Note for your diaries: Sunday June 5th, ” Mademoiselle and the Doctor” on ABC 10PM

The other night two friends took me on a “surprise” night out,  a restaurant, called “The Dark Side” in St Kilda Road.   One ordered the meal at the bar prior to entering the restaurant not knowing what was ahead.  You were asked to link hand on shoulder of the person in front and led by a waiter you entered the blackest environment possible where you sat and ate the meal previously ordered in ignorance, in total blackness.  Surreal!  I mean not a glimmer of light whatsoever.  The waiters, of course, had army night goggles.   We ate and drank in total darkness indicating how a blind person deals with it ongoing!.   My friends ordered steak, chicken and myself, savory pancake!  We coped!   By the way, the unseen food was delicious!, and you are recommended to wear the bib! Take a friend without telling them what they’re in for!  It is the experience that leaves the lasting impression!….Now I hear you ask,  what has this subject to do with choice and dignity in dying?   For me it was the wake up call to realize  why it is so very difficult for some to understand  we members of Voluntary Euthanasia and Exit  who ask for choice.   The “blackness” of the blind (eyes wide open, seeing nothing!) could be parallel to people who cannot see the argument in favor of choice.   With the best intention, the straining, the willing it, they just can’t see it. Only by touch, could one identify with the object.   Only when it happens to you personally, will it signify reality.   It is there, of course, Choice, (like the glass of wine on a fine stem!) but for some it is not an option, they can’t reach in the dark and try to locate the concept.  Some just don’t want to put themselves into that total blackness because it leaves you with having to face the reality of blindness (and for some I suppose, death!)  Two others I spoke of this experience said they wouldn’t have coped or enjoyed it, but of course, unknowingly we stepped into that void of blackness, so they would have gone forward,  as we did, tentatively.   I would like to think it made me more tolerant towards family and friends who do not share my passion for choice and dignity in dying.   If you just can’t see the point of “choice” then it is never going to happen, until it is yourself in the frame.   Then clarity will hit like a sledgehammer.  This is the reality of “blindness”, both physically and mentally!.

Modern society has done an excellent job at scaring people about the subject of death.  We need to be exposed to it more often as part of life itself.  We all live and we’ll all die.   Covering up suicide statistics in the media, does not mean it doesn’t happen!  I was amazed to listen to a person expressing relief at the success of hiding it away from the public’s attention.    It is like taxes, hidden,  but still there in among the clutter of living.   And it is mostly the elderly, 5 deaths to 1 other.   Please politicians, take that statistic on board when you consider the Bill.

It would explain why one young man of perhaps 30, clean shaven and well dressed, felt the need to say as he passed me “why don’t you just knock yourself off, you dirty piece of shit”.   Yet my reaction as a result of a lesson learnt from “The Dark Room” allowed me not to react in horror or anger.  A little sadness perhaps, but not the anger!   He waited for it, but it didn’t happen.   A fleeting thought made me wonder whether he was a “good christian” on Sundays.    Made up,  by the next happy cheerful young lady who was horrified at the Bill and had no idea of its existence.

Like an optometrist, we have to produce glasses that will enable those who have shades of grey available in their sighting (ability to consider options) and work towards an improvement of their lens (thoughts).   We as a group must find ways to create a common ground where differences (levels of light and shade, but at least some light) of opinion can be accommodated for all needs of people.   Imploding our views is useless, (talking to the converted!) we need explosions of publicity to the concept of dying with dignity.    Always with Choice, of course!.

I have been a “busy little vegemite”  this past week, with a quick decision to drive to Canberra and back, overnight. The reason being the Public Senate Hearing held on the 14th April.  Within two hours of the decision I was on the road, unprepared and focused only on finding Parliament House at the end of an almost non stop trip of 660 klm, leaving at midday (W) from Melbourne and Canberra (T).  Kept the fan on maximum cold,  both ways to keep me alert, and slept on the back seat of the car overnight,  under the gum trees.    Couldn’t find a place in the dark to stay that didn’t look like a five star government subsidized hotel, and running on empty helped my decision for compromise on comfort.  Petrol cost was $123 which beat a $280 plane fare one way, hands down, that is an early plane that would have got me into Canberra about 15 mins before the Hearing began.Most important piece of information I learnt on the day,  was that the rate of suicide is dropping.  Why then do we need this legislation in the first place?   Cracking a nut with a sledge hammer!

