Some simply offer no clear guidance on their position on health matters, assisted dying and medical services at local hospitals.

As a medical practitioner it is disappointing that there has been little rigor in querying candidates about medical policy positions. These matters define how I plan to vote.

Only a few candidates agree that assisted dying legislation is progressed.

On a daily basis I have the honour to meet and treat patients with advanced malignancy. Some raise concerns about options in their choice of care at the terminal phase of their illness despite the generally excellent treatment responses we see in modern medicine.

Mrs Vivienne Gale has made a position clear on assisted dying and has been active in assisting current legislative councillors in defining and improving legislation being prepared for passage through the Tasmanian parliament.

I hope that Rosevears Legislative Council voters are reflecting on the medical and life choice engagement of Mrs Gale.

I have great trust in the community to base their vote for election of the Rosevears member on evidence and academic legal acumen.

Voters in the Rosevears electorate indeed have a right to know the specific views of their candidates in regard to voluntary assisted dying (The Examiner, June 22) This is an important issue which affects many people, yet remains unresolved.

Mike Gaffney, independent MLC, should be applauded for the thorough research he has completed while producing his bill. He has visited several countries to gauge the success of VAD, and has put considerable effort into ensuring that all safeguards are in place.

Furthermore, he has conducted 35 forums around Tasmania, presenting his bill in a positive and sensitive manner. He has no vested interest, just the desire for human beings to have the right to make the choice which they are currently denied.

Much like marriage equality, VAD will provide an option to those who long to go down that path; it won't make it obligatory.

Although a staunch Liberal supporter, you senator Eric Abetz have become my least favourite. You are spruiking absolute rubbish to the Australian Christian Lobby (The Examiner, June 28) about voluntary assisted dying.

Your rhetoric misses the point entirely, it is not specifically aimed at the disabled or elderly, it is to assist those who are terminally ill and in horrific pain. Your research on the subject is massively flawed.

Many people diagnosed terminally ill - if they can sleep - wake up every day to chronic pain, wishing they could die.

Christians have love and God in their hearts, but are not sadists, they only want to interpret God's wishes.

But surely when there is no hope and pain is extreme and unbearable he would show love and compassion and allow people the responsibility to make their own choice.

Anthony Haneveer's (The Examiner, June 27) heart may not bleed for the ABC but he is deliberately blind to the ideological significance of the attack. The ABC is part of a broader targeting of institutions like universities, and even the CSIRO, that the Morrison government finds awful.

The commercial media has been relentless in their attack on the ABC, peddling the line that that it "leans to the left". If anything this persistent attack has produced a timid ABC, not a Bolshevik uprising.

Mr Haneveer also fails to mention the government has just announced a report on the impact of "public broadcasters" on "commercial operators" which makes clear the agenda is to diminish competition in broadcasting and media. So from Mr Haneveer's group that admits by default it "leans to the right", and claims to be about free enterprise, the bleat is about commercial competition not jobs at the ABC.

I DO not understand why some of the residents around Westbury do not want the prison built in or around their town.

I can see mostly positive outcomes for the town with employment opportunities, supplying the prison with all the necessities not to mention the visitors spending money whilst travelling to and from plus rates for the local council.

NIMBY (not in my back yard) and the fact of the stigma of having the prison built in the area is probably the main reason for the opposition. I think a lot of councils in Tasmania would like it built in their area just for the amount of money it will bring into the district. No matter where they finally decide to build, you will get opposition because its a prison.

Can someone explain to me why and how the proposed northern prison has to be in the Meander Valley?

We've had the original 'Preferred Site', the 'Ashley Site' and the new 'Preferred Site' (and that one is so riven with issues that it will soon be another ex-preferred site).

What's the deal? Who made the deal? What are the terms of the deal? At no time has a properly researched, honestly appraised, well-consulted site been put forward.

So, truly, what's the deal?