Yet we have wisely abolished the death penalty because as a community we believe in the inherent value of human life and that the state should not have the power or authority to dispense with the life of any of its citizenry. Once you give the state such power, where do you draw the line?

Coupled with this fundamental principle is the pragmatic real-life experience that even with the best justice system in the world (which we do enjoy in Australia) errors are nevertheless and regrettably made.

Doubts about the appropriateness of previous convictions continually arise.

It is all too late when the convicted person is no longer with us because of the death penalty. These same considerations of principle and pragmatism need to be embraced by our Tasmanian legislators as they consider the Bill before the Parliament which seeks to provide state sanction for suicide or more euphemistically described as "end-of-life choices".

It's human nature to want to be the master of your own destiny. As it is human nature to seek as pleasant a death as possible.

We all agree with that in principle.

We would be silly if we didn't.

Yet there are two fundamental key issues.

Can state-sanctioned suicide be safely legislated? And in any event, is it right and possible to so legislate?

The wise truism "the devil is in the detail" is sage counsel and exceptionally apt when considering whether the state ought to allow the taking of another human life.

Another maxim worthy of adoption is that "tough cases always make for bad law".

When a former distinguished Chief Justice of our Tasmanian Supreme Court, the Hon Bill Cox AC, persuasively exposes the dangers of this latest version of the proposal along with the Australian Medical Association, which notes the confusing nature and contradictory aspects of it, we can't glibly dismiss opposition to this Bill as some have sought to do to avoid discussing the details.

And without forming a judgement on the principles of the proposal, the state government has raised a litany of technical issues with the legislation.

Given the host of issues - technical, legal, medical, ethical - all in a community climate of ever-increasing elder abuse and suicide, we would be well served to have the proposal fully considered by a qualified panel to consider and proffer advice on the detail.

Having been so self-satisfied by his Bill, the mover told the community "there is nothing an inquiry could improve on...".

The mover is now in the unfortunate position of having to propose his own amendments to at least five separate clauses and inserting a new section dealing with "objectives and principles".

One may have thought that when dealing with life-and-death issues the matter of objectives and principles may have been a first-order issue and settled before drafting the Bill and not as an afterthought.

Yet that is what is happening.

Most of us won't go past the euphemistic title of the Bill "End-of-Life Choices".

No set of choices on offer by the way - just an earlier death. And it's not only for the terminally ill in the latter stages of their life, as most think because that is what we are continually being told. The detail tells a very different and chilling story.

Section 5(1) tells us the "relevant medical condition" means a disease, illness, injury or medical condition that is advanced, incurable and irreversible and is expected to cause the death of the person. Note the condition needs only to be "expected" to cause death.

We expect many things in life which ultimately don't happen. Further, despite having the best medical system in the world, incorrect diagnoses and treatments occur.

Section 5(2) tells us a condition is "incurable and irreversible" if there is no reasonable available treatment that is acceptable to the person and that can cure or reverse the condition. So, no objective assessment by a panel of qualified medical practitioners, just the patient's subjective assessment that the treatment is not acceptable.

There is many an incurable condition which may be expected to lead to death of which we can think, e.g. diabetes and heart disease. Section 6 refers to "intolerable" suffering, but Section 13 tells us this is to be determined not by medical experts but by the opinion of the person.

And the "intolerable" aspect of it can be simply the "anticipation of the suffering" as per Section 13(b)(ii). Thankfully there is a word limit imposed by the editor, but these few examples highlight how essential it is for this Bill to be fully and professionally examined. After all, life-and-death are serious topics - worthy of exceptionally careful scrutiny especially for parliamentarians seeking to legislate in this area.

Our cousins across the ditch (Tasman not the Bass Strait) are laying sole claim to the botanical name "Manuka" so that New Zealand can have the world rights to marketing.

They are doing so with a New Zealand government-backed fund. The main, if not only, reason anyone would want sole rights to a name is because of its marketing value. A casual glance at the supermarket shelf informs the buyer that Manuka honey carries with it a premium price compared to other honey - even our cherished leatherwood.

In its prime, its 1000-watt tungsten halogen lamp flashed twice every 15 seconds with an intensity of one million candelas sending out its beam some 26 nautical miles. Steeped in history, situated in sensational scenic surrounds and supported by an active group of local champions Eddystone Point has a lot of potential on offer. The potential is there ready and available. It only needs to be effectively harnessed.

The Break O'Day Council rightly describes the lighthouse as the "jewel in the crown" of the heritage listed structures in its municipal boundaries. Three of the staples that make Tasmanian tourism so unique are our people, our scenery and our heritage. Eddystone Point has all three in abundance.

