true monsters in this debate, who are they to remove a person’s right to die?

    • Elphaba says:

      12:04pm | 21/09/10

      N: agree with everything you said.

      The euthanasia debate is NOT about compulsory offing at 80.  It is about options.  Just like organ donation - “Sir/Madam, would you like to donate your organs?”

      Although, regarding euthanasia, I’d want to make sure that the person actually ticking the box for that option can’t be overruled by family.  But I feel the same way about organ donation too.

      If the religious feel that it is violating God’s law, that’s fine.  Hooray for diversity.  But I don’t give a shit what their God believes because I don’t believe in Him.  So let me make my own freakin’ choice.

    • Tim the Toolman says:

      11:03am | 21/09/10

      *sigh*

      Nobody takes drugs, because that’s illegal.  And everybody smokes, because that is legal.  And nobody drives over the speed limit, because that’s illegal, and everybody joins the military, because that’s legal.  And nobody ever kills or rapes anyone, because that’s illegal, and everybody volunteers their spare time to help the homeless, because that’s legal.

      The debate on euthanasia is a debate about personal freedom, nothing more.  It’s no an avenue to push the elderly off faster.  The people who have the lack of conscience that permits that would find a way to hasten it anyway.  Nor is it necessarily a way for people to end their lives to avoid being a burden.  If they want to do it, they’ll do it anyway.

      What it is, is providing a person a choice on whether they should be allowed to end their life in a manner of their choosing.  This is their decision and theirs alone.  Not yours, not mine, not the governments (who, lets remember, are simply glorified administrators of our collective will, not our parents) and certainly not religious groups.

    • astrid says:

      11:09am | 21/09/10

      Im ok with euthanasia as long as they dont discrimate. I think people with depression, mental illnesses and children should also have the right to end thier life. Why is it just limited to the phyically sick? If a perfectly able bodies person want to take thier life they too should have the right to die.

    • stephen says:

      11:32am | 21/09/10

      In nearly all cases (though i am not a Doc.), the really sick are too sick to make a sane choice of life or death.
      Treat them well and love them.
      And seeing death can make us better.

    • Phil says:

      11:36am | 21/09/10

      I agree but sadly everyone else then involves themselves in a decision that is your own, usually followed by some crap about how life is so precious etc etc.
      Same goes for people who are in accidents who end up permanently disabled or requiring care, i know i wouldnt want to live out the rest of my time in a wheelchair as a vegetable until something else kills me.

    • Your name:Bearbrass says:

      11:44am | 21/09/10

      Astrid please confirm that your tongue was in your cheek when you wrote this or I’ll be depressed for the rest of the day.  (I was about to make a serious response when I noticed that you’d included “children” - which suggests that you were pointing out the Reductio ad Adsurdum of the pro-euthenasia case)

    • Markus says:

      12:33pm | 21/09/10

      Everyone has the right to end their life. Suicide is not illegal.
      Unlike those on their deathbed, people with depression, mental illness and children are generally not physically incapable of seeing to the issue themselves.

    • astrid says:

      02:24pm | 21/09/10

      No Im serious if a really sick child is dying of cancer why do they have to be in pain while an adult has a choice. Its unfair and inhumane. I would also like people with serious depression to have the choice to legally end thier life. Physical illness need no be the only reason why people have the right to die. After all it my body my life and should have to right to end it or to keep it. no one else.

    • stephen says:

      06:49pm | 21/09/10

      Astrid : life’s a process.
      For you to think death is so definite (quite apart from the religious aspect), tells me that you have led an existence of a beginning to an end.
      What have you learnt ? Are you safe, or secure or relaxed and warm ?
      Do you relate to children properly ?(This one’s very important.)
      Do you say things you mean ? (So’s this).

      Dying by someone else’s hand is weak.
      We struggle all our lives, for love, money, power (gulp), and youth.(gulp !)
      Fight for it. When you go, gasp.
      And fight.

    • jg says:

      11:18am | 21/09/10

      my mother died of cancer when i was in my early 20s. It was a long and horrible battle and she was always going to die. The last months were absolutely horrendous and she wanted to die.

      Sadly she had to lay there in a hospital bed in agony, her body eaten away and unresponsive, and yet still able to speak now and then through the morphine clouds.

      As such I believe euthanasia should be at the very least, discussed.

    • Julia says:

      11:25am | 21/09/10

      While I can appreciate your mother’s hard work in caring for her mother, you’ve missed the point entirely. Euthanasia is not about ending the lives of those who are ‘burdens’ on society. It’s about giving the people the right to die with dignity. I know. My father died a horrible death in 1997 from cancer. After 15 months with the disease, he finally passed, a shell of the man he once was. He was still fighting until the final three weeks of his life. When there was no hope, when he could no longer speak, in dire pain, why couldn’t we give him a needle and ease his suffering? The point, is there was no hope for his survival. So why let him suffer one more day than necessary?

    • Grey Ghost says:

      01:18pm | 21/09/10

      I think, Julia, that rather than Joe “missing the point”, you’ve missed Joe’s point entirely.  Quite a few of the responses indicate that at least some people understood the point. 

      He’s not really talking about whether or not people should be able to choose euthanasia to end their suffering, it’s that if it becomes a legalised and frequently used option, people who are near death but are still holding on to life, might request euthanasia out of guilt or to save their family the burden of caring for them.  By fixing one problem another is created.  So when euthanasia is debated, this becomes part of the “other side” of the debate.

    • Austin 3:16 says:

      06:47am | 22/09/10

      Hey Grey,

      If you have family working 24-7 to care for you and it hasn’t dawned on you yet that you might be a burden, I doubt a legislative change will make any difference whatsoever.

    • M says:

      11:30am | 21/09/10

      We spend so much time and energy trying to prolong lives.

      Euthanasia isn’t for people who want to stay alive like your grandmother
      And it isn’t about advocating death
      It is about providing a choice - a choice that provides a humane and dignified manor of passing without having to travel overseas away from your loved ones to achieve this.

      Go watch a couple of documentaries about euthanasia by people who did have to travel to Europe from Australia to access the choices they wanted. It is a real eye opener.

      It might not be for you or your loved ones, but you don’t have the right to forbid it to everyone else as well.

    • Dorry says:

      10:25pm | 21/09/10

      Well said M - I want to have that choice to die with dignity - I may not want to take it when the time comes but I at least want the comfort of knowing that I have a choice.

    • Moggy says:

      11:35am | 21/09/10

      The Federal Government wants women to work because we need workers.
      The Federal Government is doing a great deal to help women stay in the workforce. Recently the Federal Government has been making noises about families looking after their elderly because the cost of keeping them in nursing homes is astronomical. So what the federal government is saying is “Women must work full time & look after their elderly parents fulltime as well!” UUuumm…......HOW!!

