ONE of the great qualities of a democratic society is the fact that we have the right to choose.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
We have the freedom to choose where we live, the career path we want, how we spend our money, where we send our children to school, who we spend time with, where we holiday, what we eat, who we vote for - the list is endless.
Sure, in some cases such as voting the outcome is not always what we want, but you still have the freedom to make your preference count. Despite this freedom, the choice to escape the mental and physical pain of a terminal illness, the freedom to die with dignity, is still out of our reach.
With the visit by Exit International director Dr Philip Nitscke to the Highlands on February 10 it is not surprising that this topic has come to the fore once more. Dr Philip Nitschke was the first doctor in the world to perform an assisted suicide under the Rights of the Terminally Ill Act 1995 (NT).
It was a move that pushed the debate regarding assisted dying/voluntary euthanasia into the limelight and made it a hot topic ever since.
For those who oppose the right to voluntary euthanasia the discussions are varied, and among the key arguments against the move is the fear that the doctor-patient relationship could be compromised and the religious arguments focused on the sanctity of human life.
But among the questions that need to be asked of the right-to-lifers are what quality of life does a person have when they are in the final stages of a terminal illness and are the life support machines and other treatments providing sanctity of life or simply enabling others to play God?
If our beloved pet was suffering with no hope we would comfortably choose to send them into a quick and peaceful, permanent slumber. Anyone who has ever done this understands the humanity in such a decision.
The voluntary euthanasia decision is something that has been thoroughly considered by a person and discussed at length with loved ones and doctors. These people with a terminal illness have a wish to die with dignity, a wish to not prolong life when there is no quality of life left.
Surely at some point in this democratic existence they should have a right to have their final wishes honoured. In a society where freedom of choice is obvious, a person with a painful illness should have the right to that one, final and most definitive choice.