This time last week I was full of confidence (well almost!) that at last the Victorian Government was going to listen to the people, that is the majority of 70% that said they favored Euthanasia (withdrawing treatment from comatose patients) opportunities with strict guidelines in place. The Venue was the annual Autumn Conference of the ALP where Delegates and Ordinary Members from throughout the State of Victoria meet in an exchange of views, and to present various policy recommendations , from 14 Policy Committees, for consideration to Parliament. Sounds like democracy at work? The people who work tirelessly get a chance to see the machine of Government in Action? Wonderful stuff on paper!. Anyone that watched the Saturday night News will know that in reality it was an opportunity for opposing factions to vent their spleen at each other. And well orchestrated, when opposing sides weren’t getting the response they wanted to hear!. (A man sitting two seats from me, was screaming across the very large Centre “you’re nothing but a cockroach”) And, of course, the Media loved it!. Policy presentations were timetabled to begin at 11 am but in reality commenced at about 3 pm, the day starting about 9 am. Hours were spent debating the virtues of whether one or two days should have been allowed “but we had the Hall up to 12 pm” and then, of course there was the “Branch Stacking” issues which really brought out the best in people! I was ashamed. But I sat through the hours and waited patiently for the Health, Community Services & Senior Victorians Policy Committee recommendations to be presented, and just about 4.30 pm it happened..

Included in their Recommendations, had been the Motion regarding Advanced Directives, that they be given Statutory Recognition, that it applied to any condition which may have rendered the patient incompetent, (not just the current condition at the time of writing the AD), and that a Register be maintained in all hospital/health care facilities detailing their medical power of attorney. AD, (Living Will) etc. And that the Government embark on an awareness program that such a change had been implemented. eg Maria Korp is in a permanent vegetative state and had she had an AD, this would have ensured her release from “life” support. Currently it is at the discretion of the attending physician, sometimes a very nervous physician worried about legal ramifications, not the patient’s expressed wish. An AD is “taken into consideration” but has no legal status under the existing unchanged Medical Treatment Act 1988.

Not difficult for anyone to accept, you’d think?. If one doesn’t want their treatment stopped under any circumstances, just don’t complete the Advance Directive. Do nothing and nothing will happen! So simple? No, somewhere between it leaving the HCSSV Policy Committee (unanimously adopted) that particular section dealing with Advance Directives (No 58 from memory) was pulled from the documents that were presented to the Conference. (the wording may have been in the delegate’s packs but they were just words to be tossed away) A Motion that had been endorsed unanimously by the members of the policy committee suddenly disappeared from the public arena. Why, Who By and on Whose Authority????? Democracy at Work? Sorry, but I want answers. Unofficially I have been told that the conservatives “were nervous”. What Of? I want to know! Sorry the “slippery slope theory” is getting boring to say the least. Who or What ensured it never stood a chance of being heard and considered. Other Motions were amended and adopted on the day. Conscience of the individual parliamentarian an issue? Sorry not buying that one either! A Delegate did ask the Conference not to let the “motion get forgotten” (or words to that effect), but by then I was leaving the Hall in tears of sadness, anger, frustration, feeling the ALP was not true to its Charter, feeling discriminated against because my needs were not being included, along with those powerful factions that are gripping both sides of conservative Government. Previously I had been ashamed of the anger demonstrated against members of the same party, now I was ashamed just to be a member of that Party. A Party who demonstrates such contempt for so many ordinary citizens, of which 30% have no religious belief whatsoever to deter them from making a choice to die with dignity. The ALP, which I have supported without a doubt, since Nov. 11, 1975, when previously I had voted for the Liberal Party. I understand the “politics” of running an Organisation, but just sometimes the little person needs a voice.

Given the current run of favoritism of Governments leaning towards appeasing people purporting to represent the Religious point of view, I personally feel discriminated against, because I do not belong to a Religious Group. Who or what division, was so “powerful” that a Motion that I initiated (with alternative wording) through my local branch (over three meetings), through the Policy Committee, took to three Conferences, only to have it turned away yet again, from the public debate at the most recent Conference.

