The way we die is just as important as how we live: iLIVE
I support Professor Sean Davison's efforts to change the law for the terminally ill .
He will face severe opposition, mainly from people with strong religious beliefs.
Their main argument will be that humans have no right to end their own lives.
What proponents of this argument fail to realise is that how we die is as important as how we live.
Unfortunately, modern medicine has all the capabilities of prolonging life without making a difference to the quality of life. Many private medical institutions make oodles of money keeping terminally ill people alive until patients' savings havedried up.
Where is the justice if people are left to die in indignity because they've run out of funds?
It is cruel to let terminally ill patients suffer before they die. Where is our compassion if we allow this to happen?
As a democracy we must bear in mind that not everyone adheres to the same religious beliefs, so a substantial number of people do not subscribe to the view that ending one's life to stop suffering is playing God.
One's home would be the ideal place to die, in the company of close family.
This is only a dream for many South Africans whose children leave home for greener pastures. Elderly parents are left to fend for themselves.
Frail care centres are way beyond the reach of most South Africans so the majority are left to die with indignity in homes for the elderly - that is, if they can get into one.
The care of the elderly and terminally ill, in many of these homes, leaves a lot to be desired.
Ending one's life when one has lost all physical and mental faculties or is terminally ill should not be equated with suicide.
People who have strong religious convictions must learn to accept the views of others.