Doctors have strong convictions to the exact opposite. Doctors, of course, abide by the Hippocratic oath as they are to preserve life and not to destroy life.

It happens not rarely that prior to death a relationship is restored between the dying person and family members, a mutual forgiveness, and a resulting peace for all.

This would not be possible if a person died by assisted suicide.

In Holland, euthanasia was legalised many years ago based on "stringent conditions and safeguards". In spite of these so-called stringent conditions and safeguards the system got abused by unscrupulous people for whatever Illegal reasons. People who have died should not have died.

There is no doubt that this would not happen in Australia also. Why? Because people are people, in every country there are corrupt and evil-minded people.

"Dignified dying" is often given the reason for euthanasia. Very many have died in a dignified way without resorting euthanasia for the solid reason that loving palliative care was given to the dying person. They would not even contemplate euthanasia.

In view of the above reasons, consider carefully what you stand for in this serious and sensitive issue.

READ MORE LETTERS:

"Know thyself" is one of the great wisdoms passed down to us by the ancient Greek philosophers. Seems to me that Yvonne Rance could benefit by heeding that wisdom ("All sides should be heard", June 7).

Yvonne, you speak of truth but your denial of science and deliberate ignoring of the destructive climate events happening all around you shows that your version of "truth' has little tolerance for fact and reality.

You argue for "fair conclusions" and a multiplicity of views, then condemn your own argument by dismissing climate change as "nonsense". And this without a shred of evidence, scientific or otherwise.

You then further weaken your argument by describing the expression of views other than your own as "shutting down debate".

I suggest, Yvonne, that you have not the slightest interest in anything resembling a reasoned debate. Any more than you have in matters of climate.

What, I think, actually bothers you is that we are are now living in a time of unprecedented change and you find that difficult to handle. Many others do as well.

A new century always imposes on humans a new world but if we prefer to respond to that by going about with a bucket over our heads, we deny ourselves great new opportunities in scientific, social and economic advancement. Along with condemning ourselves to suffering the horrific consequences of failing to confront the dangers a new century presents us with.

You see bogey men everywhere in "general media" but I suggest that what is really bothering you is having your beliefs confronted by fact, evidence and reason.

The rigorous and meticulous procedures of science present a challenge to our mindset. Especially since science has little respect for uninformed opinion but only for hard earned evidence. "Change or die" is nature's way, Yvonne. And how we deal with that rests in our own hands.

HAVE YOUR SAY: Do you have something to get off your chest? Simply click here to send a letter to the editor.