I am one “pissed off” ALP Member.

I wrote my first letter to all Victorian State Politicians, both Houses, on November 10, 2003, I did a follow up letter in August 2004, printing, postage and envelopes paid by myself. I am an ordinary individual with a passionate belief in Choice in Dying. Also, I wrote specifically to the Shadow Minister for Health, Mr David Davis because he’d taken the time to answer both letters but when I took him up on his offer of “contacting his office if I needed any further assistance” absolutely dead silence was the response. I’ve learnt to understand “political speak”, where really, if one has a serious issue to confront them with, they suddenly have much more important things to do!.

I have become very cynical and untrusting, given 18 months of believing “We Listen, We Act”. “I’m Labor. Count me in.” is the current slogan, but what do we get counted in” for. What is the benefit of being counted in? if, “being counted in” is just a bum on the seat without any rights to be heard. Through my tears, I ensured my folder was turned inwards on the way home, inviting no one to see my slogan proudly displayed on my folder, and my ALP T-Shirt was well covered up!

I want to be heard, listened to, treated as an individual with personal needs that do not impose themselves on anyone else. I want legal status for my wishes for choice and dignity in dying! I am talking about my right for choice, for me, just me! I don’t want to make a decision for anyone else, just myself!

My question to Premier Bracks is, To Who do “we” Listen and for Who do “we” Act?

I present this Editorial Opinion, taken from the Age dated 10 years ago, different Government, same philosophy, asking the reader, does it really matter who is in Government to achieve Choice and Dignity in Dying????

THE AGE
EDITORIAL OPINION

Should Euthanasia be legalised?

Saturday 25 March 1995
A time to die
THE SEVEN Melbourne doctors who have written to the Premier, Mr Kennett, declaring they have broken the criminal law by helping terminally ill patients to die have presented the Government with a challenge: either enforce the law as it stands or change it. There are many people, some doctors included, who will say it is unwise to force the issue. Why not retain what the doctors describe as the existing “uneasy hypocrisy** under which some doctors do help suffering patients to die but are seldom if ever prosecuted? For two reasons at least: first because it is grossly unfair to expect doctors to commit a criminal offence to provide what they believe is the most compassionate medical care; secondly, because grave decisions such as when it is permissible to end a human life should be firmly set out in law.
What the Victorian Government will be tempted to do is what governments here and elsewhere have done in the past: ignore the issue. There are few political gains for them in amending the law, and if they try they can expect a fight from vocal members of conservative religious groups. These are people who sincerely believe that only God has the right to end life. Their views should be respected. However, we are a pluralistic and largely secular society and most people do not hold this belief. According to opinion polls, three out of four Australians believe a competent, terminally ill person has the right to decide when his or her life should be ended,
One argument against any relaxation of the law is that it will put society on a slippery slope towards an eventual devaluation of human life. There is no reason why this should be so. Human societies are constantly being required to draw lines on complex moral issues. Another objection is that the only reason lives become unbearable is that proper palliative care has not been given. But the evidence of doctors and patients must be accepted when they say some patients’ pain cannot be stopped by anything medical science can provide. In any case, physical pain may not be the only criterion. Weakness, nausea, loss of control over bodily functions, loss of any quality of life, combined with the knowledge that it is never going to get better would be reason enough for many of us to want to die.
The instincts of the medical profession, and indeed of society in general, are towards saving lives, not ending them. We would rush to prevent a young man jumping from a building because we realise he is probably suffering from some temporary, curable depression. Would we so readily try to stop an elderly, terminally ill person who we knew was suffering terribly from swallowing a fistful of sleeping pills? We would be far more likely in this case to respect a wish to die.
In having rendered suicide no longer is a criminal offence, the law in Victoria is halfway to recognising that people do have a right to end their own lives. What the law does not allow is for anyone, including a doctor, to help another person end his or her life. But compassion and human dignity demand that this should be lawful in some circumstances. Any amendments to existing laws should be undertaken with the utmost caution and provide for the most stringent safeguards. The request must come from a competent, terminally ill patient, and must be judged by a panel of doctors (which should include a psychologist to make sure the request has not been prompted by family or societal pressure). What is needed now is an intelligent, reasoned community debate that is listened to and acted upon. The last thing the Government should do is ignore it.