    • Axios says:

      11:36am | 21/09/10

      > The point, is there was no hope for his survival.

      There is no hope for anyone’s survival. You are all going to die. Everybody. Its not optional.

      So either we just agree that suicide is a valid option for everyone, no discrimination (you don’t have to be terminally ill to feel your life is unbearable) orwe come up with a different way of dealing with the issue.

      I think the idea of limiting the medical intervention as the person gets past a certain point is a much better way to go.

    • David says:

      11:41am | 21/09/10

      First, do you seriously think any legalised voluntary euthanasia laws wouldn’t include a separation of decision and termination? So worried about making a choice to end it in the morning only to miss out on the positiveity in the afternoon is hardly a genuine concern.

      Second, the main point of the article, the RISK of some people feeling the pressure to end their own life because they view themselves as a burden. Why is it wrong that someone chooses to end their life for such a reason? It is their life, not yours and it is up to them to value it as they choose. The pressure, there will be no pressure, merely an option should they qualify and choose. I’d happily support any law against someone attempting to pressure a person to choose death. Beyond this I fail to see any other field of governance where they do not legislate to avoid someone feeling a certain way.

      Third, mainly to other commentors, to those who view palliative care as being pretty good are not in palliative care, either as a patient or a professional.

    • Shane From Melbourne says:

      11:46am | 21/09/10

      Look either the ACT or NT have the full status of statehood (including all rights of a state) or it should be commonwealth territory. No half measures. End of story. We can practice euthanasia informally and illegally, but we can’t legislate on it. We can commit suicide but we aren’t allowed access to information like the Peaceful Pill Handbook. We complain about bureaucracy restricting our freedoms, but we are quite happy to have the restrict our freedom to choose euthanasia. If you have a religious or moral problem with euthanasia, fine, don’t choose that option, but STFU and let everyone else have their right to choose or not that option

    • Cathy says:

      11:48am | 21/09/10

      Euthanasia is assisted suicide.  Suicide.  A couple of weeks back we had a ‘suicide awareness day’ around Australia where we learnt that 2500 Australians commit suicide each year… more than the road toll.  Taking one’s own life, whether old or young, sick or well is a terrible thing.  With assisted suicide someone else must be responsible for the termination process.  In a society that seems to have jettisoned ‘right and wrong’ it is hard to understand that it is ‘wrong’ to place the burden on anyone to terminate a human life.  Let nature take its course…. surely we are capable of alleviating physical pain with all the medications we have… and if not, then we should be developing better ones.  AND, yes dying is scary, but euthanasia doesn’t alleviate the deep emotional and spiritual struggle of death.  We must face our mortality… hopefully we are reflecting on it now… don’t leave it to your death bed.  AND, see the deeper spiritual world.  When you have had a deep spiritual encounter , death loses its ‘sting’.

    • kyzz says:

      12:16pm | 21/09/10

      yes Cathy we do have medications that alleviate physical pain. What happens in someone with a terminal illness at a certain point is that the level of medication required to allieviate their pain is a lethal dose. Again no one would force you to do it. Euthanasia is assisted suicide yes, it differs on several levels. 3 separate doctors independent of the treating physician must sign off on the case. The person must be deemed to be of sound mind by a psychologist. If you want that spiritual experience fine. please do not dictate to me. I have lost family members to suicide and believe me when I say there is a vast difference between the two.

    • Moggy says:

      01:03pm | 21/09/10

      Cathy…..most people don’t see fairies at the bottom their gardens. Mind you that doesn’t mean that fairies don’t exist. Same goes for this god person that the religious claim exists. As for “deep emotional & spiritual struggle of death”.....prove it! I have seen people screaming in pain & begging to be euthenased, & believe me it’s not a nice thing to witness. I have also seen a woman dying in peace who was able to talk with her children up until 2 days before she died.  And NO, there is no modern pain relief that takes away the pain of terminal cancer & other dreadful diseases…..why else do you think we are having this debate?? Finally Cathy, other peoples death is none of your business, & it’s not the business of churches either. We should all be allowed to end an unbearable life in a humane & legal way IF WE WISH TO!!!

    • natasha says:

      11:53am | 21/09/10

      Nice piece about a complex subject, I hadn’t thought about it that way. I’d still want my own choice should I ever end up with a painful, long term disease or illness though. But this was a good way of putting the debate in perspective

    • SLR says:

      11:59am | 21/09/10

      It’s surprisingly difficult to kill yourself when you weigh 45kg, are hooked up to respirators and machines that go beep and under 24 hour care.

      The myth of the friendly doctor/palliative care nurse with a helpful overdose is just that in my experience.

      My father tried to kill himself 3 times before he slowly wasted away in a hospice bed. The only people that I got any help from was Exit, unfortunately due to legal restrictions it wasn’t enough.

      If I can check a DNR box I’d also like the option of choosing when and how I go.

    • Anon says:

      12:01pm | 21/09/10

      As someone who attempted suicide for reasons completely unrelated to health I can completely understand that a person may wish to end their life to prevent further suffering - either for themselves or for others.

      What I can’t understand, is societies inability to accept that some people just don’t want to be alive. That some people want to die on their own terms, for any number of reasons. Why is that a problem? I can’t help but wonder if it is because it makes each person ask themselves if their life is actually important, it makes them question whether they actually have any worth beyond a series of chemical reactions and trace elements of a few valuable metals. If a person decides that they want to end their life they should certainly be free to do so - forcing someone to live when they have no wish to do so is a torture all of its own.

      it we instead look at a more benevolent approach to the opposition to euthanasia, it seems to be based on the presumption that people would never want to end their own lives. Yet the fact that people commit suicide every day demonstrates that the is clearly not the case. Sure, some people regret their decisions in time, but I don’t regret mine. I don’t regret failing in my attempt and still being alive (otherwise I would do something about it), but I certainly don’t think that it was the wrong thing to do - I appreciate that it was drastic, but it was what I wanted at the time and I was free to make that choice.

      I was, and I remain, of the opinion that it is my life, I should be free to end it on the terms that I want under the conditions that I want. But it seems that the anti-euthanasia lobby want to take that opportunity away.

      Further, I have watched loved ones die from various forms of cancer and disease, and even just falling victim to the ravages of time. I don’t want to go through that, and no person should be able to demand that I do suffer that slow, degrading, tortuous existence until I finally succumb to the inevitable.

      It’s ironic that a man who give his life for a friend is a hero, a man who sacrifices his life for his family is seen as far less.

