RELATED READINGS : VE ARTICLES -(I cheated a little with a copy and paste from elsewhere on the website) 

Death drugs smuggled in:  Article by Kim Wheatley below: 

Some points addressing the issue, by “Choice”.    

(1)  “terminal” is defined as within an anticipated six months of death, the crucial pain threshold may have been present for years prior to death.   Life itself is terminal, some just die sooner than others.  

(2) In my humble opinion, I believe it is unhelpful for open discussion that is so very valuable to the frail elderly to be “teased” in front of Customs Officers:  ensuring along with heroin, foodstuffs and plants, Nembutal will be considered when dealing with any little old folk arriving from the States.  Breaking the law in itself is sufficient, but it should have been a secret best kept perhaps,  on a need to know basis.

In addition, I feel it was very unhelpful to put the authorities on Public Notice to the extent anyone carried in 45 books authored by Dr. Philip Nitschke, of a contentious nature.   Commercial quantities automatically provoke attention of Customs and curiosity ensures further examination of the product.   It is done now! but if only more caution had been considered before the event.

(3) Margaret Tighe should bow out of the debate as she has nothing new to offer after thirty years of debate.   She herself is becoming frail and elderly and will be able to offer up all her personal suffering in the name of her God to ensure her place in Heaven in due course and eventually.  For the rest of society, some of us are seeking Pro Choice rather than just the Right to Life…we’ve considered our options  and decided that for some of us, suicide may be considered a very good viable alternative to “Life”.

Circumstances incite suicide – I feel a very ill person terminating their life to be,  at least as brave,  as a soldier who chooses to fight in the Middle East at the Government’s behest.   To me it makes more sense to lose a life not worth living because of serious and debilitating illness,  to that of dying while a young fit man with everything to live for. 

People are not “easily affected”!   It takes guts and courage to step outside one’s comfort zone!  I’m sure the woman importing Nembutal had qualms! but the current law does not protect her interests.   I bet she felt ill with the deception. But at a time and age with not much to lose and everything to gain.  The security obtaining the tools to achieve a peaceful death allows one to relax and live life to the fullest.   The Insurance Policy for the Aged and Infirmed – small premium – massive pay out benefit – and you’re dead without involving a loved one in possible litigation procedures.

I have a friend who regularly quotes “mumpsimus” a very old fashioned word that means an inability to move on with the times regardless of how inappropriate the views held may be.

(4)  When Ms Tighe says “Dr Philip Nitschke is a dangerous man” it would seem she has, conveniently ignored the history of Catholic nuns and priests (and other Religious Faiths!) that blighted the childhood of many women and men, her age! (and mine).   Now they were Dangerous People in the true sense of the word……. and who knows what goes on these days of closed religions and other organisations that appear honorable at face value,  that operate without any obvious Government intervention…….

And No!  Life is not necessarily “precious”!…only if there is a reasonable chance of getting through the day able to enjoy the sunshine, read a book, view the TV, listen to the Radio,  the joy of breathing without aid ongoing, to maintain mobility, to live your days without the  incontinence due to chronic ill health – not everyone wants their personal space invaded by having another wash their bum!…..  Life is precious to the individual based on their reasoning about how far the term “Right to Life” can be maintained in favor of the alternative “Right to Die”….

Your Body Ms Tighe, your belief system for you, but please! – My Life is not your Business!!! 

Philip Nitschke represents an opposing point of view, to that of the Right to Life and the recent Age Readers Opinion Poll is a guide that a majority of Victorians are moving with the times.

The question asked on the previous Friday and published Monday September 25th was:

Should the States and Territories Legalise Euthanasia?   

A total of 706 Votes gave a resounding Yes with 90% agreement….10% said “No”….

Leave Dr Nitschke alone and concentrate on the true definition of Dangerous!   Depending on one’s perspective in life,  Ms Tighe could be considered a “dangerous woman”, because her passion for life at any cost and in spite of the cost, far outweighs the common sense approach of Nitschke who seeks only “Pro Choice”, demanding of no one else what he would not seek for himself…..Choice.   

Ms Tighe, on the other hand wants everyone to live her choices!  Selfish Woman!

