In the sunroom of his Darwin home, Bob Dent, 66, finished his lunch and a glass of beer and lay down on the couch. On the floor, out of his sight but attached to him by intravenous drip, lay a syringe driver containing a lethal dose of three drugs: thiopentone, pentobarbitone and pancuronium. Nearby, his wife Judy waited with his doctor. The phone was disconnected, and in the silence of a warm Sunday afternoon, the only noise was the sound of a pump starting. In sequence, as planned, the drugs emptied into Dent's cancer-ridden body. Within seconds he was asleep; a few minutes later he was dead.

It has been 16 months since Australia's Northern Territory became the first place in the world to legalize voluntary euthanasia. Other jurisdictions have considered the procedure--in the Netherlands it is tolerated but not legal--but none have taken the same path. Last week came the second milestone: public confirmation of the first death under the Rights of the Terminally Ill Act. Says Denis Burke, the territory's attorney-general and health minister: "Our act is in place and it's operable." A High Court challenge to the legislation and a federal attempt to quash it on constitutional grounds may have overshadowed its July 1 introduction, but neither deterred Dent. While his death was peaceful--"He saw this as an end to suffering," says his doctor, euthanasia campaigner Philip Nitschke--the reaction it provoked was less so. It was a reminder that the extremes of the debate remain as starkly opposed as life and death.

The Rights of the Terminally Ill Act had an uneasy birth. Passed by the Territory's Legislative Assembly in May last year, the act has so far survived a repeal bill in August and a Supreme Court challenge in July. The act's greatest threat yet may come from outside the territory's borders: a bill that seeks to overturn the law will be debated in federal parliament next month with the support of both Prime Minister John Howard and opposition leader Kim Beazley. Says the federal legislation's sponsor, Victorian M.P. Kevin Andrews, of Dent's death: "What it has done is made the issue real: it's no longer a hypothetical one."

Public polls record strong support for voluntary euthanasia--a recent Morgan poll found that 70% of Australians were in favor--but Dent's death also evoked sorrow and anger. Says Cardinal Edward Clancy, head of the Roman Catholic Church in Australia: "With the introduction of the principle inherent in euthanasia, our society as we know it begins immediately to unravel." Doctors and other health professionals--concerned that palliative-care options were being ignored--were among those troubled. Says Dr. Keith Woollard, president of the Australian Medical Association: "Our view remains that we should be advising society that it is simply not safe to have in place legislation which authorizes doctors to kill people."

Diagnosed with prostate cancer in 1991, Dent began his journey to death several weeks ago. After obtaining the three signatures required--from his own doctor, a cancer specialist and a psychiatrist--and observing the nine-day cooling-off period, Dent was free to choose the time of his own passing. Says Nitschke: "He knew then that he could pick up the phone at any time and end it." It was about 9a.m. on Sept. 22 that Dent finally made that call. Nitschke drove the 20 km to Dent's home. "He could see how anxious I was and he spent some of his last hour or two reassuring me, reminding me that this was an act of love and that I should see it as such."

In a letter released after his death, Dent appealed to those who attacked his decision: "If you disagree with voluntary euthanasia, then don't use it, but don't deny me the right to use it if and when I want to." Archbishop Keith Rayner, head of the Anglican Church in Australia, rejects that logic: "What he said rests on the assumption that my death is significant only for me. That is not the case." Says Dr. Michael Smith, president of the Australian Association for Hospice and Palliative Care: "There's not an example yet where an ethical situation has been successfully resolved by a legislative response."

Whether the Rights of the Terminally Ill Act achieves that resolution, and how Australia responds to future deaths under the act, remain to be seen. Says Marshall Perron, who as N.T. chief minister proposed the law: "Eventually this sort of procedure will settle down to be no more extraordinary than abortion." Nitschke has five other patients waiting to die. Unless they opt to make it public, the only record of their deaths will be as numbers in the N.T. coroner's annual report.