    • Moggy says:

      12:09pm | 21/09/10

      When I was a teenager Mum brought her mother to live with us. Granny was a carping, bed-ridden complainer who ‘enjoyed’ bad health & found everything in our home not up to her standards. Mind you they were a hell of a lot better than in her home because Grandad enjoyed making her life a misery now that she was bed-ridden.  I was the youngest member of the family & was studying to do my Junior Exams which is equivalent to the year 10 Certificate these days. Television had just come to Western Australia & seeing as the neighbours had a TV (It was a great novelty) the entire family except me & Granny would disappear at 7pm every evening to watch TV next door, leaving me to my studies. Granny’s carping started the moment they were out the door so my studies were a hit & miss affair. Her carping was about being too cold, being too hot, needing a glass of water, or needing her pillows plumped. Being a devout Christian Granny also wanted me to read the bible to her but would complain when I didn’t do it like the minister in her church. Granny needed help getting onto her kermode & believe me the results of this was akin to a nuclear blast seeing as Granny was very particular about her bowels & took a lot of laxatives. The after shock of a few moments on her kermode can only be descibed as a nuclear bomb packed with the entire contents of a sewerage plant.  After a few months of being left with Granny every night I was starting to get a bit pissed off. So one night I refused to answer her tenth sqwark for attention. Needless to say this was the wrong time to do this because this was a potty time sqwark. Now, the nasty side of taking laxatives every day is that when you have to go, you HAVE to go, if you get my drift. I don’t think I need to paint this particular picture.  When the rest of the family came back the odour that wafted up & around them saw them all rushing to open the windows. When Mum found that Granny had done her business in the bed I copped a whack over the ears & was banned from going to the pictures for a month. But I was never left to deal with Granny by myself again!!

    • Beware says:

      07:17pm | 21/09/10

      Moggy I hope when you are at the point your Granny was you will have a much more compassionate grandchild to spend your final days with.  What a nasty little person you sound I guess you will learn as you mature, I sure do hope so. Hate to think of a fellow human with this mindset.

    • Monica says:

      12:15pm | 21/09/10

      As with abortion,euthanasia is just for convenience.We all have to die,the way we die is not to be determined by us.

    • N says:

      01:17pm | 21/09/10

      Monica; “the way we die is not to be determined by us”, care to elaborate? Who says we can’t choose how we die? Or is this more devine mandate?

    • monica says:

      05:38pm | 21/09/10

      The only instance how we can choose how we die is when we take matters in our own hands as with abortion,euthanasia or suicide. In all other instances it happens not of your own accord and we have no idea when or where .Of course then you cannot choose how you want to die.Or do you have a predetermined date communicated to you? If you can choose how you want to die,you might as well choose to be murdered too.

    • Harlequin says:

      12:17pm | 21/09/10

      Well this one was a bit of a downer, Joe.  I might just go to Holland for the weekend!

      Seriously, everyone has a story about relatives terminally ill.  I had a grandmother too.  She was terminally ill.  My mother hastened her death through the informal means you mentioned - without consulting her mother or the rest of the family - because she had an overseas holiday planned and hey, an non-refundable ticket is a non-refundable ticket, right?  And this is why I would like to see something more formal in place that protects the rights of all concerned.  Especially the dying.  Because this is one decision that you can’t change your mind on.  And as horrible as it is to watch somebody you love die, if I could have spent one more hour with my grandmother to say goodbye, I might have been able to forgive my mother.  Almost.

    • Sylvia Else says:

      12:34pm | 21/09/10

      If the time were to come where I was headed towards a point where I couldn’t end my life, I’d have to do it earlier than I might otherwise, to ensure that I don’t end up stuck in a bed somewhere too weak to take the necessary steps. It seems entirely possible that the current legal situation will shorten my life.

    • I hate meddlers says:

      02:46pm | 21/09/10

      Sylvia, that is the exact stage of life I am currently going through. I need to do it in the next 5- 6 years to be sure I don’t miss the window of opportunity.
      I have no religion, so I have no fear of dying. My only problem is deciding how. I don’t want lingering pain.I have been collecting pain killers for some time now, but I lack the knowledge to be sure of the outcome. Somebody wrote earlier that there were 2500 annual suicides, exceeding the # of road deaths, but in reality, some of the road deaths are actualy suicides, where some old fart like myself decides on the spur of the moment to swerve across the road, endangering others. I think the current law has shortened many lives in this regard.

    • Sam Chowder says:

      12:40pm | 21/09/10

      Personally I look forward to death, I could do with a nice long lie-in

    • Lisa says:

      01:04pm | 21/09/10

      Anecdotally, there must be plenty of evidence that people will pressure other, less empowered people into doing what they want, if even a small benefit is perceived.

      What then, in a situation where the oldie is an incredible burden, a huge social, emotional and financial drain on a family… and is perhaps hanging on to an enormous pile of money?

      The euthenasia debate is perhaps similar to the abortion debate.

      As a woman who has finally married and is now socially enabled to have children ‘responsibly’, I say that there is plenty of anecdotal evidence of the unintended pressures brought to bear on young women by the socially empowered elite who have made abortion and low-investment sex an acceptable ‘choice’.

      When it comes to negotiating the love-and-family stage of their lives,  many (not all) young women feel they have no cultural ‘choice’ but to 1. participate in short-term sex as a chance to create a life partnership for themselves 2. abort a child if the relationship goes nowhere for them or 3. be a single mum and hope the guy co-operates. Some choice, huh!

      Cultural responses to ‘choices’ can lead to a decrease of choices for other parties to the decision. In the end, it comes down to power. Who sets the agenda here? Not all power relationships can be formally recognised, and in this way, the weakest are manipulated regardless of the letter or even the spirit of the law.

      In the same way, I think we can and will expect the socially strongest and fittest (or just the most aggressive… or even just a worn-out carer or two) to ‘export risk’ in the area of care of the aged.

      Socially, none of us operate on a level playing field. ‘Choice’, like ‘consent’ is a loaded term.

    • Grant says:

      03:17pm | 21/09/10

      There is a lot of talk about choice here.

      But no mention of personal responsibility

    • Dave C says:

      01:10pm | 21/09/10

      Here here Joe, well said.

      It really pains me to see so many with an opinion on the matter who know nothing of those whom they claim they want to help. I spent almost 4 years in Hospice. I nursed, befriended, laughed and cried ...then held the hand of 2,634 souls as they passed this life due to all sorts of horrible illnesses.

      Life is precious ... even in the final moments when life appears over, there are moments more tangent, powerful and rewarding for those concerned than any prior.

      Euthenasia, genocide, infanticide, foetocide, etc etc ad naseum are ancient barbaric practices that have no regard for the intrinsic value of human life… however well ordered or legislated.

