About this time six years ago I was receiving the  last of six chemotherapy treatments, having planned to return to work July 12 1999, a fortnight later.     I had been so ambitious to “Return to Work”, now I look back on that period of my life and wonder why it was so very important.   It was the goal that kept me “going”….if I had a focus eg work, my life “would return to normal”.   If I had only known then what I know now, but that is another story entirely. 

I dyed my hair pink (a very,  very  short soft down of brand new hair) I weighted 65 Kg (today it is more like 72 Kg)….and I look back on that period of my life with wonderment.   Full of optimism and full of hope,  this period of June 1999.  I go through this maudlin period each year at this time, not in January when diagnosed, but July when treatment was finalized and I “moved on”, back to “normality”.   At least that was the theory.

 I feel I owe it to others,  who may be making the same journey I made those years ago, to say,  be kind to yourself first and foremost.   As an Employee, Be Kind to Yourself.    Allow yourself to love, cry, work and play at a pace which leaves you comfortable and not exhausted. 

An “understanding” Employer cannot be assumed.  Acknowledging you may have a “used by” date in terms of their need to run a business,  is a very real possibility and can compound anxieties to a level never previously imagined   It can be distressing and very  hurtful to learn that some employers can only be “fair weather friends”, and when the going gets tough, you may well be dispensable. 

 I suppose it was this profound thought  that makes my stance on Parliament Steps so thought provoking.  We would all  like to think we are “important” to the smooth running of our work place environment whether as a Cleaner, a Business Manager or a Member of Parliament.   Every person would like to believe they have a value to society.  It gives a purpose and meaning to life.

Mark Latham is reacting to-day, because of the way he was treated while he was so very ill, -  both sides of politics mentally kicked the man, while he was down!.   I was so angered by the lack of sensitivity to an obviously sick man that I went into the office of Simon Crean in Clayton and asked that “could the Labor Party at least be supportive of him while he was ill?”.   Although not terminally ill, the pain and suffering Mark Latham was experiencing was the nevertheless, worthy of compassion, regardless of the politics.   Many times I have been moved to say “Labor does not need the Liberal Party to bring it down, we do it to ourselves!”  It could easily have been Mr Beazley suffering an illness, or dare I suggest such a human fragility of the great man himself, Prime Minister John Howard.

Sometimes the reality is that,  due to ill health we need time to recover,  and our employers don’t have the time or inclination to assist us back onto the road of full recovery.  The Employer sets the tone which accommodates that recovery in the workplace, both physically and mentally.

 The Employer’s attitude can be transmitted and be allowed to fester with other work colleagues and it takes courage and determination to withstand this insidious form of “bullying”.  This, at a time when the target is least able to defend themselves, because they’re too busy just surviving life!.
I would like to think that this type of behavior towards those suffering an illness has been well and truly addressed in the workplace.  And will not be one of the “entitlements” deleted by the Federal Government’s impending Workplace Relations Reform. 

 Particularly,  with the possibility of cancer returning.  Then there is the added disadvantage of having an obviously unwell person in the front office, cap on head, face bloated with steroids, limping because of severe nerve damage from chemotherapy!   Not a pretty sight to the observer, but you’re just so bloody glad to be alive, you’re not thinking about the “image”.   Your boss though may well be the type that “image” is everything to, both in terms of looks and productivity.  And as individuals, my readers being forewarned is being prepared,  so that should it actually happens to you, it won’t bring you to your knees in a manner that the originating illness could never do!    Pride sits on a very high step ladder,  giving us so much further to fall.

Yes, returning to work for some people is a challenge over and above the mere problem of being diagnosed with a life threatening illness.  It can be more devastating because the outcomes, unlike unpredictable illness, should be controllable.   Sometimes work colleagues may feel threatened and uncomfortable about their own mortality when faced with the physical presence of illness in the workplace.  The majority though react with considerable care and thoughtfulness, as was the situation with my work colleagues.    My farewell messages on retirement hold pride of place at home.

 The six year anniversary of my last chemotherapy has made me pensive, and even as I write I feel physical pain and slight tears.  (Am I permitted to use the words “very sad” without someone wanting me to see a psychiatrist?)

To-day’s Diary Entry is much more personal than normal, but then I am in a very reflective mood. 

 I promise to “return to the work of activism” tomorrow.

