If we're going to entertain the notion that there exists a 'right to die' then we need to consider such a claim as a claim to a 'human right'. (After all, we're not now talking about whales or dolphins are we?) Indeed, occasionally someone will argue exactly that, as Dr. Nitschke has done when stating that he believes that everyone over a certain age should have the 'right to die' at a time and in a manner of their choosing (not further defined by any medical condition or prognosis). For something to be considered as a 'human right', it would need not only to be universally accepted but also universally applied. We can talk about rights so-called on the basis of discrimination between different jurisdictions (In NSW the law saysâ�¦, but here in SA we're not allowed toâ�¦) but these are not the kind of rights that we're considering here. We're talking about something that holds true for all of the human family at all times and in all places and euthanasia (or the right to 'choose' euthanasia) just doesn't stack up.Of course, no-one can really prosecute an argument that a 'right-to-die' exists, when you think about it, because we will all die. It's a logical fallacy to claim a right to something that we all share simply because we live!
While Dr. Nitschke is 'out there' with his views he's at least consistent. Nevertheless, he and his group, Exit International, are shunned by many other pro-euthanasia lobby groups precisely because he's too radical for them. But is he?
It is true that most euthanasia organisations argue and support more moderate legislation than any that Nitschke's opinions might proffer. These include the usual 'safeguards' of course which supposedly restrict the operation of an Act.
But, is this really what they want or is it something of a Trojan horse? Supporters of euthanasia know too well that if they created a bill that would give carte blanche to euthanasia and assisted suicide to anyone with no 'safeguards' that no-one in a country like Australia would support it. They'd be howled down in our parliaments and do irreparable damage to their cause.
These people know the literature from overseas in places like The Netherlands, Belgium and Oregon as well as we do. They're certainly not fools.
No, their agenda is principally to get a bill through a parliament in whatever minimalist form it takes to do so.