Letters to the Editor, The Courier-Mail, Monday, March 11, 2019

Today readers have their say on euthanasia and the Morrison Government’s overturning of the decision to bar Milo Yiannopoulos from entering Australia.

NEWS that former premier Campbell Newman regretted that he didn’t push harder for his government to change the law to allow terminally ill patients to die with dignity will have the sympathy of most Queenslanders (C-M, Mar 9).

Newman’s mother Jocelyn (pictured with her son) was a minister in the Howard government, battled Alzheimer’s and finally succumbed to the disease.

For five years Campbell Newman watched the once proud Tasmanian senator wasting away before his eyes, something no son should have to endure.

Submissions for voluntary assisted dying close on April 15 and the parliamentary committee will begin its deliberations to decide upon a recommendation to the Queensland Parliament.

Paramount must be a recommendation of a conscience vote when the Bill is tabled. And like the abortion and same-sex marriage debates, party politics and religious objection should not be allowed to hijack the debate.

It is not about forcing Queenslanders into forced euthanasia, it’s about giving Queenslanders the right to choose to die with dignity.

Peter Pak, Rochedale South

STRANGE state we live in – members of our Government clapped and hugged one another when the latest abortion laws were passed, but those who have lived a full life and are in great pain must wait and die that way. I think they have it the wrong way around.

Rod Watson, Surfers Paradise

SO CAMPBELL Newman’s greatest regret is not having laws to ensure his mother was killed at a time and a place of her choosing? Are we going to see a celebrity featured who supports upholding our laws against killing the dying, the disabled, the demented or other people taking up time and space in our hospitals?

The ink was barely dry on the legislation, to come into effect in Victoria in June, before Troy Thornton declared he couldn’t wait for the legislation to cover his illness as he was unlikely to die within 12 months, so he went to a Swiss euthanasia clinic.

This pressure from celebrities is used to accelerate any euthanasia legislation.

It is incorrect to say that the Government must act on any recommendations, as we all know that many committees’ recommendations are never acted upon.

One previous celebrity who has spoken is ex-prime minister Paul Keating.

Speaking at the time of the debate in Victoria, he said: “It is a mistake for legislators to act on deeply held emotional concerns of many when that involves crossing a threshold that will affect the entire society in perpetuity.”

Dr D. Purcell, Toowoomba

THERE is nothing more dignified than one human caring for another. People who realise that they are going to need such care must take comfort from this knowledge.

There is a certain scaremongering element in the calls for euthanasia, which is the direct killing of another human, in the lurid descriptions of aged-care minutiae and hygiene.

But what does it say about a society that kills its elderly and disabled? There is a need for strong leadership, definitely not for alleged progressives who will take us back to the dark ages with undignified geriatricide and infanticide.

Timothy Coyle, Cairns

AN EARLY prediction on the impending euthanasia debate: One side will be fervent about the outcome but will respect the right of others to make their own choice. The other side will be fervent about the outcome and insist it is their right to prevent others from exercising their own choice.

We will also hear any number of lies from this latter group, about the end of society as we know it – just as we heard with the marriage equality debate.

In the end, the question is simple – with suitable protections in place regarding exploitation, and with appropriate medical parameters, do we each have the right to choose the time and manner of our passing?

Nothing more, nothing less, no dreadful subtext trying to undermine our respect for life. Just a simple matter of personal choice, and respecting each individual’s right to make it.

Stephen Morgan, Carina Heights

HAVING been an aged-care nurse for over 40 years, I feel for Campbell Newman’s loss of his mum. Alzheimer’s does rob people of their present and they are locked in yesteryear.

Newman has revealed his deep regret about not acting to legalise voluntary euthanasia. Perhaps he could focus on their wonderful relationship and their many memorable moments together, rather than dwell on his mum’s demise.

Helen Holdey, Brighton

I AM an octogenarian about the same age as Campbell Newman’s mother when she died. I commiserate with him on his loss.

I do think that this euthanasia debate should be spelled out much more clearly to all those highly emotive souls who currently draw breath – and especially to those who think that they have some sort of right over the life of a sick aged (or young) relative.

The only human being who has some sort of right over his/her life and the extent of it is that person alone – and in keeping with that sentiment most laws across the globe make that point very clear: the person who thinks he/she wants to die is the person who must, clearly and without equivocation, make that choice, preferably in writing and witnessed by a competent person who is not a close relative – especially not a person who will gain or profit by that individual’s demise.

I have absolutely no interest in any faith whatsoever – the sole reason for me giving my opinion is because I love life but I sadly believe it will very likely come to pass that, irrevocably, such a law about precious human life will be passed.

With its enacting, lurking out of the long grass will come a relative or a “friend” who – with all the best intentions in the world – will legally authorise and put in train the death of a man or woman whose heart is still beating and whose brain, although sometimes out of whack, is still functional.

Such opportunism only has to happen once to negate all such “killing” laws but then it’ll be much too late to change the pace of public opinion.

Merv C. Bartlett, Pallara

Backflip allowing entry to ultra-right invites trouble

Controversial far right speaker Milo Yiannopoulos. Picture: Richard Gosling

WHATEVER possessed the Federal Government to reverse its decision on renowned troublemaker Milo Yiannopoulos (pictured) entering Australia?

Was it because of pressure from outspoken media persons? It surely wasn’t from the general public.

Who will accept responsibility when the inevitable demonstrations turn violent and injuries are the result?

Why not invite other far-right international rabble to come and stir the pot? Why not the Ku Klux Klan?

Surely they have the same right to espouse their views?

When are we going to get a government that makes firm decisions and upholds them?

Peter Corran, Wakerley

BY OVERTURNING the advice of the Department of Home Affairs that right-wing commentator Milo Yiannopoulos be banned from entering Australia for a speaking tour, Immigration Minister David Coleman has given the impression that he has responded to pressure by conservative MPs, including One Nation Party leader Pauline Hanson, who have argued that the ban would be a blow to freedom of speech.

Such is their sucking up to the ultra-right that the Morrison Government is now willing to ignore the fact that when Yiannopoulos toured here in 2017, nasty riots took place in which several police officers were injured.

Eric Palm, Gympie

I SEE Prime Minister Scott Morrison has lifted the free speech ban on Milo Yiannopoulos.

He will be allowed to espouse his opinions as long as he respects the now inalienable right of those who disagree with him to assault him or any person who attends his meetings, as what he is saying is now so obviously un-Australian that there is no alternative to shut him down, especially if the Government won’t.

Roger O'Dwyer, Yarrabilba

Join the conversation. Send your letters to couriermail.com.au/letters or email to [e-mail]