So basically the wouldn't it be nice if everyone was nice approach to law making. See possible bad thing -> banned.

You may hold that it is sacred, but why does this interfere with people's lives who don't believe in your god or spirituality?

we have to think about how our death will effect the ones who love us. it's our body, our choice. but our choices have consequences on other ppl. a family member committing suicide rocks the foundation of the whole family.. something they may never recover.


i just think it's something that needs to be talked about with the ones who love you.

Personally I would prefer death over suffering. But I want it in my will not decide for me. I think we can agree with this? :)

The will should not have anything to do with it. A material good could never replace a relative. So yeah agreed. It's time the law saw it like this that anyone would prefer death over any prolonged suffering especially if they can't physically comitt suicide by themselves. 

A lot of people in this situation generally have a long discussion with their family about this. It's certainly no easy decision. Fortunately some people have the guts to let go of their relative if they see they can't live to a decent standard. It's not the same as a perfectly healthy person killing themselves as terminally ill people have no choice but to talk to their family about it since their illness has reduced their lives to almost nothing. But yeah i agree with you. 

When did I talk about God?  That has nothing to do with the topic from my view.  I said human life is sacred, as in:

"reverently dedicated to some person, purpose, or object: a morning hour sacred to study." or

"regarded with reverence: the sacred memory of a dead hero."

And yes, if everyone would do the right thing we wouldn't need laws.  The only reason we need any laws is because some people don't do the right thing.  We have to ban murder because not everyone will not do murder on their own.  Same thing with theft, rape, drunk driving, and everything else.

So if everyone was using Euthanasia for a good cause, that's great.  But ending lives is a dangerous activity, and as it stands I'm not sold that it can be allowed without some dire consequences.

Even if you mean sacred as in reverance, you're still imposing that on people who don't believe in that.

No. The purpose of law isn't to ban what you don't like.

it's a difficult topic. My mum had to witness my grandfather suffering. She wanted to pay for medical treatment while he was at hospital but he refused. He suffered a lot and just wanted to rest in peace - so he decided to leave hospital and return home spend time with my aunts and his grandchild. My mum rushed to the Philippines (we live in australia) just to see him, it was a late decision, so it was a surprise. When she arrived my grandfather was at his final hours. Luckily my mum made in time and was able to say goodbye. My mum told me she did not want to let him go, but she knew he was suffering and that it was the right choice to let him go.

Yes, that is what the purpose of law is.  That is absolutely what it is.  We don't like murder and theft, so we ban it.  While it is more ambiguous, I don't like euthanasia.  If I was to vote, i would vote against it being legal as it currently is in my country.  Perhaps most people are OK with it and it will change in the future.  Perhaps my opinion will change in the future.  For now, I view it as something that should be banned because I don't like it and so does my country.

I think the question here has some flawed assumptions. I know that modern medicine can't do everything, but I also think there's no such thing as an "incurable disease." If I'm going to die of a disease we don't know how to fix and there's nothing I can do about it, I want the right to sign a waiver and be put on experimental treatments a lot more than a right to turn the morphine drip all the way up and gallop off into la la land.

And here in the US, experimental treatments are not unheard of, but they often take a politician stepping in to make it legal.

Assisted suicide does nobody any good. Experimental treatments at least have a potential of doing otherwise, for others if not myself. You can argue that both should be a right, but I think that experimental treatment should be the preferred option because at least it does something constructive with a bad situation.