In the Yass Tribune (September 24) Brian Millett quotes the heartbreaking words of Angelique Flowers, a young woman who is terminally ill with Crohn’s disease and is enduring hopeless suffering.

“The law wouldn’t let a dog suffer the agony I am going through before inevitable death”, she says.

“All I want after sixteen years of Crohn’s disease and now cancer is to die a pain-free peaceful death”.

Why can’t she? What are the arguments used by those who rigidly oppose her wish? I don’t understand these people. Will they please enlighten me? I would like someone to help me to die quickly and peacefully if terminally ill, incapacitated and in agony. Do you think you wouldn’t want that for yourself? Is the fact that she may need help to die the problem? With proper and strict legal safeguards and supervision I can’t see a problem.

Another puzzle: those people who oppose voluntary euthanasia (I stress the word ‘voluntary’) do not seem to be total dedicated pacifists. Why not? How can anyone believe that killing innocent people in war can be justified, while helping to a peaceful death someone who is terminally ill and in agony cannot be justified? What is their response to this inconsistency? Have I missed some vital point? Please enlighten me.

Hilary Webster,

Lyneham, ACT

PS. I hear that Angelique Flowers has just died.