——————————

Sunday 24th September 2006, Sunday Mail, South Australia (SA) By Kim Wheatley

“There’s no incitement in the book.”

Customs Minister Senator Chris Ellison admitted there was little the Government could do about elderly people smuggling death drugs into the country. “I think it’s totally inappropriate,” he said yesterday. “It concerns me that people are doing that.

Her comments follow Senator Amanda Vanstone telling the Sunday Mail last week that the states should “have another go” at voluntary euthanasia laws.

It is strange being a member of a political party which does not support one of my most important social issues to be considered, the right to die humanely.   As I walked the local streets yesterday delivering a couple of hundred pamphlets advertising how wonderful the Brack’s (Labor) Government is,  when compared to the Opposition Liberal Party, I realised yet again how one side this sharing of values with the ordinary membership really is.

Has anyone become aware now how much of the news is taken up with overseas happenings particularly American politics and policies, sport, the weather, and the financial state of those billion dollars being traded in shares?   What ever became of the days when the news consisted of Mrs Jones down the street? something or someone we ordinary Australians could relate to!.  

Grass roots news items than take into account the personality, social and personal issues affecting the individual.

The Leader of the Victorian Opposition Party, Mr Baillieu has gone on public record as saying he supports the compassion that voluntary euthanasia offers.   I am torn by two ideologies, the belief that the Labor Party is more socially minded than the Liberals obvious wealth and big business, but when I evaluate the ethics shown by the two major parties my common sense tells me it is all about power – not genuine social issues.  Currently, conservative Religion has many Politicians by the balls!  It should be very interesting television,  the story of the Liberals and the Exclusive Brethren, and that’s only one aspect of it.   Cardinal Pell was seen around the halls of Parliament during the debate on the drug RU 486….was he there to pray with Mr Abbott? or to manipulate the numbers for those politicians who have no particular view on or against abortion!  He really wasn’t needed though because so many politicians are curried up by their religious viewpoints influencing government decisions, to make outsiders irrelevant.   Let’s hope that aspect of politicking changes when Mr Howard and Mr Beazley leave the Halls of Power and we return to a truly secular style of Government.   

Anything that is anti Islamic seems to be OK these days regardless of how “Christian” religions conduct themselves….The Pope’s speech was a classic example of how selective the media is in its reporting of religious items.   The Pope was being “misunderstood” and was “addressing academics” so that made his comments “acceptable”, but when an Islamic Cleric gets up and puts his point of view, which is not favorable to Christians he is seen as inciting terrorism.   I feel genuinely sorry for the average Muslim trying to live their lives according to the Koran in Australia.    From my observation it is little wonder that many Islamic don’t want to involve themselves in mainstream Australian culture because we can be so ugly in our racism.   Marking Time, a four part drama, filmed on ABC, 10.15 Saturday, reflects how the average Australian reacts in spite of, or because of, their good Christian value system, to Muslims in general.   And as for learning “English” and Australian Values?  Who could define that with our Multiculturalism and the fact that poorer immigrants don’t come from countries who predominately speak “English”….. but Great Britain, Americans, Israelis and some part of Europe do, leaving vast numbers of Muslim Africans and Middle Eastern folk out of the equation.   Discrimination?

Last weekend I was invited along to a BBQ get together with a range of ALP Members.   I was urged to attend, but instead chose a drive into the country.   I was afraid of my own anger should I come face to face with a number of people I have spent four years writing to about a variety of topics, including Choice and Dignity in Dying which is invariably treated as “Voluntary Euthanasia”, with the standard line; “When it is raised in Parliament I will consider your views as expressed”.  Now it is an election year I have a purpose for the Party, but where are they when I need support from them as my elected Representatives?

I want to scream “S***, do you people ever give a straight answer to my questions?“   Many politicians don’t even know the difference between asking for the right to have one’s Advance Directives honoured in Law by Parliament, to sticking a needle in one’s arm to die just because we’re having a bad day! 

