The 'procrastination pertaining to euthanasia continue,' says a reader. Pictured is Margaret Page, a woman who could have benefited from a change in the law regarding euthanasia.
So the procrastination pertaining to euthanasia continues. I can understand withholding a Government directive on it.
Homosexuals can now marry and rear children because they vote (and votes count), thereby debasing marriage (has anybody thought to ask the child concerned if it wants to be reared by two mummies or
two daddies instead of a natural mother and father as nature intended?).
People who have been euthanised don't vote, so let's keep it on the back burner! I certainly believe one, whose quality of life has ceased, is in constant pain, and whose life has become intolerable, should be allowed to be terminated early.
Such civilised countries as Belgium, the Netherlands, Canada, and certain states in the United States now allow it, and it seems more will follow.
Here is my answer to our elected representatives in Parliament. Let us have a national referendum on it. But that would be democratic, wouldn't it? After all, we are possibly going to have two referendums on our flag, so let us have one on euthanasia at the same time as one on the flag.
