There is no doubt that that this is a serious issue and people will have different views on the matter.  These views will be framed by religious beliefs, personal experience and philosophical positions and so it was appropriate that the Victorian parliamentarians be allowed a conscience vote on the matter. But could we not hope that their vote was in some way informed by the voices of their electors and after rigorous and deep thought about the matter?

I am afraid that the views reported in The Border Mail of October 19 gave me little comfort that Bill Tilley and Tim McCurdy had applied much intellectual rigour in reaching their stated positions.

Mr McCurdy agreed that a yes vote would help “a dying parent needing the pain to end, or a grandparent suffering a terminal illness.” He told us that “Life is still the most treasured gift we have.”  He worries about not knowing what drug will be administered. 

I can assure Mr McCurdy that it is not only dying parents who need the pain to end and not only grandparents who suffer terminal illnesses, and for many life ceases to become a treasured gift when they are racked with unceasing pain and the indignity that comes with many conditions. These people are helped by the wonderful palliative care workers but for many, there comes a time when they wish to say goodbye to  friends and family and leave this life with dignity.

Mr Tilley raised the issue of coercion and cited the case of Mathew Wales who killed his mother and step-father as a reason not to go down this path. The logical inconsistency here is obvious – Matthew Wales killed his parents while no assisted dying law was in force, so why is it a relevant factor in this debate?

We already have an option to refuse treatment and one could be coerced into this and there are no safeguards of the sort Premier Daniel Andrews proposed for the current legislation. It might also be noted that Matthew Wales was sentenced to 30 years in prison for the murders.

I accept that Mr Tilley has suffered trauma in dealing with death as a policeman but once again I think this is not relevant in the context of a person with a terminal illness asking that his or her suffering be stopped. The proposed legislation is the best in the world and there is no evidence from other countries that the legislation has been abused.

A Border Mail poll embedded in Bill Baxter’s letter (The Border Mail, October 14) suggests that most readers don’t think the Adani (Carmichael) mine should proceed.

I have my doubts about the veracity of the result, especially as a Morgan poll of “issues of concern” showed that climate change was mentioned by ­8 per cent of Australians, about the voting strength of the Greens. 

Why, when climate change is such a low priority, should Adani be such a target?

I agree with Mr Baxter the bad press about Adani derives from the misrepresentation of evidence by activists such as the recent protestors.

Greens leader Di Natale believes that “losing” the Great Barrier Reef would cost 70,000 jobs. How will the reef be lost?

Greens conflate an alleged threat to the reef with a broader climate threat. Coal has been hauled across the reef for generations without harm. There is no physical threat to the reef from shipping Adani coal across it.