Most tell me who my sitting Member is!  and tell me my concerns have been referred to “the appropriate Minister, Ms Bronwyn Pike (Health)”  as if I don’t know these fundamentals!  Admittedly the responses are getting less and less as my name is obviously now on file as a “trouble maker” invoking a response on a subject which every politician would just love to have to go away.  My last letter (100 in all)  which cost $100 alone in postage, along with the commercial printing costs another $100 received just three responses…..I would like to think they didn’t all hit the rubbish bin though, and have been kept for future reference by some long sighted politicians.

I have to keep reminding myself that some politicians (surely more than 14 of 88 Victorians together with 12 Victorian Senators) believe that the concept of allowing people the option of a hastened death is at least worthy of serious consideration.  

One of the disadvantage of being a “nobody” is that it is very difficult to get the politician’s ear!.   Without wealth, fame, or even a special talent and as for my pedigree….as I explained to unknown relatives at a recent funeral, our branch of the family was definitely from the wrong side of the tracks!…..a mother who couldn’t “mother”, and a father, who mistook his daughters for additional conjugal  romps…..badly educated and poorly treated by a successive group of Catholic institutions, but I survived!   My background is definitely “blue collar” class and yet I don’t know any more that I belong to the Labor Party, as I foolishly understood its Charter to mean for the working class person.  

—————————-

This morning in response to Senator Amanda Vanstone’s public stance on Voluntary Euthanasia,  Weekend Sunrise, Ch 7, conducted a 3 minute discussion group:    Should Someone Close to Death be Allowed to Choose How they Go? Co hosted by Lisa Wilkinson together with Larry Edmur, their guests were Glenn Wheeler of Radio 2UE of Sydney and Rebecca Le Tourneau, Social Commentator.

Glenn Wheeler spoke strongly in favour saying he thought it a good idea.   That we never asked to be born, being the product of procreation ourselves it was fair to have a right to leave, to chose death with dignity should the need arise,  

Glenn thought that Amanda Vanstone was incredible brave and gutsy to come up with the need for debate.  He felt there was a real need for discussion.  He was right out there in front of the discussion and it was obvious that he’d informed himself of why people felt so strongly in favour of it.   Glenn input was all the more precious to me because he was so articulate in his conviction of its need, without being motivated from a personal experience.  

Larry asked if Governments were in a position to involve themselves or was it just too personal?  To do with the Heart! (?)

Rebecca replied, agreeing with Glenn, that Senator Amanda Vanstone was doing something that Politicians needed to do – that is, bring up a subject that is of major debate in the community and to continue to bring it up as long as it takes to arrive at some sort of solution.   She said there must be some resolution in dealing with the misery of watching a person die and addressed herself to Lisa as someone who had experienced the pain of this first hand.

Lisa told us that her father had had the morphine upped to the extent that they all knew the outcome would be death and she was comfortable with the steps taken to relieve his pain.   Law reform was required, Rebecca said, if only to establish the legality of doctor’s actions.

Again the discussion focused on those who would kill of “granny” for her assets, but one must not lose sight of the fact that in relieving granny of her pain, the assets she leaves have ceased to hold any value to her.  Her end of life choice would be one in favour of a good death.  Those people (relatives) charged with the decision making that could see their compassion misunderstood, under an enduring medical power of attorney could be easily avoided by making the individual’s Advance Directive having the same legal status.

(A Medical Enduring Power of Attorney is some one else’s choice for the patient, the Living Will or Advance Directive on the other hand is the patient’s choice for themselves.    The MEPA could create drama and indecision within families – the AD is unqualified in its interpretation.   My chest reads Do Not Resuscitate  Thank You, V E Member.  No confusion whatsoever – I don’t want a little bit of resuscitation depending on how I feel on the day.  I do not want to be resuscitated regardless of the severity of my condition, and although my wishes hold no legal status whatsoever it is indicative of what I want for myself.    As a granny my children are welcomed to benefit financially from my death with my blessing,  as long as they respect my wishes for my end of life choices.  This “ruse” is the guilt and blame game used by the anti euthanasia groups without consideration of the benefit to the dying person being the highest priority).