I’ve dropped a media item from America under Additional – Related Readings:  Meddling could haunt Politicians in Schiavo Case, with my personal comment as those who know would have expected of me.

The responses to the story of Betty Peters, the 74 yo grandmother were more sympathetic to her story than I expected so perhaps we need not despair altogether about how the broader community views our needs.  (Sunday Herald Sun June 26)

Of particular poignancy was the mother’s letter Jenny O’Meara of Frankston who said it was The Right Move and I quote:

    Being a Christian I never believed in euthanasia but watching my 16 year old son die of cancer changed my mind.  

    In the last days of his life, he pleaded with the doctor to give him something to end his suffering, as drugs could no longer ease          the pain.

    He said to the doctor, “If I was a dog I would be put out of my misery, but I have to lie here in terrible pain”.

    In the right circumstance I fully support euthanasia.

Reiterating, my personal POV, that until you have walked in my shoes, don’t judge me.

Of 11 supporting letters including one from a Ruth E Lusk a retired nurse, who tells us palliative care is not always the saving grace,   many had first hand experience of the reasons for choice being a viable option.

 I cannot stress too strongly though that people who believe doctors and relatives will be in a position to accommodate their needs for a hastened death, are not being realistic about the outcome.   It would be unfair to place a doctor or a relative at risk of jail to ask their help.   One doctor paid $300, 000 in legal fees and lost a marriage in clearing his name because he chose compassion over legalities.  He for one, I’m sure,  won’t take the risk again and nor should he be expected to, but the need for assistance is still there for many. 

Being incapacitated is a bugger!  Without legislative reform there will be those in dire need left hanging,  as Mrs O’Meara sixteen year old son was, because his doctor did not have the courage (do not harm, does that mean doing nothing good either?) to challenge the actual interpretation of the Medical Treatment Act 1988 when deciding which was more important, the patient’s relief of excessive pain or the Law as it stands!

 More and more it remains a sad fact of life that people will die earlier than they normally would because indications are,  that the State Health Care System is not focused on the welfare of the patient as the most important priority.  Politicians in a majority, (thank god for Senator Greig (Democrat), who at least put our POV on the record)  are more concerned with our immortal souls, than our mortal bodies.   The fact that thirty per cent of the population have no religious faith as such and therefore do not believe in a life after death concept, fails to impact on those who “believe”, and want the rest of us to be saved, regardless, of a stated position to the contrary.  

For those letter writers that state “Only God” has the right, etc etc,  why then do Doctors and Scientists have a brain that allows them to think outside the square of what mother nature dishes up to us.   If  it is God’s Will we do nothing enabling us to die a good death, why then do we interfere in Gods Will to have a bad (health) life?    Please let’s not be hypocritical about what “God’s Will” is?   If “God’s Will” had been allowed to run its course, I would have been dead six years ago!

I feel sorry for “God” sometimes.   She/He/It gets invoked in so many forums, and so many people have delusions of grandeur that their point of view in Her/His/It name is the only POV worthy of consideration!    The right to free choice would cover everyone’s needs being only responsible for your own business of dying.  For the majority of us, we can make our choices known before hand if only we could trust the health and legal systems to respect our written instructions, everyone could do for themselves what they feel is best for their immortal soul,  and then there is the rest of us!.

Given the seriousness of this week’s happenings with the adoption of the Suicide Related Materials Bill 2005 I thought a little levity may brighten the day..

I recently consulted a new doctor. After two visits and exhaustive lab tests, he said I was doing “fairly well” for my age. A little concerned about that comment, I couldn’t resist asking him, “Do you think I’ll live to be 80?”
He asked, “Well, do you smoke cigarettes or drink beer/wine?” Oh no,” I replied. “I’m not doing either.” Then he asked, “Do you eat rump steaks and barbecued ribs?” I said, “No, my other Doctor said that all red meat is very unhealthy!” Do you spend a lot of time in the sun, like playing golf, sailing, swimming, or riding?” No, I don’t,” I said. He asked, “Do you gamble, drive fast cars, or have a lot of sex?”

He looked at me and said, “Then why on earth do you want to live to be 80?”

                                                           _______________________________

PS please don’t let Mr Harradine know anything of the above joys in life, he may instigate legislation against them, leaving us nothing!,

 (But there comes a time in life, when with the best intentions in the world, all of the above joys cease to hold meaning for some, and that’s  when choice can be become a viable option!.  Particularly when a long life partner predeceases the other.) 

