According to the city press, there is a move to again raise the issue of voluntary euthanasia in the next term of State Parliament. Those who are seeking to advance the question are hoping to make it a bi-partisan issue. This is a somewhat vexed issue with which governments all over the world, mainly those of a more democratic nature, have grappled for many years. Switzerland is one national government which has enacted legislation in favour of the practice, and there have been a number of widely publicised cases where people with terminal illnesses have travelled there to take advantage of the opportunity to end their lives with some dignity.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
Actually, voluntary euthanasia is also currently legal in Belgium, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, and the US states of Oregan and Washington. It was made legal in the Northern Territory in 1996, but the following year was overturned by the Federal Government.
Many people will agree that it is logical that those suffering from a painful, terminal illness should have the right to embrace assisted dying.
Quite a great number of other people would oppose going down such a path, mainly for religious and cultural reasons. Of course the most famous, or infamous depending on which angle you are coming from, is Dr Phillip Nitscke, who is regarded as a saviour by some and a devil by others.
There is the view that the practice is not only morally unacceptable, but has the capacity to compromise ethical medical standards. On the other hand there are valid arguments made from compassionate and practical standpoints. There are those, still in command of their mental capacities, who have elected to invoke their human rights and refuse sustenance and medical care which would prolong their lives. It is not a simple issue. A sober and unemotional consideration reveals some extremely difficult problems which are not immediately obvious. This debate has a long way to run.