The case for legalising physician-assisted death, under rigorously regulated circumstances for terminally ill people suffering intolerably, is overwhelming. Today's compelling and poignant article by Konrad Marshall about cancer patient Ray Godbold receiving Nembutal, a banned drug that can be used to peacefully end human life, from urological surgeon Dr Rodney Syme marks the continuation and indeed escalation of The Age's longstanding support for such legislation.

It is absurd and immoral that decent, compassionate medicos such as Dr Syme, a long-running campaigner for change who openly admits giving many terminally ill people the means and knowledge to end their lives, are technically criminals in our sophisticated democracy. Surveys have long demonstrated as many as four in five citizens support such a civilised change to physician-assisted death.

Dr Syme is, in effect, challenging the authorities to enforce a law he and we believe a jury of Australians would be loathe to apply. Far better for the federal Parliament to meticulously enact the right of terminally ill people with excruciating physical or emotional pain to choose the timing and manner of their death.

There is ample opportunity to mandate thus, and such laws exist elsewhere in the world. The draft legislation introduced last year by Greens senator Richard Di Natale, a medical doctor who last week became his party's leader, is a timely trigger for the change.

Senator Di Natale's bill was largely inspired by the plight of Melbourne man Peter Short, who died late last year from oesophageal cancer, an illness similar to that afflicting Mr Godbold. Like Mr Godbold, Mr Short was given, by Dr Syme, the means and knowledge to choose the timing of his death. In the end, he did not take that option. And herein lies perhaps the most powerful argument for medically assisted death – everyone who is given the choice is immediately and profoundly helped because it removes fear and anxiety. Only about 30 per cent opt to end their own lives.

After a long public campaign, Mr Short convinced Prime Minister Tony Abbott to telephone him. At the end of a lengthy conversation, Mr Abbott rightly promised Mr Short that Liberal Party federal parliamentarians would be given a free vote should Senator Di Natale's bill be introduced. About the same time, the cross-party Senate committee that held nationwide hearings on the proposed law declared that it, too, supported a free vote. Support is growing; only last week the Victorian government announced an inquiry into such change. The moment is propitious. Senator Di Natale's elevation to party leadership might be used to add impetus.

Another fundamental reason for the change is to prevent the undue provision of the medical means to end life to those who should, rather, receive help to recover. This newspaper strongly opposes the views of voluntary euthanasia advocate Dr Philip Nitschke, because his organisation, Exit International, helps people who are not terminally ill to die by suicide. It is in the public interest to pass legislation that permits doctors such as Dr Syme to offer relief to terminally ill patients, but prevents those like Dr Nitschke from facilitating the death of those who should receive treatment.

The Age holds that life is precious, and should be protected – but not at all costs. There are clearly cases when the right thing to do is to recognise the right of terminally ill people who are suffering dreadful physical, psychological and emotional torment to die peacefully at a time of their choosing. Our politicians have a duty to do this without further delay.