 Whether that man lives until 80 is irrelevant, the damage to our democratic society as a result of his being at all, is what we will remember him for.

 The Senator (what was his name again?),  the driving force leading the crusaders as they charged into battle,  scattering our rights for free speech, and starting Australian politics on a road filled with pot holes of morality.   Not for refugees in detention centres, not for politicians who,  although caught out in their lies to Parliament cling to power without integrity, but for those who chose to want a good death through voluntary euthanasia.    What of his integrity,  when it comes to the living, demonstrating by his actions,  that he has no compassion for the dying?   Ah. but he was a good man!   

                                                            ________________________________

An article written June 19th in the Sunday Herald Sun (Page 22) tells a story.   Betty Peters is a healthy 74 year old grandmother who wants choice when it comes to dying, as many of us do.   She is an articulate woman and tells her case well, expressing many of the sentiments I have shared with you.   Betty is also very lucky,  in that her qualifications as a nurse,  ensures success at her chosen time.

 I have deliberately chosen not to respond the SHS’s  invitation to “tell us what you think”.   I have left that to others,  because I differ slightly about the publicity of choice when talking about a reasonably healthy individual.

 There are genuine cases of real hardship that should be the focus of the debate in the media.   Make it real for those we seek to influence!   Rather than “criticize” the article from my POV, I thought it better to say nothing.   I understand her views entirely but wished she’d not voiced them, believing it will further entrench opposition to voluntary euthanasia.

 I, for one, believe that if choices have to be made about euthanasia the most medically disadvantaged,  should be given priority.   By healthy people stepping forward in the public forum  and calling for perceived  “death on demand” it alienates the general community who don’t see the hundreds of people struggling with their daily lives involving cancer, motor neuron disease, multiple sclerosis, rheumatoid arthritis, etc.

Friends and relatives of mine,  have said of Lisette Nigot (Mademoiselle and the Doctor) that she was selfish and did not do the voluntary euthanasia cause any good whatsoever.   I am inclined to agree with them,  in that the public are now worried that we will all want to line up in a queue to receive our “peaceful pill” just because we’ve become tired of life.

 Rarely do we see a genuinely deserving face promoting VE in the media, because their pain is patently obvious and therefore not appropriate viewing for a sensitive audience.   The excellent Compass (British) program on Death shown in a 5 part series in January is the reality of genuine need for death as a viable alternative to living.   Shown late on a Sunday night, like-minded people will seek out the subject, but the ordinary public just go on about their daily lives, not knowing or even caring about euthanasia. (until it becomes a reality for them!)

I will be interested tomorrow in the responses the Sunday Herald Sun receives as a result of the article.   Apart from members of Exit and VESV, I suspect there will be minor sympathy from the under 60s in the community.   And, of course, they’re the people we are hoping to persuade to introduce legislation complimentary to our needs.  I believe they may be frightened off, by the “slippery slope” concept of uncontrolled suicides.   The “Jones Town” factor mentality……..

Healthy people without a history of serious illness, talking of suicide is not the best advertisement for the cause from an outsider’s POV, in my opinion.

I believe, age alone, (together with its tiredness and loneliness)  as a reason for dying is not something a person under 60 will understand, and without understanding, there can be no acceptance.

I have lifted an excellent article taken from an American newspaper which is extremely relevant to many of us with an interest in Living Wills etc.  The article, which can be found under the Menu, Additional – Related Readings,  gives the views of various religious communities, together with others.

Quoted in the News-Sentinal. Ft. Wayne, Indiana, August 16th 1993.

 Randall Terry, the founder of Operation Rescue, a right wing Christian group once said

“I want you to just a let a wave of intolerance wash over you, I want you to let a wave of hatred wash over you.  Yes hate is good.. Our goal is a Christian Nation.   We have a biblical duty, we are called by God, to conquer this country.   We don’t want equal tine.   We don’t want pluralism.”

The question I would ask my reader is “Would you want your child brought up to believe in these values?”  Bearing in mind that is it democracy that permits us to hold beliefs different to the next person, yet still live in peace and harmony.