    • grant says:

      01:26pm | 21/09/10

      It is a personal choice…

    • Jamers Hunter says:

      01:39pm | 21/09/10

      what a load of cobblers.
      Go visit the terminally ill who beg continuously to be put out of it.
      If we have a dog in pain and do not have it put down we be in court for cruelty to animal.
      Why do our dogs and other pets have more right to a painless, peacefull and timely end ?
      Too many religitards running things I suspect. If the God of their choice is so merciful then if he existed he should be doing something about it.

    • neva says:

      02:21pm | 21/09/10

      As a veterinarian I come face to face with spectre and performance of euthanasia every day.  It is the most difficult part of my job.  Even in the face of extreme suffering the choice to end a life is not an easy one (or should not be an easy one).  I have also worked in human nursing homes so I think I’ve had a pretty good look at what occurs in our society.  I am not anti euthanasia however I am anti the legalisation of euthanasia.  Well written piece.

    • Georginorx says:

      02:24pm | 21/09/10

      This is a 100% personal moral question. Everyone should have a right to determine for themselves at what point they give up, but the right to that decision shouldn’t make the decision itself any easier.
      While I find the particularly hard barrier of traditional methods of reaching death an excellet deterrant for the undecided, there are some that reach the mental or physical point where they would wish to cross that barrier only to be impeded by a mental or physical condition that precludes them from making that leap.
      I don’t believe in peaceful and dignified death. I believe in the fear of dying. Dying should be horribly difficult. But that doesn’t mean that you aren’t allowed to make that decision.
      I do think that the issue of death becoming an easy choice for the individual is confused with the idea of protecting the infirm, where if death was a quick injection away then the family may not feel as conflicted about the decision to let someone go. That terrifying, violent barrier to taking one’s life is in my view morally correct. Imposing that barrier on an external decision-maker in taking another’s life would be an important step to making euthanasia morally tolerable. Some guardians are emotionally connected to their dependant and would experience a commensurate level of emotional conflict, however not every guardian is as attached to the life of the dependant.

      Sorry for talking about suicide. Don’t kill yourself because of me! If you or someone you know is experiencing depression or showing signs that they are considering suicide, please contact beyondblue through their website for support and recommendations about treating suicide, depression and anxiety:
      http://www.beyondblue.org.au

    • Sam says:

      03:17pm | 21/09/10

      We are never going to be given such basic human rights through the parliamentary process while religion exists.
      I suggest we have a binding referendum on a number of contentious issues, voluntary euthenasia, same sex marriage, abortion, legalising pot, even the internet filter. I’m sure there are other issues that could be on the same list. A 75% approval would be a fair pass mark on each and every topic.

    • PaulW says:

      03:53pm | 21/09/10

      It’s really tiresome to hear this lazy argument again and again that you cannot be opposed to these things except for religious reasons. There are perfectly logical arguments against all of them. I don’t necessarily agree with these arguments but they’re far more intellectual than comments like the above.

      involuntary euthanasia - concerns it will encourage involuntary euthanasia

      same sex marriage - marriage is not a right but a social institution for the raising of children. Children have a right to be raised by their mother and father and homosexual parenting should not be encouraged.

      abortion - killing a human being is murder and violates their fundamental rights, regardless of age.

      pot - pot use negatively effects the brain

      internet filter - the internet should be subject to the same rules as magazines, newspapers, tv etc, which includes the censorship of unclassified material

    • Shane From Melbourne says:

      06:22pm | 21/09/10

      @Paul W- speaking of lazy arguments, let’s examine yours shall we?
      involuntary euthanasia - concerns it will encourage involuntary euthanasia
      [ considering we are talking about purely voluntary euthanasia, I don’t know what involuntary euthanasia involves- three doctors and a psychologist all conspiring to murder a patient, perhaps? illogical in the extreme]

      same sex marriage - marriage is not a right but a social institution for the raising of children. Children have a right to be raised by their mother and father and homosexual parenting should not be encouraged.

      [ okay, marriage is not a right for two consenting adults (whether hetrosexual or homosexual), but it is apparently a right for a child who may or not be the result of such union. Any empirical evidence upon why homosexual parenting should not be encouraged?

      abortion - killing a human being is murder and violates their fundamental rights, regardless of age.
      [Considering that medical science itself cannot determine when a foetus becomes human being, you have done a remarkable thing. Also it is strange that the state has legalized this “murder”. No mention of the fundamental rights of the mother.]

      pot - pot use negatively effects the brain
      [ Empirical evidence for this?]

      internet filter - the internet should be subject to the same rules as magazines, newspapers, tv etc, which includes the censorship of unclassified material

      [ You do realize that most of the media you have mentioned have voluntary codes of practice. I’m all for a voluntary code of practice being imposed upon the internet but somehow I don’t think web servers in other parts of the world will comply.]

      Please note that a religious troll using intellectual arguments is still a religious troll

    • Beware says:

      07:26pm | 21/09/10

      PaulW Well said, it is good to see intelligent sane comments among all the rudeness and selfishness and lack of thought displayed in many of the comments.

    • Tom Kenyon says:

      03:24pm | 21/09/10

      Well written Joe.

    • Leah says:

      03:33pm | 21/09/10

      Thankyou, thankyou, thankyou.

      I understand why certain people want to die. I’m not talking about teenagers whose friends have turned on them and have just been dumped - while awful for them, it’s something they will recover from - but the chronically ill who are in continuous pain, those with mental illnesses like alzheimers that they know can potentially reduce them to cranky, mindless, old codgers with no knowledge of who they are or who they people around them are. I can understand that. I also applaud the measures that euthanasia proponents have suggested (like in the NT) - having 3 doctors agree the patient is terminally ill, two psychologists agree they are of sound mind, etc etc. (If I’m remembering correctly).

      However we can’t guard against people choosing euthanasia because they think they’re burdens on relatives. We can’t guard against people feeling threatened into choosing euthenasia. Leave euthanasia in the realm of “possible but not legalised” (as agreed by Joe and several commenters). Once we begin legalising it you create legal loopholes and slippery slopes. As Joe said, if someone wants to die, it’s pretty near impossible to stop them.

    • papachango says:

      03:34pm | 21/09/10

      Sorry I completely disagree with the author. A basic natural human right should be that each individual owns their own life, including when to end it if they so choose. The government should have no ability to remove that right as they currently do. It’s really that simple.

      Of course individuals should also be free from anyone coercing them into ending their own life any sooner than they want to. Legalised euthanasia must be completely and utterly voluntary, with appropriate checks and balances in place to ensure it is so. However, the ‘bumping off granny’ fearmongering is not enough to justify the removal of a fundamental human right.

