Despite "many people supporting" euthanasia, Dr Philip Nitschke is somewhat over-"pushy"...

I know (I knew) some people who would have terminated their life under the strong influence of Dr Philip Nitschke — in which the "choice of life and death was presented" — these people were influenced by other people (non-religious) not to go ahead. They NEVER regretted the delay into a natural death — some people enjoying life for an extra 15 years, despite suffering traumatic health problems. Nearing death, they thanked those people who extended their life...

Some people have used euthanasia on themselves (suicide using the major euthanasia drug) to escape the law or for other dubious reasons — including being drawn into thinking their departure may make a partner's life happier. In fact, euthanasia and suicide are banned by churches, thus I would question the figure of 70 per cent of people in favour of euthanasia — as when most people are faced with the reality of what it means they would baulk at the concept.

There is also a blur between euthanasia and murder if the person being euthanised is not fully mentally fit or has not left very clear written instructions on the subject.

At this stage euthanasia is "illegal" in most countries and in those few countries that have accepted it, it is heavily regulated. From my personal opinion, Dr Philip Nitschke's promotion of euthanasia has been willy-nilly, pushy and often grandstanding.

In regard to the freedom of expression, there are for example very strict rules for the reporting and depiction of youth suicide on TV. These restrictions are there to minimise the possibility of copycat. Unlike graphic violence on TV which can traumatise a child for ever after, yet would not lead him/her to murderous action, depiction of youth suicide in whichever means has been noted by psychologists to lead to increase in youth suicide.

Euthanasia should be lawful, but with very strict codification that would remove the uncertainty and possibility of murder. Yet, I believe an advertising campaign promoting a debate on the suject is not the way to go. It could turn the debate into a pro-con fast-food circus...

Federal Opposition Leader Tony Abbott says parliament should be focused on bigger issues than overturning a ban on territories passing euthanasia laws.

Greens Leader Bob Brown has put the issue back on the agenda, saying he will re-introduce a bill to restore the right of the Territory Parliaments to legalise euthanasia, a power that was taken away in 1997.

In 1995 the Northern Territory Government passed voluntary euthanasia laws, but the Federal Government overturned them two years later.

Federal MPs are likely to be given a conscience vote on the bill.

A spokesman for the Prime Minister says Julia Gillard will discuss the proposal with Senator Brown next week.

ACT Chief Minister Jon Stanhope says the ban is undemocratic.

"The people of the ACT and the Northern Territory have been treated as second-class citizens," he said.

"We haven't been shown the respect that Australians within the states are shown."

-----------------------

Gus: yes Paliament should be focused on very important things such as how to get rid of the rabid dog Abbott — or at least give him a shot of anti-rabid vaccine in the budgies. Meanwhile euthanasia is an issue that affect many people. As I have written above:

Euthanasia should be lawful, but with very strict codification that would remove the uncertainty and possibility of murder. Yet, I believe an advertising campaign promoting a debate on the suject is not the way to go. It could turn the debate into a pro-con fast-food circus...

...and the place to debate euthanasia is parliament. Give back the right to have codified laws on euthanasia to the Northern Territory and the ACT.

Well said Gus.

Every now and then the "Mad Monk" forgets and allows his bigoted religious obligations to show. Why else would he believe that there are more important things to discuss than the rights of an elected Territory to have the power to legislate the same matter as the States? 

Not worthy? Or - the matter wasting time is an issue of conscience on controlled painless death which might take from his religion the “right” to decide when we will die and how - regardless of the pain?

I have written before that one of my doubts about Abbott was his obvious friendship and servile attitude with Cardinal Pell who we all know is not backward in interfering in politics as indeed most Cardinals are all over the world.

I did not have that worry with Kevin Rudd at any time and yet prior to the election, Catholic Priests were warning that “the Catholics may be convinced to vote against Labor”.  Did it happen in significant measure? And did the women voters let Julia Gillard down when she so deservedly cracked the "Glass Ceiling"? And did so unanimously by her colleagues?

It doesn’t take much imagination to accept that the reported five million Roman Catholics in Australia would have a pretty large voting community especially ethnic Catholics from Vietnam etc., and they are bound by their countless oaths of obedience to the Pope and of course Cardinal Pell, to always “keep the faith”.

When Abbott is allowed by his pressure groups to answer questions by an unprepared but “chosen” media, he invariably puts his foot in it.  The Liberal/Nationals were safety first and he was only allowed to speak scripted lines and then pass the buck to one of his “spokespersons” like the yapping poodle.

It was always a rarity for the cameras to move very far from Abbott and his minders so that the journalists could be identified.  The old “Costello trick” of “locked down” interviews with "selected conservative" media.

It is strange that a nation which proudly condemns capital punishment as being cruel, will allow one specific religion to force terminally ill people to suffer incredibly to satisfy the Vatican and its sometimes inhumane laws.

Now Abbott will return to his natural style of being an arrogant, rough as guts religious nut who, if tested, would most probably swear his allegiance to the Pope before he would our national flag that he flaunts so carelessly.

Who is he trying to impress?  NE OUBLIE.

From Letters at the SMH

'Euthanasia: too hard and wrong'' says your editorial (September 21). Too hard, the Herald argues, because ''the measure could be abused in obvious ways by greedy or indifferent relatives''. So laws should not be enacted because criminals will abuse them. Criminals 1, democracy 0.

The editorial then ignores the moral imperative that must inform the lawmakers. We have no hesitation applying it to animals but deny it to our own. Political expediency 1, morality 0.

Old Kant must be turning in his grave.

Reg Wilding Wollongong

--------------

Your editorial supports Tony Abbott's contention that Parliament should focus on bread-and-butter issues. No doubt predominant among such issues would be: denying a desperate few thousand boat people the right to claim refugee status; wrecking the NBN; compromising any meaningful response to climate change.

Is there not an implication that the right of an individual to choose the time, place and the way he/she dies is by comparison a peripheral matter? My definition of a bread-and-butter issue differs somewhat from that presented by whoever penned this editorial.

Jack Sumner Eastwood

----------------------------

Gus: repeating myself:

Euthanasia should be lawful, but with very strict codification that would remove the uncertainty and possibility of murder. Yet, I believe an advertising campaign promoting a debate on the suject is not the way to go. It could turn the debate into a pro-con fast-food circus...

...and the place to debate euthanasia is parliament. Give back the right to have codified laws on euthanasia to the Northern Territory and the ACT.