French authorities have ignored the UN Disability Committee and have euthanised a French man. Starting more than a week ago, and culminating on Wednesday with his death, doctors decided deliberately to kill Vincent Lambert.

Branka van der Linden writes on Victoria's dystopian assisted-suicide law. This article first appeared on the HOPE: No Euthanasia website and is reproduced here with permission. The architects of Victoria’s euthanasia and assisted suicide legislation have joined together to write a playbook for other states wanting to push through euthanasia and other “social change” laws. The seven “experts” appointed by the Victorian Health Minister to advise on the implementation of euthanasia and assisted suicide are now using that “expertise” to show others how to get public support for “changes to dominant policy and community practices.”

Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit. Rather, in humility value others above yourselves, not looking to your own interests but each of you to the interests of the others. (Philippians 2: 3-4)   How has our society arrived the point where wide-spread abortion is not only tolerated but promoted, and a beneficial view of euthanasia is endorsed in parliamentary bills? Why was a romantic view of same-sex marriage given media endorsement and such a prominent focus in the marriage plebiscite and in politics? Why is sexual experimentation promoted, often in the context of unwittingly promoting violence against women through the implicit endorsement of pornography?

According to the Sydney Morning Herald,  euthanasia advocate, Brian Owler thinks many of Australia's MPs are 'out of touch' with the desires of the public to be given access to assisted killing. However, pro-life senators tell us that the majority of submissions to a recent federal inquiry were advocating for life, rather than for euthanasia. Below are portions of the presentations given by three Australian senators who voted against the recent Leyonhjelm bill which would have allowed the territories to pass euthanasia legislation.

This is a paper I presented recently at an evening considering issues around euthanasia and assisted dying: Euthanasia Paper May 2018. It presents reasons why changing the law in these areas is not a good idea in the interests of society at large and the vulnerable sick and elderly in particular.

This testimony was written in 2015 by my friend Natalie, and describes her experience with terminal cancer. While so many these days are encouraged to end their lives for the flimsiest of reasons, Natalie’s story shows that life can always be meaningful, even when there is suffering involved. This weekend marks an important anniversary for me. It is the ninth anniversary of my diagnosis of terminal lung cancer. I had been sick for several months, with severe back pain and a bad dry cough and vomiting, but many trips to the doctor had failed to provide an explanation. Finally it got to the point where I could barely walk from my pharmacy to the car park.

I recently attended a colloquium run by the Presbyterian Church, Religion in the Public Square. Speakers included the illustrious Augusto Zimmerman, journalist Angela Shanahan, and other cultural commentators. The talks covered the current litany of restrictions being placed on Christians in the public arena. It was sobering to hear spectrum of persecutions being waged against us both in Australia and overseas - remember this was before the results of the postal vote on marriage were known. If it was bad before, then it prosises to be much worse from now on.

At the completion of the Rio Paralympics in 2016, Marieke Vervoort, a Belgian silver medallist in the 400 metres, and a winner of silver and gold medals at the London Olympics announced to a BBC interviewer that she had completed the requirements to receive medical assistance to commit suicide at a future time of her choosing.

Marieke explained that, notwithstanding her satisfaction at winning the medal:  there is also another side to the medal, the side of suffering and of saying goodbye to the sport. Because I love the sport, sport is my life.  Referring to her future plans, she confided: I know when it's enough for me, I have those papers.

We think that this model, which we acknowledge is the most conservative model for assisted dying in the world, is the right model for Victoria (Professor Brian Owler)

Claiming a world’s best regulatory document inevitably recalls Bob Carr’s comment in the course of the debate on an Australian bill of rights.  Carr commented that, on reading, the world’s most impressive charter of rights came from the USSR in the mid 1930s.  Recently, the difference between regulation and practice in banking and irrigation has made news.  It’s all about compliance.  How well will the 66 recommendations in the world’s most conservative model for assisted suicide accomplish compliance?  This paper will briefly consider some of the recommendations, especially in the context of other regulatory systems.

[This is the second article on assisted suicide in the series by Peter McCullagh. Click here to read the previous article, Good Suicide Vs Bad Suicide:]

Q.  What do the terms ‘climate change’ and ‘slippery slope’ (in relation to assisted suicide) have in common?

Α.  Both are regularly dismissed as fictitious in ‘one liners’.  In both instances, the terms predict adverse consequences.  In both instances, those predictions are based on preceding events, and their value will be dependent on the accuracy of description and analysis of those events.  Should the evidentiary value of relevant preceding event be poor, then the credibility of the predictions, be they concerned with climate or assisted suicide will be proportionally diminished.  ‘One line’ dismissals, particularly in relation to assisted suicide, have invariably denied the existence of the preceding events on which predictions of a ‘slippery slope’ are based.  Nevertheless, detailed examination of those events has invariably been absent.