    • DocBud says:

      10:03pm | 21/09/10

      The argument in a nutshell, well said, papachango. We do not belong to the state, we choose to give it certain powers to simplify life and it should function as if it is our servant and not vice versa. We do not give it complete power over our lives, which is the mistake nasty little statists like Anna Bligh make. We should have a constitutional right to challenge laws on the basis that they intrude in areas of our lives that governments should leave well alone, that includes whether or not someone chooses to top themself, but also less important issues like how one chooses to heat their water, power their home and what they choose to watch on the tv.

    • Walker Waters says:

      03:43pm | 21/09/10

      A Chinese proverb something like ....it,s not the number of moments you breathe, it,s the moments that take your breath away that matter… quality of life is at least to be cognitive and aware,that the choices are indeed yours not the domain of a legislator

    • Drew(Darlinghurst) says:

      04:17pm | 21/09/10

      Yay…this is a great opportunity to kill Grandmother.


      “Money ,Money Money…must be funny…in a rich mans world”
      -ABBA

      raspberry

    • Addy says:

      04:32pm | 21/09/10

      Touching, coherent and on point.

      Was this really written by Joe?

    • timbo says:

      05:27pm | 21/09/10

      Thank you Joe for rationalizing this emotional argument.  May I add that if euthanasia ever became enshrined in law, then over time and by induction, precedence, etc, it would become a medical convenience.

    • tony of potts point says:

      05:57pm | 21/09/10

      Thank you I found your essay quite sobering. I agree that euthanasia legislation is a slippery slope. Thanks again.

    • Jolanda says:

      07:13pm | 21/09/10

      I find it hard to believe that anybody would believe that they have a right to tell someone else that they must continue to live,  when they know they just want to die and be put to rest. 

      If we do not have the freedom to decide when we should die then we do not have freedom of choice. 

      Education – Keeping them Honest
      http://jolandachallita.typepad.com/

    • Beware says:

      10:04am | 22/09/10

      Here is some education for you Jolanda

      The greens and their fellow travellers

      With the universal push by individual groups and nations to impose on the world programmes instigated by radical Greens, atheists, and other pseudo enviromentalists, it is important to expose the truth of what the aim of their agenda is, as it relates to people, families and the world community in general.

      The first thing that is obvious is, that in the debate on climate change, attempts were made at Copenhagen to impose decisions that go against the independence and sovereignty of individual countries, which also includes the right to life of people by trying to enforce pantheism on sovereign States, which is supported globally by the Greens.

      Definition of pantheism

      Pantheists by definition see the “world as their God” and their agenda is that the human person should be eliminated – because of overpopulation, which in their minds would help to preserve the trees, rocks, rivers, whales and the environment from destruction.

      In other words the Greens and their fellow travellers agenda is: that people are expendable and that the planet would be better off with an 85% reduction in population.

      Their infiltration and determination has not only influenced whole communities , but also world governments including Australia’s, which can only lead to anti-human life and anti-family decisions which will take away the protection of both, and fracture individual and community safeguards, especially if the 2009 Euthanasia Bill is voted in.

      Knowing the truth is to be aware

      To know this is to be aware and understand where the Greens and their fellow travellers are coming from with their push to legalise euthanasia in Western Australia.

      Their total dedication to push this anti life agenda is seen in their total support for abortion and their current push for euthanasia. The Greens truly believe their own propaganda about the planet, and have no qualms about distorting the truth to force their will on the general population.

      Knowing the mind and dedication of the Greens, our response should be to circulate the truth to the WA community, of what is at stake in allowing the Euthanasia Bill to become law.

      The positive answer to this Bill

      Is for doctors to be responsible to their role as the primary health carers, and nurses and paramedics the same.  Because the intent of this Bill is not to upheld the primacy of the person and their proper care in any given situation, but to legalise their killing.

      This Bill in effect would force doctors and nurses to betray their noble role as health carers, and be complicit in acts of homicide. This Bill in effect targets and would change the ethical Code in medicine and medical application “to do no wrong,” opening the floodgates to legalised killing as the new ethic.

      The answer is in palliative care

      The good health and treatment of people especially in end of life health care is not enhanced by legalising and killing them by euthanasia.

      The answer lies in promoting palliative care.

      The ‘90’s saw a significant ongoing development of specialist palliative care. It evolved to providing specialist medical support for the complex range of medical problems associated with life threatening illnesses and disabling conditions.

      Most people associate “hospice” with “cancer” but there are other significant life threatening conditions which are now all supported by palliative care ie. end-stage heart failure, end-stage kidney disease, lung disease, motor neuron and multiple sclerosis. In general terms there are three levels of provision of palliative care.

      Palliative care is not trying to cure, or unnecessarily prolong the dying, or deliberately shorten it. It aims to improve the quality of active living for the dying person without burdensome, futile intervention. The support is given with open, honest two-way communication between doctors/nurses and the dying person and family, as they all deal with the life threatening situation. Coping with a diagnosed terminal life threatening condition may be some duration – years, months rather than weeks and days.

      In other words palliative care upholds the respect and care due to people in their special time of need, whether in prolonged illness or in the dying process.

      To legalise euthanasia is immoral, because it destroys the dignity, integrity and the life of a person, in their special time of need, love and care.

      Peter O’Meara is the President of the Right to Life Association, Western Australia

      I am not anything to do with the Right to Life but I am one who questions what is the REAL reasons the Greens and their ilk push euthanasia - it is of course their religion.  Whilst it may be dressed up as “voluntary” euthanasia as they play to the masses it appears their full agenda is far more sinister.

    • Elly says:

      03:12pm | 22/09/10

      Reply to Beware.

      What “Peter O’Meara is the President of the Right to Life Association, Western Australia’  says is very well and good, regarding palliative care, if you can get it.

      My father in law passed away 3 years ago,  suffered for 9 months prior to his death, as there was no palliative care available to him in his area, apart from a couple of days here and there in the local hospital (which was 30kms away) when they had a bed to spare. Once a week a nurse would come to see how he was going,  one time they put him in the local nursing home, which was not good for him or the elderly living there.

      I think when people like Peter O’Meara, recommend palliative care, its best to make sure it is available to/for everyone.

    • Beware says:

      04:47pm | 24/09/10

      Reply to Elly.
      Elly I know services are lacking in some areas and that is not good enough, but it is still no excuse to introduce murder/suicide under the euphemism of euthanasia or “dying with dignity”.  Service come when people take the need up actively with their MP’s.

    • grace says:

      07:34pm | 21/09/10

      I agree with the thrust of Joe’s article: institutionalised euthanasia is dangerous. And looking at the blogs, it is incredibly naive (more precisely, thick) how some attempt to placate concerns by arguing that legalising euthanasia wouldn’t necessary lead to abuse of such a law. Strange, especially when there are already bloggers even on this site pushing the line it’s a person right if he/she wants to kill him/herself. Clearly the matter of pain doesn’t even enter into the debate.