 Is the Christian interpretation on what is right for all mankind correct?.  Millions of Hindus, Buddhists, Islamic, Atheists, Agnostics would say NO.  What Christians have to understand is that with Globalization, the man living next door doesn’t necessarily agree with your philosophy in life, and what’s more, some of them have serious issues with them because of the examples of cruelty and intolerance shown to others in the name of Christianity. (eg mandatory detention and invasion of a sovereign country)  Where does “Human Wisdom” come into the education of our children,  setting by example those Christian values held so dearly by some.

What of all the other faiths, who believe with equal fervor, that they too hold the right and just “faith” that is God?

                                                        _____________________________________

Tony Abbott, in a speech given March 16 2004, headed Ethical Responsibilities of a Christian Politician

 (that title in itself is a concern)

“The problem with laws allowing doctors to kill the terminally ill is not that they offend Church teaching but that they are contrary to human wisdom.   There is a fundamental difference between relieving pain (which is simple humanity) and ending life (which is contrary to the pre-Christian Hippocratic injunction to do no harm).   Withdrawing treatment from people who would otherwise be dead is fundamentally different from killing people who would otherwise be alive.  Christian revelation was not necessary to form the view that the Northern Territory euthanasia law converted human beings into disposable commodities, to be put down when old, useless or in pain.  It seems that a strong majority of MPs, of whom many were not Catholic and some not Christian, wondered whether the point of these laws was not so much to ease the pain of the dying (for whom anesthesia is available) but to ease the pain of their relatives who can’t be anaesthetized against the mystery and terror of death.”

The man’s lack of compassion is palpable.   His ignorance is bliss! (for him).   His intolerance and lack of understanding of the needs of a seriously ill distressed person shines through like a beacon.   “To do no harm” is an interpretation of wording.  Would Mr Abbott not dispatch a seriously wounded dog, cat or spider left injured, writhing in pain and agony but not likely to die quickly because of its injuries.   Would he stand by as an observer and watch that living thing struggle with the pain and inevitability of its fate?.  Surely not,  Mr Abbott who probably has a picture of St Francis in his prayer book (St Francis,  for the uninitiated is the patron saint of animals).   Yet it follows,  in the view of many that human beings lives are more precious than that of an animal.  To die as an animal could be a better choice than to die as a human being depending on who is in charge of the decision making.

 Harm,  Mr Abbott is sometimes the neglect of doing nothing!.   Is “human wisdom”  defined as watching suffering that will ultimately result in death, yet allow it to become a traumatic experience both for the person making the journey and those left behind?   Is that wisdom, Mr Abbott?  Good sense, a wise attitude?   Which school were you educated in Mr Abbott?.  Killing is not confined to Doctors, Soldiers kill!  and they’re killing people against their will, unlike those who seek voluntary euthanasia.   Let’s not be selective Mr Abbott, the commandment that says “Thou shalt not Kill”  didn’t say “except when governments want to do the killing”.   You believe as a Christian in all doctrines when it suits you!

Was Terri Schiavo Mr Abbott’s definition of “being alive”.   Would she have seen herself as a “disposable commodity” or as someone who had no possibility of ever leading a worthwhile existence, both in terms of her physicality or mental awareness.   Who determines what “living” means?    Using terms such as “disposable commodity” cheapens the situation for those living their pain and suffering, coming to grips with the life, and loves, they’re leaving behind.   No one really wants to die, but sometimes the alternative is just too painful.   Try bringing a real human being into your mind Mr Abbott when you think about your religious responsibility, be charitable.

To be living in continual pain, gives some devout religious people their opportunity to be seen as saintly and strong in the power of their faith.   Other people commit suicide for their religion.   Many kill for their religion.   Not all people in the community share this need for being a martyr to their beliefs.  Some of us want peace and serenity.   Some of us have no fear or terror of actually dying, we just want it to be quick and painless.   We don’t see a need to suffer in order to have salvation.

 There is room in our society for both points of view should the State Government be truly separated from the Church.   Allow me my right to die a peaceful death by Legislation as a Member of the State, and others who choose, can die as a Member of their Religion.

Laws in Australia, at both State and Federal levels,  are being made based solely on a religious philosophy, a serious concern which needs to be addressed by others much more attuned to its implications that I’ll ever be.