As always, the discussion revolved around genuinely needy people with illness, as distinct from depression. (?) (Some people would see depression as an illness that needs as much sympathetic consideration as cancer…. I’ve suffered depression and I’ve suffered cancer, and in my humble opinion…..the pain of depression can’t be equated with the physical pain of cancer and its aftermath….Depression can be controlled by sticking to the medication, even with its side affects, sorting through what works for the individual….chemical imbalances need to be balanced – but with physical illness the very body itself is working to destroy the very essence of its being.)

Dr Philip Nitschke was filmed with his computerized medicinal machine, of ten years ago with a shot of Mr Dent, but was not part of the discussion panel.  For once there was no mention of the “Doctor Death” tag which is so demeaning I feel.

Quite correctly it was pointed out that there was a general consensus within the group of four that there was room for realistic acceptance of the need for legislative change for choice and dignity in dying.

Normally I would not have been watching television at that time of the morning but I was grateful for the opportunity to hear the discussion as a result of a phone call and thank Channel 7 for profiling the ongoing needs of the chronically and terminally ill.   This was after their screening the All Saints Drama Program from last week dealing with Casey, a fifteen year old dying of muscular dystrophy.   The young man’s wishes were the least considered when it really mattered!

Three letters from the Melbourne Age dated today:

(1)    The Oregon way to death with dignity

Leslie Cannold (Opinion 20/9) rightly draws attention to the law in Oregon, which allows doctors, under strict safeguards, to prescribe medication that will hasten death, securely and with dignity, if taken by the patient.

This practice is scrutinised by the Oregon Health Department which publishes an annual report.   There has been no abuse of this process in eight years.

There is an average delay of 39 days from obtaining a prescription to using it, and 40 per cent of people obtaining a prescription do not use it.

In other words, the prescription does not encourage people to take their own lives, but it gives them control over the end of their lives – an important palliative benefit

Dr Rodney Syme, President Dying with Dignity Victoria

(2)   Prolonging Life

Studies have shown that when voluntary euthanasia is available to patients, they have actually lived longer.   The psychological benefit that comes from knowing that the future isn’t something to be feared is very significant.   And I am a living example of this.

I am only 40 years old, yet suffer significant medical problems arising from a brain injury including untreatable severe chronic pain.  I use to fear for my future, especially as my health was deteriorating with each year and I’m at higher risk of a cancer and dementia recurrence.

But that burden was lifted when I heard of voluntary euthanasia; it quite literally injected “life” back into my life and now I have nothing to fear.   And the psychological benefit of this just can’t be overstated.

I. Grey, Glenhaven, NSW

(3)    Just too dangerous

What Leslie Cannold and so many euthanasia advocates fail to grasp is that the debate over euthanasia is not about protecting the rights of people who want to die.  It is, and must be about protecting the rights of people who do not want to die.   Unless there is some concrete guarantee that one person’s ability to choose euthanasia  will not jeopardise another’s choice to live – a guarantee Cannold fails to provide – the right to choose euthanasia is a right we cannot justify or afford.

Alice Muhleback, Carlton North

Choice responds to Ms Muhlebach’s comments by asking the question, should a suffering person in severe pain be less worthy of consideration in their right to die, as another person who has a right to live.  Their individual “rights” is theirs alone and therefore,  do not by definition impinge on each other.   When one talks of “guarantees” we have no such thing for our safety when we cross a road, drive a car, jump out of an airplane, step outside our house, or even leaving our beds.  

Nothing in life is guaranteed except the fact that we will die!     How we die, is subject to the rights of the living, not the dying! and I define living as a state of happiness and wellbeing to the extent that a person actually enjoys the ability to get up and face each day with a degree of joy and anticipation.   Not always in the best of health, but able to face the day with a degree of pleasure.

Perhaps Ms Muhleback could be reminded that those of us who lobby for change are doing it for ourselves.   Only those who complete an Advance Directive, or Living Will or Respecting Patient Choices Options would be taken into consideration for their own wishes to be honoured and respected in law.    What is dangerous in respecting choice and dignity in dying for those chronically and terminally ill and need to know that there are methods that will make their dying easier than could otherwise be the case?!

Dangerous is the emotional trauma undertaken by the fear of dying badly, by a botched suicide, by a long drawn out illness with only death as the prize at the end of it…..Fine for those who see suffering as soul enriching for the hereafter, but there are as many of us, who concern ourselves only with the here and now.   This life, this world, this timing, and this dying!   Only this life and this dying matters to many of those who seek to lobby for change.  