      Well known euthanasia advocate Philip Nitschke even wants to promote suicide as a splendid method for anyone who wants to die, including “troubled teens”.  http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/secondhandsmoke/2010/07/22/suicide-nation-joint-deaths-illustrates-our-emerging-pro-suicide-society/

    • CathA says:

      07:53pm | 21/09/10

      Thanks for your thoughtful and considered comments on euthanasia. I really appreciated hearing your views last night on Paul Muray Live which were particularly refreshing juxtaposed to his typically cliched and predictable arguments.
      As a Catholic, I am primarily against euthanasia because we believe that each person is made in the image of God and as such has a dignity (we can think and reason) and can never be “put down” - that’s what we do to dogs. Fortunately palliative care can do much to help people cope with suffering.
      Suffering is bad. No one wants to suffer or see those they love suffer, but the Good News is that even our suffering can lead to a greater good - as Jesus’ suffering did, when we offer ourselves to God. This is what Catholics call redemptive suffering. That’s enough of the theological lesson for now…
      For those who don’t know or believe in God, your argument presents the potentially dangerous consequences of passing such laws to legalise euthanasia in Australia. The vulnerable will become even more so. Furthermore with the ever growing myth of over-population, it won’t be long before the masses are duped into believeing that we’re better off to prematurely end the lives of the elderly or anyone deemed to be lacking a certain “quality of life” etc to save the planet (not to mention our tax dollars). A slippery slope indeed…
      Talk about a “culture of death.” Thanks Bob, thanks for nothin.

    • Shane From Melbourne says:

      11:13am | 22/09/10

      Finally, someone who admits that they are against Euthanasia because they are Catholic instead of the dozens of ACL trolls who have posted against Euthanasia on some other pretext than they are Catholic…...
      (You can always pick out the ACL trolls because they follow the same scripting and format. It must be something the ACL teaches in Blogging 101)

    • Venise Alstergren says:

      03:08pm | 22/09/10

      “”

        CathA says:

        07:53pm | 21/09/10

        “” As a Catholic, I am primarily against euthanasia because we believe that each person is made in the image of God and as such has a dignity (we can think and reason) and can never be “put down” -”“

      No one is asking YOU to be ‘put down’ as you so graciously(?) put it. We ask for the right to access Euthanasia. Hopefully, this law, if/when introduced will specifically exclude the religious amongst the community. That way, Catholics and other hard right-wing religionists, can maintain their own purity whilst allowing the rest of us to work out our own lives, in peace.

      How dare you tell me I am made in the image of god! This is arrogant bull#hit. He would be less than amused to hear people saying such lies.

      How do you know He isn’t shaped like a Llama/Vicuña? YOU DON’T. As far as I’m concerned there is just not enough evidence.

    • Venise Alstergren says:

      08:15pm | 21/09/10

      JOE HILDEBRAND: What about people like me? I feel just as deeply, just as passionately, and just as sensitively, as you. However, I have come to the opposite conclusion. I believe a person should have the right to decide when they have had enough pain, enough of lying like a log as people fasten one into the hell of palliative care-remember this is my opinion- pain wracked, ex-control of my mental processes, covered by bed-scabs, and just another cypher (sic) to be serviced by the death industry.

      Unfortunately, I lack the ability to express my opinion cogently and coherently. What should people like myself do to express an opinion? I don’t think I should have to have a degree in journalism to express the opposite opinion; to get through to people like you that it is my life, and my right to decide my own fate.

      Also, I believe you are fudging the issue-no matter how eloquently you write. No one should imagine this is not every bit as complex a problem as life itself. But just giving up on the subject solves nothing. There are thousands of people out here, in the real world, who wish to retain some dignity when dying.
      to have some perception of control. We spend our whole lives learning how to control our worst inclinations, why should we surrender the same control in the face of death?

      No one who advocates the right to euthanasia wishes to tell the whole population that they must also have the same right. Yet the most vocal opponents of euthanasia are religious-usually Catholic. I said USUALLY. yet these same people demand that I live my life by their lack of principle.

      I don’t wish to be a bed-ridden, covered in bed-sores, mentally challenged vegetable. Personally, I would be quite happy to miss out on a few years in exchange for a dignified-to me-and quick death.

      Why is it that the people who are against the concept automatically imagine the woods are full of potential murderers? Surely there exist families who are decent enough not to knock off old relos?  Certainly the ability to avail oneself of euthanasia is not a perfect system. And no matter what happens in favour of this concept no one need worry about the legal system. They will be making money in what the religious perceive to be ‘heaven’.

      BTW, if the religious amongst us believe, so firmly in heaven why aren’t they in a hurry to go there?

    • Rosemary says:

      08:31pm | 21/09/10

      Try being held under the mental health act people then you may get it maybe that you have no choice once determined by others. Being held as such you cannot even have a cigarette, food either so much for facts of any of this clap trap deciding on euthanasia is civilized somehow?

      Administered medication without permission from a mere aspirin or something akin that can knock a horse off and his ability mental or otherwise. As for pain relief forget it. Wake up and face facts one and all here on end.

      Complain to the so called Commission of the health complaints is same as appealing to the so called Minister ? Even for ADHD kids parents, child protection come into the equation and this can be decided by teachers in education for less. Such as not allowing your child to drink, drug and sexualize as a young person. We have seen a Dad protecting a 15 year old in a nightclub. Dad gets arrested on ACA?
      Oh please get a thought here.
      Be a Forgotten Australian yet and you get the pictures clear it happened to us many times over.

    • Tom of Brisbane says:

      08:47pm | 21/09/10

      Whilst not agreeing 100% with the content, at least the sentiment is commendable. Too often issues like these descend into entrenched positions and name calling. Hear hear.

    • Corinne says:

      08:59pm | 21/09/10

      Finally some common sense on the subject of euthanasia and some real understanding and insight into the real consequences if it is introduced.

    • Jen says:

      10:31pm | 21/09/10

      Palliative care is a little beside the point. If people are in severe pain and dying they have a pretty easy way to do it - with their pain meds.