 Not in my lifetime, but in the future for my grandchildren there could be a Muslim, Jewish or a Member of the Combat Spiritual Church as the Head of the State or Commonwealth.    Given the religious intolerance demonstrated in the Middle East and the fact that the UK based Christian Church (Note Christian! that is,  in the name of God) undertake child sacrifices in London, (www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/articles/19328071?version=1)

I believe Australians should be very politically aware of the religious views of their “leaders”.   Who knows,  who people are any more?  I have known Arabs, Jews and Christians as friends throughout my life time.     Religion, like Sexuality should not be an issue in the running of a Government.   We should be governed on a rule of law, not the religious beliefs of a few.

I am heartened by some American Christian Churches (there’s so many!) who give their blessing to the concept of Voluntary Euthanasia.     And to the end,  Terri Schiavo is an example of everything that is questionable about Mr Abbott’s views of living and dying and the true definition of harm.   Ms Schiavo was irreversible brain damaged and blind. 

Mr Abbott, with respect sir, as a patient or a relative I would want my pain eased,  regardless.  Selfish but true.

You may be the Saint, I’m happy to be the “Sinner!”    The good news is that,  we won’t meet in the after life either way!

Previously I spoke of my “religious experience” on the forecourt of Flinders Street Station.   I remember well in my opening page of the website how I said that I would respect people rights to hold a different view, that I may offend some people but that was not my intention.  That I respected other people’s  faith and could “envy” them the joy that it brings them when their hour of need requires it.  

Having addressed other people’s views and their rights to them I would like the opportunity to explain my own.   Like yourchoiceindying.com, I respect anyone’s right to choice in dying whether you want nature to run its full course, or a hastened merciful death.   I know what I want, and what others want is between you and your beliefs,  whatever they may be.

Obviously Catholic and some other Unknown Denomination believe I need saving.   So last week the big guns were brought for the cause.   The gentleman came armed with a mega speaker, hymns and his sermon.   He stood perhaps six feet behind me and proceeded to play music, sermonize and then play music again.  Passer bys thought we were a duo act of some sort with raised eyebrows and puzzled looks.   He had the whole forecourt but chose to stand over my right shoulder.   The hymns were melodious enough if you didn’t have to listen to the words, but compounded by his sermon in which I was told that god loved me and would give me strength in my struggles, if only I would come back to him and trust him and love him etc etc etc.   And then his friend arrived in my face,  where she proceeded to ask me why I was doing what I doing there, god loved me, give god a chance, come back to god, did I want to go the hell etc etc etc.  

Never having been known for my passivity I almost lost the plot with her, particularly when she stood back, cocked her head on one side and smile stupidly at me, when I asked her to please respect my space. “But God Loves You”.     What with him,  behind blaring his loud speaker right in my ear, constantly talking about god, salvation, hope, trust, love and all the rest of the stuff that keeps these people alive, and her in the front of me, I felt over whelmed by frustration at their refusal to shut up!   I quite literally felt violated by their insistence.  I pointed out to her that his mega phone was an invasion of my rights to a peaceful demonstration,  and while I did not intrude on any one else, he just kept right on sermonizing regardless of how I felt.    She smiled as she said “He’s with me!”  Well no, he was with anybody within 10 metres of him.

 If I had had a loud speaker speaking about my dismay at the Suicide Related Materials Bill 2005, I am sure there would have been formal complaints laid, yet he was able to impose his views on me (and others) without restrictions.

I must write and ask the Melbourne City Council what the laws are that relate to noise levels, up close and personal. 

Yes, after half an hour I moved to the other side of the station, I had been determined not to allow them “to influence my  position” but in the end, I moved.    And perhaps that is the story of the church, they just alienate people with their doggedness to convince other that theirs is the only view worth having. and people move away.  

While I do respect other’s religious beliefs I do not believe myself, in a “hereafter”, that is a Heaven or a Hell! or a judgmental God.  I do not believe in a virgin birth, I do not believe in anyone rising from the dead, I did not ask Christ to die on the Cross for Me!!!  I do not believe that,  because I do not believe what Christians believe,  that my rights in life (and dying) are any less valuable than those who do believe in what they have chosen as a matter of faith.

 I do not have faith.   I believe in science.  I believe that when you are dead, you are very very dead!…..   I believe that Church and State have become blurred in where both parties feed off the other in order to gain power over the masses.

I am a Humanist, I believe in “doing unto others as I would have them do unto me”.   I believe that we owe it to our fellow man to be respectful of his wishes for himself, to bring no harm to him, but that free choice should be a right of passage for myself also.   I want what is good and meaningful to me, and I lobby to achieve this end regardless of how much others would wish me to be “one of them”.   I am not a religious person having developed my own sense of spirituality, of which a Christian God has no place.  In the name of God much evil has been done to mankind and nothing that I’ve seen would inspire me to “believe” in such a being.     That is my choice.