Attending the Senate Hearing, starting at 8.45 am till noon, was a good decision.  The process assured me that the Federal Senators are not rubber stamping the Criminal Code Amendment (Suicide Related Material Offences) Bill 2005.  I felt the questions they asked of the Witnesses and Mr. Gray, Acting Assistant Secretary sic Attorney General’s Department, were very insightful given the magnitude of the Bill, on the right for free speech.  Not just on a Web Page, but perhaps more importantly the telephone, emails, and conversation.   Two friends may not discuss suicide techniques for fear of prosecution, which means that being able to talk through an issue,  is illegal in itself.  Not the action of committing suicide,  but just the discussion of it!!!!.  What this probably means is that friends will not place loved ones at risk by talking about their intentions, and will go ahead on their own anyway.

 Mr. Gray in his wisdom believes, I feel,  that by stifling discussion on the subject of suicide, whether it be with a doctor, a professional counselor, a best friend, or a mate, just don’t talk about it,  and the issue that generated the discussion in the first place,  will go away.  This is precisely what I meant on the opening of my Web Site when I talk about “Aloneness”  even when surrounded by loving and caring people.   It is,  what is going on in your head as you cope with your mortality vulnerability, quite common after a particularly nasty diagnosis.  The possible leaving of loved ones needs time to digest.  All sorts of solutions come to mind but it is the support of conversation that can resolve the intense conflict of emotions.    No doubt many people would relate to that absolute sense of hopelessness that consume a person at a particular point in their life, health wise.  I need to reintegrate to religiously minded people,  that not all of us believe in a God, Heaven or Hell, therefore dying does not hold the same fears for us.   Rather, it is more about the people we’re leaving behind, rather than the wrath of God being faced.  Talking through the issues with another person dilutes the intensity of the mortality fear,  and perhaps the idea that suicide is the only solution.   Cutting off the conversation is to close off options for a healthy recovery, be it on the telephone, email, conversation, books and being able to attend workshops of like minded people.

In reading through the Proof Committee Hansard of that day and some of the 30 Submissions the thought that really struck home with me is the formality with,  with the subject of suicide is dealt with.  People are more than statistics, they are blood and bone entities with a mind capable of decision making throughout the whole of their lives (except the expected 52000 diagnosed with Alzheimer’s in 2005).  No one is holding a gun to our heads to make us commit suicide.  We have a choice, and how this choice is exercised should be discreetly and with due regard for those who find us after death.   Facilities to accommodate “Choice” should be our right as much as those who don’t want or need choice.    A soldier of 19 can kill a civilian in war, be sanctioned by the Government, yet a 70 year old person can be charged with a criminal offence for assisting a loved one to die a good death.   One kills out of trained skills by Government, the other fumbles with a pillow over the face!…. Who is the Criminal?

In spite of the wording I will never relate anyone talking about suicide as a criminal, never!.  I am not a gangster, white collar fraudster, tax avoider,  a child molester, nor a pedophile.  I find bringing about a peaceful death as a social issue, not a criminal act.  Law Reform is too slow and a political mine field.  Some of us, don’t have the time to wait for it!.     In the context that suicide will affect me and many like myself, I can’t help but wonder why my choice to die a hastened death should be any more wrong that a person who choose another path.   Why should a doctor, lawyer, or a politician tell me that my method is wrong because they can’t see themselves resorting to it sometime in the future.   I listened to Mr Gray’s tone of voice and it was quite clear that he has no understanding of how people could see dying preferable to living.  He is, of course healthy, but  many people who believe there is a place for suicide or a hastened death, are not healthy.  That is an important point,  that needs to be considered by the Senate when the wording of the Bill is debated.

 We need a balance in protecting the “vulnerable”.   We too, Mr Gray, are vulnerable.   Pain, distress, hopelessness for a future worth living, makes us “vulnerable”.   Law makers, such as the Officers developing this Bill, makes us vulnerable.  It means we take our lives sooner rather than later because we can’t leave it now until we’ve become incapacitated.  We’ve been denied that release valve of being able to discuss our fears, intentions, options, either with a friend or an unknown Counselor.

The Good Samaritans feel vulnerable with the wording.   The Bill may be meant to trap Exit and the VE societies, but anyone who has read the Bill will know that the net it catches up is almost endless,  for anyone working with serious health issues.   What a good way for a disgruntled person to “get even” with someone.  Say they’ve held a conversation and bingo, guilty of a $150000 or $500000 fine.  We will be innocent,  until proven guilty?.   Not some one as compassionate as Philip Nitschke.  He will always be the supreme target of proponents of the Bill.    Realise please,  this Bill is about conversation,  not action!!!!.  Just talking about the methods of suicide makes you guilty.  I’m not sure if coded language, hand signs, nods or shakes are covered by the Bill yet.   But, watch out for Books and Advertising (of a Meeting talking about suicide) catching up Organisations such as the Brotherhood of St Lawrence, Lifeline, and numerous other fields that seek to prevent suicide (of the young in particular).   Imagine the stuff ups that will occur as people experiment and fail to commit suicide the first time because there is no direction on how to do it effectively and discreetly under the care of a doctor.