      I have another kind of nightmare in mind. The thought of being diagnosed with Alzheimers. Or Huntington Disease. Or being in a car accident and becoming a vegetable. Or having a severe debilitating stroke. I’ve done placement in a nursing home and these people have no quality of life, the person that they were is dead, all that is left is a miserable creature waiting to die. I’ve seen them crying, confused, with their dignity worn away to nothing. A 40 year old woman insensible shuddering in a bed on the floor (in case she falls out) with Huntingons, fed through a stomach tube.  I can’t think of anything more horrible for my family, whom I love dearly, to live with the fact that a shell, a parody of what I once was, was lying in a nursing home somewhere slowly dying and suffering for years and years. I would hate, HATE for that to happen to me, for the person that I am now to become that, to be trapped in that body, that existance. And yet the only thing I could tell my family to do would be to withdraw care from me and let me dehydrate/starve to death. How nice for them to deal with, in addition to the loss of my personality, a final slow insult to my body and what is left of my sensibilities.

      It shouldn’t be easy for someone to decide to die, but in certain circumstances a peaceful death should be an option.

    • Andrew says:

      11:28pm | 21/09/10

      All I know is that irrespectivde of all the banter, myself and my 5 siblings have just witnessed our mother spend her last 6 months with zero dignity in hospital dying of breast related cancer. Over this 6 months she slowly died a hideous death - basically exploding out of her own skin because cancer had totally riddled her body and lymph nodes which meant she couldn’t drain fluids from her body. She became a human michelin man. She wanted to go, and we supported her decision, but she was artificially kept alive at great cost to the public, not to mention the stress on the family and extended friends seeing her so distressed. This has effected the family to the extent most are now severely traumatised at the nature of her hideous and undignified exit and are themselves at risk. I’ve just signed up with DWDNSW (Dying with Dignity NSW) to help bring legislative change.

    • Phil W says:

      11:29pm | 21/09/10

      There are a number of moral issues where a “christian” view is being supposed. Researching the teaching of Jesus, as referred to in the Book of Matthew - he is quoted as saying “Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you”. His teachings seem to be beyond the detail of euthanasia, looking at the bigger picture.

      He also is quoted as declaring that he came to fulfil the Jewish Law - is that returning to the detail or is that he is the fulfilment, like the promise of the Law - like taking possession of the house when you have paid the mortgage?

      I find it hard to comprehend Christian’s speaking against the death penalty when it is such a significant part of Jewish law and only abolished with Humanism (or am I mistaken?)

    • True believer says:

      01:17pm | 22/09/10

      PHIL W You are mistaken Jesus paid the price for the sins of the people of the world who repent and turn to Him.  He thus bought those of us who choose to believe in His salvation freedom from the law which led to punishment and death under the old law.  He carried what we should on that Cross at Calvary.  It is a free gift - very uncomplicated. Unfortunately the basic message has been complicated by men and some women wanting to intellectualise what is a spiritual matter.  Some denominations have given the wrong message as to what Jesus was/is about.

      Could I suggest in all humility you repent, believe and then in His power read His book. It is not like any other, it is a spiritual book. Scoffers will write and decry what I say, but I have been a scoffer and a believer, they are only speaking from the ignorance of scoffers, doubters and unbelievers. Sadly they miss out on the very best part of life both now and eternally.

    • Youdy beaudy says:

      06:47am | 22/09/10

      When the quality of life is nonexistent ,the individual suffering from whatever Illness that is currently happening to them may like to make a decision re termination of their life on the grounds of pain and suffering beyond what one would be reasonably expected to endure. If incompetent to make their own decision it has to fall to others to make for them. It is very difficult as many of us have lost loved ones to horrible illnesses or accidents.

      So many people worldwide are kept on machines just to satisfy the selfishness of relatives. When we are not suffering ourselves it is sometimes hard to understand the degrees of pain that others who are on death row suffer. I’m sure the sick person would be quite happy to terminate their pain and go to sleep.

      If there were a way to do away with the sick body in a manner that was noble for it then people may be agreeing more with it. Everyone of us will eventually come to the termination of the life of the physical body by whatever means is fated too us. But for those who cling emotionally to their loved ones for their own sake and attachments, not the ill persons, then they could be less affected by Death by realizing that with all of us it is only the Death of the Body. In actuality nothing dies. It is the termination of the Physical which must happen according to the laws related to Time, Space and Object. There are laws that cover all things in the physical universe.

      When we die it is the termination of the Individual Personality and all that goes with it with a life lived. The Soul has already passed through many bodies and at death is transmigrating from one to another in a similar way to a Motor Vehicle which dies. What is done in that case is that we purchase another one to drive. The Physical Body is the Vehicle for life and we need it to experience through the 5 senses. We experience life in degrees of Attraction and Repulsion, and at the end because the individual nature goes out with the body we think that the person will suffer in the hereafter and we many times cling to the Individual Personality that we have had love for.

      But Death is the release from suffering whether it is Human or Animal Death. I have had in my life to cease the suffering of Pets that I loved dearly. When our Pets suffer and the functions of the Physical Body have collapsed we take the Animal to the Vet and have them put to sleep knowing that their quality of life is finished.

      Although it is very difficult to make decisions as regards termination of life I think that in some severe cases that it rather than being seen and felt as horrible for the sick individual, it could be seen as the release of suffering.

      We are born into this world as we have attachment for Friends and Relatives and so our conciousness returns again to fulfill another life and re connect with them and even the objects that we had attachment too. Our Higher Consciousness has the power to create and because of these reasons it reincarnates again to burn its attachments, so that the evolution of the soul is continued. This is my feeling anyway maybe not for others, but we have much knowledge but we do not understand the purpose of life and death, and this is our ignorance which will have to be removed by right thinking, and creating the right thinking around this debate could go well to free up suffering and would also reduce the burden on our Medical and Hospital Systems. I agree with it under the above circumstances. But it is a very Hard and Difficult situation for Families and Loved ones to be faced with. It is sad to Lose Loved ones to Death but unfortunately it is probably the only truth that we know. We need to understand more about it and make the right decisions for our Elderly family members. There will be more lifetimes to come and it is because of the existence of time. We cannot stop time which brings all things created to destruction so we have to accept what can’t be changed. All we can do is wish them a good Journey and a better health situation for their next incarnation.

    • Joe says:

      09:30am | 22/09/10

      Euthanasia is Murder is the simplest sense. And we all know any healthy Legal system forbids that and punishes that highly!

    • papachango says:

      10:56am | 22/09/10

      so by your logic, if someone attempts suicide and is unsuccessful, I assume you charge them with attempted murder and lock them up?

    • austin 3:16 says:

      11:59am | 22/09/10

      Murder is defined (in part) as unlawful killing, legalise euthanasia and that problem is solved.

    • Venise says: says:

      02:40pm | 22/09/10

      The moment you can provide me with concrete evidence that God exists is the moment I will continue to endorse Euthanasia. Because a real god wouldn’t tolerate the hideous pain and loss of dignity that his vocal supporters inflict on the rest of the community.

