The SMH argues that all participants of the debate on euthanasia should canvass all issues related to it and acknowledge the legitimacy of the opposing view, and the sincerity with which it is held.
Those who oppose euthanasia have been criticised recently for their intransigence on the issue. We do not believe the criticism is fair.
There can be no place in this debate for diatribes which impugn the motives of those on the opposing side. Undoubtedly there are those who oppose euthanasia from motives based on dogmas which they hold as a matter of faith. But that they defend an essentially dogmatic position does not vitiate their arguments - provided those arguments are based on evidence and reason, not faith alone.
And the arguments on both sides are powerful. Supporters can draw on the frequent experience of families forced to watch helplessly the painful last days of a dying relative. Their opponents can point to the possibility that making death easier will tempt some to decide to end a relative's life before it can be properly justified.
The motive need not necessarily be the greed of heirs anxious to inherit. The rising cost of aged care, and medicine's growing ability to prolong life combine to form a different motive for the same action.
Whatever choice our society makes must be shown to work on a practical level: it must achieve its stated objectives in managing the lives of the dying.
What is most important, as our society engages once again in a debate on this important issue, is that all issues related to it are canvassed, and that all participants acknowledge the legitimacy of the opposing view, and the sincerity with which it is held.