End of Editorial.

ALP looks at power on life support
By Farrah Tomazin and Carol Nader
May 19, 2005
A plan to be considered by Labor would allow patients to decide in advance if they want to live or die if comatose.
Victorians could decide in advance whether they want to be kept alive on life support if seriously injured, under a contentious proposal made to the State Government by ALP members.
Labor’s health policy committee will use this weekend’s state conference to push for laws allowing people to make an “advance health-care directive”, creating the right to refuse medical treatment years in advance.
At present, Victorians can refuse treatment for a medical condition only when they can think for themselves.
A senior policy committee source said the proposed changes to the Medical Treatment Act would mean that “people would have the ability to clearly articulate how they want to be treated when they are no longer able to articulate it for themselves”.
Victoria and NSW are the only states that do not allow people to issue an advance health-care directive.
The idea was welcomed by voluntary-euthanasia advocates, but was met cautiously by the Government and Opposition.
A spokesman for Health Minister Bronwyn Pike said: “The proposal raises a whole range of very complex ethical issues that should be met with extremely serious caution. We’re not going to pre-empt the debate, but we’ll wait with interest to hear what is said.”
Opposition health spokesman David Davis said the idea warranted debate.
Voluntary Euthanasia Society president Rodney Syme said Victorians had limited capacity to refuse medical treatment. “But putting it into statute law gives it a much sounder basis, defines the criteria and makes it ever so much better for everybody concerned,” Dr Syme said.
The Australian Nursing Federation has written to unions attending the conference asking them to back the amendment. State secretary Lisa Fitzpatrick said many people would welcome the opportunity to have control over how they are treated.
“This is for the future,” she said. “This is for people who end up being in a comatose state as a result of a car accident. You might not have a cognitive ability to make a decision and because there’s no directive, nothing can be done for you.”
Health Services Union state secretary Jeff Jackson will vote for the amendment. “It not only ensures that people have the right to dignity with regards to their . . . health care, it’s a commonsense policy that’s good for patients, (and) families and people who care for them in our hospitals.”
Medical ethicist Leslie Cannold said it would increase people’s ability to exercise autonomy. But she said people would need to update their directives as their views might change.
Australian Medical Association Victoria president Mark Yates said such a move could jeopardise care by limiting flexibility between doctors and patients. “A decision made 30 years in advance of an event shouldn’t be written down and enforceable in law,” he said.

Footnote: I will attend the ALP State Conference being held Saturday May 21st. As I have said in my letter to the Editor, Age Mr Yates, must be aware that the elderly, frail and infirmed will be the major users of this option and regardless, it is about the choice to access the option of implementing an Advance Directive .

“Flexibility” by the Medical Profession does not necessarily translate into what the patient actually wants and needs.

Ms Bronwyn Pike, the Minister for Health talks of “extremely serious caution” I believe 30 years is sufficiently “extremely serious caution”. If she needs “more time” to consider perhaps someone else needs to take a hand and help her out. She is not being “fair dinkum” when she belongs to a Party which uses a Election Platform, “We Listen, We Act” yet fails to hear the grass roots of the ALP Policy Committee which unanimously voted to table the Motion at the State Conference. I think 30 years of deliberations is long enough and it is now time to move forward and prevent Maria Korp becoming another Terri Schiavo.