On Tuesday I again stood on the steps of the Victoria Parliament House and Flinders Street Station for one and half hours each stance.   I’ve ended up with a bit of a chill from the winds which were quite gusty at times.   I had the placard which depicts two photos of my scarred abdomen with a caption that “Yes suicide could be option”, explaining briefly the implications of the Suicide Related Materials Bill 2005 before the Senate right now   Two people had some understanding of it.  

The foot traffic past Parliament House is definitely more tuned into my case as perhaps one would expect.    But it fascinates me the study of people rushing past, hoping I won’t approach them and ask for anything of them, heads down, up or averted as if showing any interest will suck them into a chasm of giving, even of their time.   Men and women alike well suited up, looking very studious in deep and meaningful conversations with their colleagues and I think once again, that one day, when you least expect it, your secure business like world could come crashing down,  and become meaningless because you’ve been diagnosed with a potentially life threatening illness.   All the political wheeling and dealings will have no place in your list of “the important things in life”, When others talk of life changing decisions this is usually what they mean!   I wondered if one Sitting Member saw me on the day or cared about the message I displayed on my placard.  It didn’t really matter.  I saw people stop, pause, look at me the woman,  and absorb my message.   Some cringed at the brutal photos, but that was my reality and the incident in my life that makes me the activist I am today.  I’ve met a number of enquiring people on the steps there and I am heartened by their interest.   Particularly the young!

I don’t approach people, I let them come to me.

Flinders Street Station is again a study in human behavior.   I am actually quite shocked watching the risks that people of all ages ranging from students to little old ladies,  take when running the gauntlet of the red light, only to stop on the other side, stand and gossip, or fiddle with a bag.

Like,  this is your life and it is precious!!   When I say yourchoiceindying I mean as a result of a grave illness!  Don’t try and put yourself in a wheel chair for life,  for the thirty seconds you save,  waiting for a green light.  One day the police trainees had a field day booking people (but they’re not there that often).  Booked with one foot off the curb, straight in front of the red light, young and old were equally foolhardy.   Some thought the thrill of dodging cars, very funny?    Cars flying around,  doing their left hand turn with a green light,  missed a number of pedestrians by inches.

Take Care Please, and value your life, it is such a precious thing to be able to run and walk without aids.

Here ends my sermon for the day folks.  

In the next day or two I will talk about my “religious experiences” on Flinders Street Station but I don’t want to spoil my day this morning by recounting them with you, without a very measured response.

Suffice to say, I felt mentally battered and bruised for knowing that Jesus cares for me!  I’d be happy if he just looked after those folk that seeks his help. 

The Australian
May 03, 2005
PRIME Minister John Howard says the Liberal Party will not have a formal policy on euthanasia as long as he is at the helm.

(copied from the Exit International Website for your information)

 Footnote: Funny I’d been told the Liberal Party actively encouraged their members to set outside the square, be autonomous, think for yourself, work for yourself, make choices for yourself.  Yet he has made a choice for himself to do nothing, which has compounded the effects on my rights to do something!!  I am not asking for Mr Howard’s choices, just mine own.  Perhaps we’ll have better luck with (Prime Minister)  Mr Costello, as the treasurer will have a realistic understanding of the horrendous costs in keeping people alive who would rather be allowed to die with medical assistance.  I felt, Mr Costello looked quite uncomfortable at the Sydney Christian televised service.   Perhaps he is a “cupboard voluntary euthanasia supporter”

I can only hope that Mr Howard retires some time very soon!   And of course I wish Mr Howard excellent health in the coming years, god forbid he should actually experience health problems that make voluntary euthanasia look like a good alternative to something else!  Then,  there is Mr Beazley as Leader of the Opposition Labor Party who agrees with the Liberal Leader’s views.   So there is no opposition in fact!   Can a genuine representative for the ordinary person, (70% in favor of legislative VE)  please stand up! 