    • scotty says:

      11:00pm | 26/09/10

      Venise
      “there is none so blind as he who will not see”

    • Youdy beaudy says:

      10:40am | 22/09/10

      Hey Joe, That is a very selfish attitude you have there. Eventually when right reasoning comes to societies then Governments will have to legalize Euthanasia. It will come by the will of the people. You should keep religion out of this it has nothing to do with religious belief, it is to do with the laws of nature that truly guide the world and events of the world. There is no God ever invented that could change the laws of nature. Even the Gods are powerless to stop Death. The problem with man is that Man is ignorant. That is the lot of man. Hopefully attaining to more knowledge will change our selfish natures.

      Anyone who has undergone long surgeries will tell you that when they knock you out for 4 or 5 hours there is no semblance of consciousness and self identification. I have had many. The difference is that after the drugs have worn off we wake up again, with euthanasia we don’t. But the beauty of it is that there is no more suffering the indignity of not being able to use the bowel or bladder correctly or being able to swallow, and having to have the indignity of that. Doctors already help with Morphine for pain and allow the sick person to leave with dignity. Now isn’t that Great. You obviously haven’t been that sick yourself to know. Murder indeed. Doesn’t seem that way to me. Give me the needle anyday if it would give me dignity and freedom from suffering. Many people would support me in this I know.

    • Joe says:

      11:18am | 22/09/10

      The laws of Nature never included purposefull killing. And it isn’t anyones WILL to chose who they can kill. It isn’t freedom-Killing is far from it! You need to refine what your idea of life is and nature. When you turn your back to God, that is when the nasty events occuring in the world occur. Chosing to end someones life is selfish, you are know one to say that their disability or disease doesn’t give them the right to life. Have a heart for the many less fortunate people in our society, they are part of nature as well and an image of God. Euthanasia is murder just as much as Abortion is!

    • Austin 3:16 says:

      11:51am | 22/09/10

      Well Joe if god doesn’t like the idea he can tell us himself. Up until he does that there’s really no need to be invoking his name. After all if you read his book he’s quite big on killing people when it suits him.

    • Shane From Melbourne says:

      02:06pm | 22/09/10

      @Joe. Rubbish, The Laws of Nature includes purposeful killing everyday. It’s called predation. It’s only man’s social constructs such as morality and legal systems that say killing each other is not a good idea. Even then there are notable exceptions such as self-defence, capital punishment and armed conflict.

    • Sam says:

      10:07pm | 22/09/10

      Joe, I hope you had a similar argument with your priest, because your beloved church has killed millions of people over the last thousand years or so, for not believing? for allegedly being witches?.  You did learn about the crusades, didn’t you?
      All those murders in the name of your sky fairy.

    • Jaime says:

      10:52am | 22/09/10

      A case of apples and oranges here. I can understand the basic thrust of the article which is to say that legalising euthanasia might put pressure on people to die so as to be less of a burden.

      Yet the story described is not even one that is applicable. The idea where anyone who thinks they’re a burden can then easily get euthanised is a weak argument as well. Euthanasia is not as simple as signing up to die. You need multiple doctors sign-offs and to see a psychiatrist. Joe’s grandma’s body might be in decline but she is clearly someone who wants to live and is still able to live with assistance from her family.

      People say euthanasia is a case only supported by young atheists. Nonsense. I was only aware of this issue after several articles that ran (long before Greens - whom I am not even a supporter of - started their latest push) of people with painful, terminal illness and their partners who wanted to support their decisions but legally couldn’t.

      How is Joe’s story comparable to those who have terminal cancer, who are that stage where their pain can no longer be eased by non-lethal dosages of pain medication? That people here have mentioned that they can take medication for the pain does show a basic ignorance of pallitive care. There were cases where the patients are too weak or too in pain to move much, and you have people here saying that hey, they should be able to suicide. No need for legal euthanasia! Again, a distinct ignorance of reality.

      Let me blunt. There are informal/illegal euthanasia means. But you are saying that people who are already suffering a great deal should go about this unsupported (because any loved ones in the know and does not save them can be convicted), messily, without medical help. Where going with dignity is possible but withheld because some people live a world so far away from reality that they would fight this without even knowing what’s going on.

    • Cate P says:

      08:40pm | 22/09/10

      Excellent piece Joe Hildebrand, your mother must be a most wonderful lady - we forget about love , most irrational of emotions, in the debate.  Austin 3.16pm, not that they would be seeking to be homosexual, but it would remove the protection of the law from kids under 18 and open them to easy exploitation by predators.  Ditto for legalised euthanasia - it removes any protection of the law from the most vulnerable in our society.

    • austin 3:16 says:

      12:47pm | 25/09/10

      Hey Cate, how does an unreglated “informal” system, such as currently operates provide more protection than a legally regulated one ?

    • mosh says:

      03:48pm | 23/09/10

      Wow. Finally an article that expresses my sentiments on the whole situation to a T. Thank you.

      I find it interesting that many people pro-euthanasia will also look down on others who commit suicide. Pain is subjective, isn’t it.

    • Weary says:

      04:39pm | 23/09/10

      That’s all well & good but the truth remains that it’s none of our business.  You say we can only really rely on death?  Not true.  We can rely on the fact that an individuals choice to end their life has never been and never will be any of our business.  And to involve the government ?  Brilliant!  After all, their approach to dealing with suicide was to make it illegal - how completely out of touch and plain dumb is that?  No-one EVER decided not to kill themself out of fear of legal repurcussions.  The politicians proposing these demented laws are as clueless as the lawyers who draft them.

    • heather says:

      06:40pm | 23/09/10

      The author clearly speaks from experience..an experience I have also had the privilege of witnessing on a number of occasions. I fully agree with his perspective and see no need at all to formally introduce euthanasia into the law.

 

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Anthony Sharwood

#markwebber just wasted petrol faster than everyone else in monaco #f1

Anthony Sharwood

In my sports column on The Punch tomorrow: why Eurovision was easily the best game on the weekend. Mummy bloggers, you'll like this one!

Daniel Piotrowski

The Logies could learn a lot from Eurovision #lamethings#sbseurovision

Daniel Piotrowski

RT @ellehardytweets: Already despondent about the next fifty one weeks. #sbseurovision

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

Abbott’s crass logic: trash the Parliament in order save it

Abbott’s crass logic: trash the Parliament in order save it

An email was sent to almost every politician in Australia this week saying that someone should cut off…

Our special forces don’t always need special treatment

Our special forces don’t always need special treatment

We admire them, but we’re not entirely sure why. We allow them to operate in the shadows; we rarely…

A good holiday is about unrest, not rest

A good holiday is about unrest, not rest

Like a fat full-stop, it lay in my hand. A small orange – not exactly fresh, but purchased anyway…

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