People who meet the criteria of VAD do not have the choice of living or dying - they are terminally ill people who have less than six or 12 months to live, or they have a neurodegenerative disease that is uncurable.

Their only choice is between a slow painful death, or a compassionate death at a time of their choosing without extended suffering.

The writer also claims that "adequate pain control can be administered". The tired old argument that palliative care is the answer to everything is no longer accepted by most people. This is not to belittle the role of palliative care - it is an important component of care for terminally ill patients, but it does not address all of the issues.

Palliative Care Australia has acknowledged that palliative care "cannot relieve all pain and suffering, even with optimal care".

The Victorian legislation has been in place for more than two years now and none of the "slippery slope" arguments have come to fruition. The Victorian experience has dispelled all of the wild hypotheticals dragged out by the desperate opponents of VAD.

The same writer, in a second letter, suggests that VAD took away the opportunity for family members to "restore relationships" when in fact the exact opposite is true. An important benefit for terminally ill people who choose the option of an assisted death is that they are able to plan time spent with their family members and friends.

The writer then drags out one of the tired old arguments, claiming that the system in Holland was abused. Not one example quoted, no details provided, just a wild accusation with no factual support.

The 85 per cent-plus of people who support the introduction of VAD in our state should not be denied. The parliament of NSW needs to reflect the will of the people.

READ MORE LETTERS:

I must take exception to the words of Minister Andrew Constance ("Cameras nab hundreds of city drivers", June 23).

The anonymous boffins in the Transport Department have fed him an oft quoted and misleading line that "Studies have shown that going just 5km/h over the speed limit doubles your risk of being involved in a crash where at least one person is killed or injured". The statement has a few holes in it. What it doesn't say, but incorrectly implies, is that the risk of a crash is doubled. It only means that if you hit something at 65 km/h rather than 60 km/h your small chance of some sort of injury is doubled.

"Going" at 65km/h doesn't do it, making a mistake and hitting something at this speed is what does it. Not so scary when the spin and suggestion is removed.

The statement implies that there is something magic about speed limits, when we all know that there is little science in their application. It's well known that they're chosen as much for convenience as anything else. For him to continue with a political outburst about "pandering to people speeding" is disgraceful. The government is struggling to justify this obvious cash grab, and failing. It seems that the multi-variable nature of road safety is too difficult for many to understand, including our minister.

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