Curtailing our right to know about the right to die with dignity
May 16, 2005

Denying people access to information is at odds with democratic rights, writes Fiona Stewart. If the new Spanish film The Sea Inside teaches us anything, it is that no amount of law and legislation can prevent a person who wants to die from devising the ways and means to take their own life. Whether it be laws such as the Northern Territory’s Rights of the Terminally Act, which promoted choice, or the Suicide Related Materials Offences Amendment to the Crimes Act now before the Senate, which takes choice away, laws can be avoided. The Sea Inside provides remarkable insight into why and how. The life and death of lead character and real-life person Ramon Sampedro has long been a cause celebre in Spain. Paralysed from the neck down from a diving accident at 26, Sampedro spent his next 28 years as, in his words, a head attached to a corpse. Deeply resentful of being forced to live a life that he defined as having little quality, Sampedro repeatedly petitioned the Spanish and European courts. Repeatedly, Sampedro was denied permission to ask for assistance to die, a request he believed he had the right to make. The law disagreed. 

Most people believe in death with dignity. In this, Sampedro was not exceptional. At the end of the day it is of little importance that he was not terminally ill. Rather, what mattered to him was that his life had so little dignity, that death was a preferable option. And on this latter point, Sampedro still cannot be singled out. For he was neither the first – nor shall he be the last – person to take matters into his own hands when the law fails. It seems important to point out that even if other states had followed the Northern Territory’s lead and had legislated for voluntary euthanasia, a person in Sampedro’s situation would never have qualified to use it. 
To benefit from the act, you had to be terminally ill. Sampedro’s self-determined poor quality of life would not have entered the equation. This raises the question of what’s law got to do with it, if such constraints apply? Well very little – as long as you know what to do. While everyone knows that rope is available and hanging works – one need only look at the national suicide statistics that show hanging as the most common means of suicide for all ages – the real question is, who wants to die by hanging when their time comes? Not I, nor anyone I know. Rather, what most people who have given any thought to how they might wish to die – the elderly, the sick and those with diminished life quality – say is that control, peace and dignity are what count. 
To achieve these, though, we must know our options. And it is this right to the most basic information our Big Brother Federal Government led by Justice Minister Chris Ellison is now seeking to take away. Under the new Crimes Act amendments, it will be illegal to use the telephone, fax, email or internet to find out information about your end-of-life options.
This type of government determination of what we can and can’t read is nothing short of extraordinary in a free country. So how would Ramon Sampedro have faired if he had been an Australian today? First, he would have needed to get information about his options without using the phone, fax, email and the net. Difficult, but not impossible. Best-selling books such as Derek Humphry’s Final Exit, available at your local bookshop, contain all that the Sampedros of this world need to know. Second, because he was a quadriplegic and unable to do things for himself – Ramon Sampedro needed his friends. He needed enough people willing to risk legal persecution to help him. 

In The Sea Inside we see Sampedro on his death bed, drinking his potassium cyanide by a straw from a glass beside his bed, while his anonymous, able-bodied and loyal friends toast him with champagne. What we don’t see is the thousands of strangers who bought keys to his apartment, as a strategy to deflect the gaze and blame away from those who did help him. So while the Australian Government moves heaven and earth to deny honest Australians honest information, luckily, the real power lies with the people. And, as the Get Up Stand Up generation showed everyone in the ’60s, people power cannot be stopped, not even by a politician. Dabble on, minister. 

Fiona Stewart is co-author (with Philip Nitschke) of
Killing Me Softly: Voluntary Euthanasia and the Road to the Peaceful Pill.

Sue, I am probably not going to respond in the manner you may expect me of me, with regards Mr Verschoor who had been diagnosed with cancer of the salivary gland, and his final exit with Dignitas.
Dignitas is an organisation, trying to assist the “shunned” (don’t tell me about your pain, think positive!) members of society, to an easier death.   They have to protect themselves to ensure that the due process is being followed. Relatives are notorious for making their presence felt as they fight both for their loved one’s relief, and against their instincts to keep alive those they love alive, regardless.  Dying is a traumatic experience.  It is not easy for the gravely ill, their relatives, the medical staff, or those helping them to die should one be so lucky as to have any “help” at all. People who dedicate themselves directly to helping a person die are in a no win situation, risking both legal ramifications from the Law Enforcement Agencies and extremely distressed relatives who may or may not have “changed their mind through guilt” in agreeing to the process.

God’s Will? I understood we were given “free will” which is why so many of us are “sinful”.

But is God’s Will being replaced with the Governments’ Will?

Mary Walsh
www.yourchoiceindying.com