A spade is a spade: why correct language is so important

And while the silence may be deafening on that front, the use of euphemisms in the euthanasia and assisted suicide debate is far more subversive and the insistance that the media use these alternate phrases, downright sneaky and ultimately dangerous.

Perhaps the ultimate example was on display on the ABC TV program Lateline recently in an interview with Mr Denton conducted by Emma Alberici. Denton is the most recent celebrity to adopt the euthanasia and assisted suicide cause in Australia.

Alberici: "Once a law says that it's okay to kill someone, can the terms, conditions and safeguards around that ever entirely protect the vulnerable and entirely eradicate the possibility for abuse?"

Denton: "First of all, have you ever heard of a perfect law being written anywhere?"

Alberici: "But they're not all a matter of life and death."

Denton: "Okay. Secondly, let me talk about the use of the word kill: the vast majority of the people these laws apply to are already dying. That's what it's about. The overwhelming majority of people who these laws have applied to overseas are dying and have died of cancer. It is their disease that's killing them. What this law is for - a very strictly written law, following very clear criteria to protect doctors from prosecution should they follow the criteria - what this law is for is to assist them to die in a merciful way. Not to kill them; they are going to die anyway."

"But we're all going to die, Your Honour!" said no accused from the dock.

Alberici's question was about euthanasia. The Oxford dictionary defines it as: "The painless killing of a patient suffering from an incurable and painful disease or in an irreversible coma." Get that: killing.

Denton's is an Orwellian, 'defence of the indefensible'.

You can call it anything you like but it is inescapably, killing.

If you need help or if this subject matter disturbs you in any way, call LifeLine on 13 11 14.