Friends of Eddystone Light Inc. provide the people (including the last keepers, John and Christine Denmen), the enthusiasm and drive. Their passion is built on their knowledge and understanding of Eddystone's beauty, heritage and significance. The president, Lindsay Dawe, along with his committee is a treasure trove of history and vision.

Deemed a vital piece of infrastructure given the ever-growing number of shipwrecks occasioned by the hazardous coastline together with the ever-growing maritime trade, Eddystone first started operations on May 1, 1889.

But the history of getting there was not easy.

It was an inter-colonial board established to recommend lighthouse sitings which recommended its construction in 1856. Seventeen years later the Conference of Principal Officers of the Marine Department of the Australasian Colonies also recommended its construction. Despite the decision of the body, the name of which would've taken all day to say, building only commenced in 1887 - 31 years after the initial suggestion.

Researching the history is instructive - a couple of inquiries, 31-year delay while ships kept getting wrecked and no town planners, heritage officers or Greens to blame. And for those who may entertain thoughts about infrastructure and cost over runs - nothing was different then either. On an £18,000 project, there was an over run of £3900. The Lighthouse's construction so many years ago without today's mechanical support is a story in itself.

For that is what "voluntary assisted dying" or "euthanasia" stripped of its nice words actually is - state-sanctioned suicide.

There are no choices being offered.

First, some clarification.

• Refusing treatment has always been allowed and is not the same as deliberately killing someone. There are strong intuitive moral and clinical distinctions between stopping treatment and deliberately killing.
• Administering pain relief which may as a side effect hasten death is materially and morally different to administering a substance the only purpose of which is to kill. This has also always been allowed.
• Poor medical practice and poor palliative care should never be the reason for state-sanctioned suicide.

Heartrending stories of difficult deaths countered by heart-warming stories of last day/hour reconciliations and unanticipated recovery provide an emotional yet unhelpful element to the debate.

No question as serious as state-sanctioned suicide/killing should be settled on individual cases, nor emotive scenarios.

Ultimately, a general principle must be found which transcends particular cases.

As with capital punishment, one principle which could be universally applied is that human life should be valued to the extent which puts it beyond the state.

What value do we place on the life of our fellow citizens?

Once administered, state-sanctioned suicide remains permanent.

Death is irrevocable. Let's campaign for a right to live rather than a so-called "right to die" which will inevitably come to us all.

Opposition to state-sanctioned suicide is based on the premise that every life irrespective of its circumstances is worth living.

There is no such thing as an "undignified" human life. Sure, life can be tough, excruciatingly tough.

Human dignity is not dependent on an individual's utility to society or their health but their intrinsic humanity. Intentionally killing someone even if motivated by a sense of "compassion" is never dignified.

But even then, can there ever be sufficient safeguards to protect the vulnerable?

Inherent in the use of the word "dignity" in this context is the disturbing equating of "dignity" as being without disability.

The proposition that there is a loss of dignity if someone who was previously without disability takes on a disability only serves to devalue those who live in such circumstances.

As a society, we have a choice.

Provide the support, succour and solace to the afflicted, affirming their intrinsic value as a precious member of our community or agree with the ailing person that their life isn't worth living anymore.

A truly caring, compassionate community will not adopt the latter. Killing should never be seen as a solution to human suffering.

Let's be very clear, the proposed change in the law only changes the law for the person undertaking the killing.

The authorising of another person in taking life challenges to the very core our notions of civilisation.

As soon as such a concept takes hold within the psyche of our community, we will irreparably demean the value we place on human life.

In an era where elder abuse has become such a scourge that public service announcements are necessary to protect the elderly against financial, physical and emotional exploitation, it is unbelievable that state-sanctioned suicide might be considered let alone allowed.

A culture of disdain for the disabled and elderly persons awaits.

Another societal scourge is suicide, also necessitating compassionate community messaging offering support.

Yet there are some willing to send the message that suicide is okay if you believe your circumstances are too difficult.

What's more, we will authorise people to facilitate your death. This is mixed messaging madness.

How do you tell a troubled teen their pain and anguish is not as real as someone else's? It's impossible.

That's where integrity and consistency of message, especially to protect those with suicidal thoughts, is so important.

Having authored the Senate committee report into this vexed issue some years ago I was able to garner majority support from senators across the divides - Liberal, National, Labor, Australian Democrat and independent.

A common concern, even amongst those instinctively attracted to "choice", was that with the best will in the world you could never provide adequate safeguards against family manipulation, wrong diagnosis and a false sense of fear in the person that they would become a burden on others.

To deliberately assist in someone's killing is to deny our common humanity.

Surely our task as a humane, compassionate and caring society is to eliminate the pain, not the patient.