Thank the Unions for their commonsense approach acting on our behalf. A bouquet of flowers to you who support our needs. For those who don’t, there is always the choice to enable a change of mind later. Currently there is a significant number of people who are conforming to someone else’s point of view when, in fact, they too have a different POV….which should be honoured in a democracy.

Fiona Stewart’s Age Article reproduced in the Menu,  Additional – Related Readings, under the banner, Curtailing Our Right to know about the Right to Die with Dignity

I have sighted a copy of the Senate Report which is 61 pages long (331 KB) (on computer reading) and too much for me to transfer into my web site.  It will give none of us hoping for choice,  any joy whatsoever and will compound further the stresses,  that terminally ill and others face.   Senator Greig is a dissenting voice but Senator Harradine who was too ill to answer my email has suddenly recovered sufficiently to tell us that Suicide is Violence, does anyone think he would understand when I say to him, that sometimes Living is Violence!!!

Continuing on with Seven Dying Australians I can only recommend that you endeavor to find a copy of the book, printed 2003.      ISBN 0 9580188 0 4.  Marion Miller, 87 learning to live in a nursing home, wishing she’d made other arrangements sooner.   Marion didn’t win $1,000, 000 that would have allowed her to go to Amsterdam and pay for euthanasia.   The minutes of the Chattery meeting, held in the Nursing Home,  in which she spoke of this longing, recorded only that “she’d take a trip to Holland”.    This reminder reinforcing our inability as a society,  to accept that death is inevitable for us all!.

Another reflection of impending death is given by Dr Iain Ross Gardner.   At the age of 41, the world was his oyster.   I quote him      ” Being Dr Gardner, being highly respected, educated, tall, good looking, gym built body, you know, being attractive” “My Versace suit and my well built chest,  just a couple of weeks ago”   Iain also had a brain tumor.   My mind flashed back, to last week outside Parliament House,  to the beautifully cut suits their weave so fine they shone in the sun light,  as the public servants and Politicians walked head held high, broad shoulders, one hand casually in the pocket,  busy busy busy on their way to some where else.   And I thought then, that “one day, when you least expect it, mother nature will pay you a call and you too will become as me, with an entirely new set of priorities about what makes you feel busy busy busy!”   And all the young ladies who dress in black as if their youthful lives have so little color in them, and that is before their health problems kick in and black is the appropriate color for their thoughts!.

There are new entries, under Lobbying,  both in Letters To and From Politicians.  In addition I found an excellent article, I suppose one could say on the definition of dying, which I had named the file The Art of Dying.   Not sure about it being an “art” but I have an ancient book called The Art of Living and as this item talks about the technical aspects of dying I thought it appropriate for this occasion.   I have filed the item under the “Meaning of Terms” menu. 

I have just starting reading a book Seven Dying Australians edited by Allan Kellehear & David Ritchie. Quite touching, it tells the stories in their own words and the “story” tellers range from 17 to 87 years old.  I found 17 year old,  Fadio Saba quite inspiring showing how faith (if one is blessed with it) can really carry you through the dark times.  She fought hard to stay yet was philosophical believing she would be going on to a good place.   Ah! to have that gift of faith.   Her closing words were “And what hurts me the most in just my missing them…and knowing that they’re going to be missing me.  That’s what hurts the most.”

I spent time standing at Flinders Street Station from 11 until 1.45.   It is interesting how many people have said they know nothing of the impending Bill including a law student.  A few just absolutely refused to believe how restrictive the new law will be.   People want to know,  why wasn’t it debated in the public arena.   I was asked who initiated the Bill?    Good questions!

 I was interviewed briefly by a gentleman reportedly from Radio New Zealand, (had a badge on!)  and he in turn asked my opinion of his country’s laws on same sex marriages.  Of course, I could only respond to “It should be down to Choice for the individual”.

Also  I  held an animated discussion with a “catholic,  right to lifer” (his description) who felt compelled to save my soul, returning four times in a hour.  In the end he returned with a cup of coffee for me, as I was leaving,  for which I thanked him, but refused.   He told me that handicapped people are being involuntary euthanasia (ed)  in Holland, and would not allow me to differ from his views.   I believe ignorance of voluntary euthanasia procedures is one of the contributing factors of people being afraid of the term.