It is only Just Too Dangerous when we do nothing to relieve ongoing suffering because then living, become a torture which is to be endured…..and we don’t let a dog be tortured without shaming and consequences.

Alternatively there is the Medical Enduring Power of Attorney which places your wellbeing at the discretion of a third party.   This can be difficult because the “Appointed” then has the pressure of family to contend with and the differing scenarios that family tensions can create at a very difficult time.    The most important person would be the least able to “fight” for their rights.

One solution would be the compulsory requirement that all people must place on an official form, linked to Medicare Records,  what they want to have happen to them should they become comatose,  even if to state I AM HAPPY TO CONTINUING LIVING REGARDLESS OF MY STATE OF HEALTH.    One method,  my wish to die under certain conditions,  would not be confused with Ms Muhleback’s wish to live on, regardless.

 (a week later and much has happened!)

September 14 diary entry recorded a letter I sent off to the Green Guide.   However on publication September 21 my letter had been edited to omit the most important point I intended to convey to its readers

Letter to the Green Guide Editor:

The published letter finished at the word “participants”!….. Was the editor deliberately “dumbing down” the seriousness of the subject matter or my writing was such,  that its message was lost?.  I worked really hard to contain my letter to the required 70 words and yet trying to convey the importance of “Casey’s” POV being the least one considered by the end of the program. My communication skills definitely need refining when even the Editor misses the point!   “Assisted suicide gone wrong” was discreetly removed!

———————-

During this past week I have involved myself in the medical emergency involving my own family coming to the conclusion last night with a safe delivery home from hospital.  Fortunately dying was not one of the options!

A perfectly normal day spent doing what families do…socializing, lunching, chatting, saying bye see you later – then late afternoon that dreaded phone call – great pain – get over here please!  Followed by, “don’t park there now, ambulance on the way, severe chest pain!  “flat on the back in the lounge room I could just remember seeing my mother in exactly the same position all those years ago and thought “shit!”…..

Ambulance arrives within 10 minutes, 3 Ambos, headed up by Ben….very competent men, calm and calming…..First hospital choice on Bypass so second choice it is and I was to follow by car, having been reassured it is unlikely to be a heart attack.   I was expecting to be bringing the patient home after some hours of observation!……

Five hours later I was very concerned because the confusion caused by the morphine had not deteriorated and I had answered the same ten questions a hundred times.   “Instant” Alzheimer’s Disease, sprang to mind and I thought some people live with this scenario every day and I knew I couldn’t!     Patience was never my middle name and after 4 hours plus I felt exhausted and worried…..I knew “dying” was not my fear for them,  but “loss of sensibility” appeared to a very real concern.   That it had been  a stroke!  Minor strokes don’t always show up on a brain scan.    One advantage I had though was,  having been in the patient’s company for all but three hours of the main part of the day, I was able to keep the medical staff fully informed even when all was forgotten by my nearest and dearest. 

I was to leave the hospital emergency alone – and still worried about the lack of diagnosis.   I made an executive decision not to worry the rest of the family unnecessarily about my fears,  and those expressed by the medical staff until something concrete could be established.

Returning home at 11.30 pm I made myself an omelet and drank the glass of red wine which had remained untouched all those hours ago.   I was a little peeved that my partner had gone to sleep without waiting up for me but then common sense prevailed and I knew I had to contain my frustrating fears about a possible stroke until the morning.    First light I rang the emergency dept to establish whether our patient was lucid, “yes, and now on the way to the toilet”.   But I was horrified to be asked the minute I walked into their room, to be asked “What happened, what am I doing here?”   After three days only the first one remained a blur!

The staff at the major Melbourne Hospital, were very professional both at the Emergency and Ward levels.    There was none of the “panic” portrayed so dramatically in television series.   There was a sense of everything is under control even when things were confusing, with the patient totally incoherent and unable to articulate the symptoms.  All the patients were treated with respect and attention as required.   Although some were on “corridor trolleys” I am sure no one felt ignored.