Recently I explained to a confused observer that the reason some Catholics hate the thought of suicide or hastened death is that they are taught that their body is the host of Christ (as in communion) and therefore one must never damage it,  accordingly.   I was also told by a Catholic friend that she contacted the people claiming to represent her views, stating quite categorically that she did not share their Submission statement.   By virtue of the fact, we pay for membership of our Societies (Exit & VE) we know our views are genuinely representative of the Organization’s body.

And lastly, how come the bureaucrats have left the television out of the Bill’s wording?   What of scenes that graphically show suicide and murder, as part of the story plot.   Excessive violence and ugliness of “entertainment” such as Law and Order, Wire in the Blood and worst of all, I feel, CSI.   Why are these films being allow to continue with all their sensational graphic ability to try and outdo each other in their horror.   Yes, I watch them, because I always keep my eye on new possibilities, and wonder at the mind of the people who come up with the story lines.  Far more offensive than any loving act of one person assisting another to die a good death.   Of course, these programs also tell us what actions may fail when attempting suicide. eg a two story building is not high enough, a bridge without traffic underneath it is not going to kill you!.   Ah, but there is always a fast moving bus on the road, isn’t there?  Are they also going to be a target of Government legislation?  Should a bus driver swerve to avoid a collision so the person can be taken to a mental hospital and locked up for their own safety, because they’re obviously “depressed”.  Get Real!

Is not a TV channel “a carriage” of technology, and if not, why not?   Does that mean those of favor of suicide as a viable option to a peaceful death can transmit information through that option?

And again, what of films such as “The Sea Inside” the story of failed law reform in Spain,  resulting in death by suicide taking cyanide.   Will films such as this one be a target for censorship under the impending Bill?

In closing this item, on a humorous note , I perhaps need to explain to the ladies recording in the Hansard Gallery who may have been concerned about my squirming at one point, during in procedures.  I had animal life in my bra and have the fang marks on my breast to prove it.   Some one made the point that my hand diving under my clothes could be misinterpreted in these days of fear and terrorism.

The number of security guards in attendance, throughout Parliament House,  explains why there were no seats provided for people such as myself waiting for the main doors to be opened.   I sat on the concrete forecourt, with my back against the pillar,  unable to stand the half hour waiting for an escort to take me to the Hearing.

There was no money left!   That is after all, a very human touch thing to do, provide a seat!

Please Senators scrap the Bill.   It is not needed.  

I do feel a little mentally exhausted these last couple of days having spent a lot of time writing a very important letter to Senator Ellison (refer Letter to Politicians) regarding the Criminal Code Amendment  (Suicide Related Material Offence) Bill 2004 which will be debated in Federal Parliament May to July sometime.  Because I don’t know how the Senate actually does business, I have sent off a copy of my letter to each and every Senator, all 76 of them..   I tried to put a human face to the letter by telling them a little about myself.  I told each of them something different that explains why I felt so passionate about this issue, but mainly I asked that they gave very serious considerations to the Bill as it stands.  Of course, they will say “they always give serious consideration” to any Bill.  But this one is a little different.   It is infringing on our right for free speech, our personal telecommunications will be monitored and the penalties involved are savage.   Many high flying Corporate cheats and thieves will not have received the punishment threatened to Exit, the Voluntary Euthanasia Societies throughout Australia, and individuals such as myself.  When one considers the “Crime” to be assisting a person to a peaceful death, as distinct from a long tortured one, we have to ask what sort of mentality are we dealing with in a modern society when technology has surpassed itself in keeping people alive who should be dead.  By all means I agree that technology has its place in society and I am a perfect example of it, being in remission from ovarian cancer more than six years, but sometimes, we are not surviving, we are breathing examples of living pain, distress and just plain tired of living.   Most will not really understand my experiences and for that,  you are lucky.   For others, let society show compassion and leave those sites alone that can offer communication avenues, compassion and friendships to many with no outlet for their sadness and pain.  Many want the security of knowing they have the facilities that offer a good death.   The thought of dying is stressful enough believe me, but knowing that it can be quick and reasonably painless helps to soften the blow, so to speak.   This website is always about “Choice”.  For those who want Mother Nature alone to take her course, you’re welcome down that path.   But I, along with thousands of others, should we need it, would prefer an assisted death hopefully with legislation in place to support it.   Trust me when I say, desperate people will take desperate measures to achieve their goals.  Suicide can be achieved discreetly and with dignity or out there in people’s faces,  including those blinkered souls  who can’t handle the sight, or even the thought,  of a dead body.    