One person of particular interest to me was a man with a relative working in Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre who understood exactly my POV.  Another told me his son had unfortunately committed suicide by hanging himself,  very sadly took two days to die.  But he still believed in his son’s right to choice regardless.  Now, that allowance for “freedom of choice” would take courage.

May I refer you to a letter contributed by a concerned lady, which I have posted under, Lobbying -  Letters to Politicians this morning.   I am grateful that a provoking and diverse POV has been put to the Senate Committee on behalf of Mr & Mrs John Doe.  Thank you for your participation in this process of being heard!

It is 3.25 am and I sit at this computer feeling physically ill, thinking why do I bother?  But I know why I do it!   A good friend has told me, I’ve changed recently, and I have!.  I feel a sense of hopelessness that, in fact,  people such as myself “have a voice that is not being heard!”   Individuals do not have a realistic platform, nor the financial resources to compete against the power of vested interests.

An Open Letter/ Response to the Convenor of CWLA: (A contributor to Submissions made to the Senate & Constitutional Committee)

One of the Submissions presented to the Senate was from the Catholic Women’s League Australia Inc.  Bioethics Working Party.  The National Convenor is Mary Uhlmann.   I was interested in the statement, among others, that she wrote on behalf of 8000 women and I asked for some evidence that this was,  in fact the case.   (Of some 1200 women being diagnosed with ovarian cancer each year, a percentage would include these 8000).    I couldn’t find anything on the CWLA’s website regarding the submission but I am since advised that it was No.30 in there somewhere.   In my previous working life, one person would not have the responsibility for presenting a submission on behalf of so many other people.  Because all women members are Catholics,  it is assumed they subscribe to pro life, no matter what the circumstance.    (If someone represents my POV, I would want input, but then I am not a Catholic. I do not live on faith.)

In denying me the opportunity to end my life when it becomes unbearable for me, you and your organisation take upon yourself the right to decide what I shall endure.

I came across a lovely word the other day,  “Mumpsimus”,  which the dictionary defines as “mump-si-mus- an error obstinately clung to, regardless of right or reason”.     Life at any cost is a mumpsimus.

Ok Ms Uhlmann, let me walk you through some of the points you’ve made on behalf of the 8000 women members who by their subscription condone your statements, having established that the wording of the Submission is yours.    You say you’ve not had one dissenting voice!.   Aren’t they “permitted” to disagree with the “teachings”?.  I find it incredible to think that not one member had a different point of view, given a couple personal conversations I’ve had.  Perhaps their views only got as far as the Branch Meeting, or were afraid to speak out against the authority of the chair.  Perhaps frank discussion was not encouraged.  Who knows?

This is a Bill that criminalizes not only your right to speak of suicide methods on the telephone, email whatever, but mine also.   I don’t share your religious beliefs Ms Uhlmann but I am to be forced , should the impending Bill become Law,  to be bound by your views on suicide, as will the majority of people in Australia.  The Law will not stop people from committing suicide, it will just allow for more mistakes attempting it!.  People will be afraid to speak out for fear of implicating their loved ones and will just act!

 In the CWLA’s Newsletter, No. 4, dated 4 Feb 2005, quotes Terry Lane (Age) saying “This is depressing for anyone who care about the fundamental freedom to say what they are thinking without fear of prosecution” when it is CWLA being held accountable under the Vilification Law..  I know exactly how you feel!  

You want to protect the “vulnerable” meaning those “open to attack”.   Well Ms Uhlmann I too am “vulnerable” and feel open to attack from people who do not share my rights for freedom of speech.   You have supported a Bill,  the implications, supposedly you fully understand.   Perhaps you were one of the people sitting behind me in the Public Senate Hearing, where its interpretation was fully explored by Witnesses, both For and Against with three Senators.