The dead don’t bite back, they have nothing more to lose, but the living do.  The knowledge that “this” could have been their fate eg recent media stories,  could have been about any one of us,  as the law stands now.   .  Please lobby both your Federal Senators and your State Politicians to have the laws changed to ensure legality of a death with dignity.   

Remember in many States a “Living Will” has no legal status and even then you must be nearing death for it to be accepted.   Many illnesses are not terminal, one could just wish, that they were.   Please remember,  the manner of our dying lives on,  in the memory of those we leave behind, long after we’ve gone.  Be kind to them,  if not to us.

I  recommend  the Penguin book just released in Melbourne, Killing Me Softly. $32.95  A book written by Dr Philip Nitschke and Dr Fiona Stewart, it tells the very human side of the good doctor,  undertaking a difficult role in our society.   It details his years of activism to bring about relief for others unable to help themselves, tired of the tardiness of legislative reform.   I was personally touched by the humility evident in Philip Nitschke who feels deeply,  the profound responsibility his role as a Doctor, places on him.   The tag of Dr Death does not sit well with him, I feel,  because it is compassion for the frail elderly,  that motivates him.   The name calling demeans his role as a genuinely caring doctor.  There are a few, of course, caring doctors!, the difference with Dr Nitschke is that he extends a practical solution over rocky terrain,  while others take the easy road of doing nothing!  It is so much easier to do nothing! (and safer in the end)  One can’t be blamed for anything by “doing nothing”.  Which role do you play, my reader?Legislative change is not going to happen soon.    A more contentious form of lobbying has to be undertaken if an aged and infirmed society is going to have a voice in choosing a more humane method of dying than is currently permitted under the law.   Please continue to lobby politicians, don’t be silent so no one hears you…Politicians are not mind readers.

I cannot emphasis too strongly that currently a “Living Will” or “Advanced Directive” has no legal status in Victoria under the current Laws.   This is what I have lobbied three years for.   To enable the law to be changed, to accept that people have the right to choice, in their manner of dying.   Please try and obtain an article written in the Australian Financial Review dated April 1, 2005 headed “Schiavo highlights living wills”  written by Lyndall Crisp.  It is a topical subject.  Dr Rodney Syme figures prominently in the article demonstrating that the Voluntary Euthanasia Society of Victoria has a voice.

Two other well written articles were in the Age dated 19th March Hard Pill to Swallow, an edited extract of the book “Killing Me Softly” (Insight Page 9),  and The Hardest Choice March 23, 2005, (Focus Page 13).

Those in the medical profession concern themselves that people may be “encouraged to die”, at the moment we are “encouraged to live”, regardless of our wishes.   To be given choices,  would solve to the solution for both parties.   I will ask the question then!   Is the glass half empty or half full? 

It is like being on “death row”, willing the sentence to be executed and be done with!.  Death is inevitable at the stage most people would be asking for relief,  through effective legislation.  Healthy people don’t want to die, but smart people acknowledge the timing of it.

I realise,  to wish for a hastened death,  is seen by some as irrational,  as I could be considered “insane” or “not right in the head”  for even suggesting such a thing.   But then I too have a problem understanding how anyone could consider watching a young man of 29 (Michael Spanbroek) W.A., weighing 30 kilos, being tube fed for five years, and not want to hasten his death and end the pain.   Those good “Christian” Parliamentary  souls who actually felt they were doing him a favor by maintaining life at any cost.   Who has the problem with sanity?, I think it is barbaric what is done in the name of “health care” for people such as Michael, and it is the inactivity of our law makers that allow it to happen this way.

 Ah, but then it was not their life, they were playing roulette with!, it’s Michael’s.   It is always easier, to be sanctimonious when it is some one else pain in living!  “Pain? you’re in pain! get over it!, I don’t feel anything….. I’ve got a point to make!  “Here let me adjust your tube for you, I’m showing I care!!!……. Rest in peace Michael and Terri.  

One last comment.  It is interesting to learn that Laura Bush and President Bush have signed Advanced Directives.   Both Australian Major Party Leaders do not support Voluntary Euthanasia.    I wonder if Mrs & Mr John Howard, P.M. and Mrs and Mr Kim Beazley Opposition Leader (?),  will write them also, thereby ensuring that the documentation has some statutory validation for Victorians.   I feel Mrs Howard in particular will have given this matter serious thought.

 Victorians wouldn’t want dignitaries from other States to be caught unaware and bound by our laws which have no legal protection from which ever medical attendant they may come across in their hour of need, who has a “social conscience” to preserve life at any cost.  We can’t get legality of Living Wills or Advanced Directives debated, forgetting about, Voluntary Euthanasia/Peaceful Death.   Head in the sand mentality will not make this issue go away!

 Come on, Mr Bracks, our Premier (Who Listens then Acts) please deliver on your promise.  Listen to the majority of your citizens. 70% of them.