You’ve said Philip Nitschke “cannot be allowed to continue unchecked”.  But he is checked!   His peaceful pill project is open to long serving members, who must have attended two previous workshops and be over the age of 75 years.   I am not eligible, unfortunately, nor will I live to 75 to benefit from it.  And what is wrong with a pill that would provide “a quick and easy death” Ms Uhlmann.   I do not see a logical reason for a slow agonizing death, for myself.   I don’t want it!   If others in the community see suffering as a way to live that should be their prerogative, but please leave me,  to mine.

 One of the really good things about not being a Christian is that I have no fear of the “next life”.  In this life I treat others as I would like to be treated, and that includes freedom of choice when it involves my personal space.  One point that has interested me is that if “Heaven” is seen as so perfect, for Christians, why do people fight so hard to stay on earth.  One would think they couldn’t wait to die to experience the wonders that is “Heaven”.  If nature is to take its full course in death, why do we have medical treatments that enable us to live?  Isn’t this in denial of what “God” would want of us?   Interfering in his plans, goes for the good things as well as the bad?  So many doctors concentrate on the living, why not have some who concentrate on the dying.   We all live and we all die, we need doctors to care for both for us at both ends of the ruler!    Dr. Philip Nitschke’s views are  my definition of demonstrated compassion, far more meaningful to my needs, than platitudes and palliative care.   The VESV too has a place in meeting needs within society with their ongoing Law Reform efforts with ongoing State Governments.  My choice! my body, my life. my needs!

In your submission, you refer to those who have chosen “suicide as a way out of difficulties they may face”.   “Patronizing” was the immediate word that sprung to my mind.   Terminal illnesses, and those one could wish were terminal, are not “difficulties they may face”.   It is not “may” but “is”!.   The Submission uses the word “difficult” in the same manner as one would talk about picking up the children late from school.    “Difficulties” could be termed “horrendous pain and suffering!”.

 The rate of suicide is 2% of all Australian deaths.  Hardly a raging bush fire that needs the soaking down of an ill conceived Law that punishes everyone, including the elderly infirmed with no prospect of a life worth living..

Perhaps,  when you wrote the Submission on behalf of the CWLA, Ms Uhlmann, your research didn’t let you know that suicide numbers since the introduction of the internet, has actually dropped.   Documented,  in Hansard.    There is a much greater chance of the elderly committing suicide by hanging themselves, than youth surfing the Exit website looking for solutions!.    The young would use a very fast car much more easily than mixing potions!.

One could hope,  you did do your research,  prior to making broad statements representing,  not just your own views,  but that of your 8000 women members.   Was this Bill really warranted?   What issue will be next?   Already banning of specific books and advertising have been mooted.  With another Government, in another timing, it could one day be the Bible.   Because the precedent will have been set that the community is tolerant of censorship on our most basic need, that is, free speech!   You will know that the Bill makes conversation a criminal offence for the very first time in the making of laws.   Suicide is a more dangerous topic than child sexual pornography!, because it is the talking of suicide that is the illegal act!….just the talking of suicide methods is going to be a criminal offence.   Think about it Ms Uhlmann!

 Australians used to be tolerant of each other’s viewpoints but the attitude is no longer one of “Choice” as your organisation is already discovering with the Vilification Laws.    It an extremely unpleasant feeling isn’t it, to know that your every conversation will be monitored by some one who does not agree with your point of view.  In case you’ve never read anything else I’ve written, I will repeat myself.   I found it totally bewildering that my discussing of suicide methods will be criminalized.   And being consistently linked with child pornography prevention laws, being applied to my concerns for choice and dignity in dying,  highly offensive!    

I have respected Catholics rights to disagree with the act of suicide, and for Catholics that is their choice.   Many other people from all walks of life,  have different views and I ask that in fairness, that you respect my choice of a hastened death should it become necessary.   My choice, Your Choice.   Democracy!!!!