I learnt as an observer how drugs can affect a person, and it was scary stuff.   I wondered why anyone would put themselves knowing into an uncontrolled drug regime to order to achieve “a high” or whatever else it is that people become addicted to.   And yet, honestly I have to admit I am addicted to sleeping pills!   Even with them I can’t always sleep past five hours!

I viewed a TV program a while ago which highlighted that the pharmaceutical companies are leaving antibiotics alone now to concentrate on providing resources for chronic illnesses rather than curing them, I remembered the words of the CEO of the American Drugs Company that 40 years treatment with Parkinson’s Disease,  as being seen as more profitable to shareholders.

As I sat the first hour in the Emergency waiting room a couple of people came in that made me quite uneasy.   The constant movement as they walked around and around the seats……the going in and out of the automatic doors….their inability to sit still….I was grateful I had a park under lights and I admonished myself for being fearful for my own safety, a feeling I rarely experience.  I was aware of the burly security guard behind the tinted window marked “Security” in big black letters and was grateful for his presence.  I think about where our society is headed with a security guard required in a hospital foyer – not a bank, with money, but a hospital for dealing with really sick people.

The diagnosis was finally given as an allergy to Lipitor, a cholesterol reducing chemical resulting in a mild form of acute pancreatitis or alternatively,  an inflamed pancreatitis which would eventually correct itself by replacing the offending drug.

————————

Storyline Australia: Documentary “After Maeve” filmed last night on SBS told the story of a 10 year old Maeve Coughlan who died after being hit by a car.  It told the story of her short but very full life and how her parents coped with the death of a child.  The mother, Robyn being a paediatric emergency physician, and the father, Frank a social worker,  made them the ideal messengers of how best to cope with the loss of a child, itself an horrific thing to have to face I can only imagine.  

Maeve’s potential to go on in life was demonstrated at every level and the pain of the father “being responsible because he was supervising Maeve at the time” (fixing a bike puncture on the side of the road)…. the “if onlys” were sorted through and dealt with.   The mother’s pain was palpable,  and was the father’s as he opened up the Christmas gift already carded in anticipation by his daughter some weeks earlier.   Beautifully filmed in part on location in Ireland,  showing Maeve is specific poses,  and then the family, on a return trip alone with her death and their memories…. She was just so bright and restless to learn and do stuff!

Robyn the mother, could have made Frank, the father feel even more devastated by allocating “blame” but her common sense prevailed and allowed her to understand that his grief matched hers at every level and together they could support each other.   I thought what a wonderful lesson in “forgiveness and understanding” that what will be, is! and that there is no purpose in tearing each other apart after the event.

I liked the concept of Maeve’s friends continuing to frequent the house and play as they had done prior to Maeve’s death and the mother’s ability to allow the children to feel they could choose what they’d rather do.   The magic of “make believe” took me back to my own childhood and the ability to block out the realities of my pain through imaginary,  unlike Maeve who appeared to have the perfect childhood.   She would have died quickly and without any regrets.   

Her younger sister had little sense of loss after the event.  A surviving child must have made her ever so much more precious, to parents who had married at 30, rather than their 20s…….

The parents developed a website to assist children to cope with dying which was developed to some extent by her friends.   I agreed with the opinions expressed to the mother, that put simply, we can’t make that other place “too attractive to children” so that they might want to join Maeve.   The scene of butterflies being popped on a stretcher and being winged away to be healed was a little confronting for someone of my atheist beliefs but all in all, I thought it extremely touching and “unstressing” in explaining death to children.   I have provided the website details under Additional/Related Readings/Children & Death from the Promotional article.

Between viewing Steve Irwin’s emotional and touching farewell taped for me,  and then to watch “After Maeve” I had the tissues out a lot yesterday!…. I thought Steve’s Memorial Service was ever so slick – just a slight touch of American pop but the Australian content with Hey True Blue reassured me, that we were dealing with an Aussie celebration of life.   Steve was never going to grow old living the life he chose….. 

From a Deliverance Newsletter (sent to yourchoiceindying.com by a contributor) with an appropriate response from Choice.

My last blog entry was about the notorious Philip Nitschke introducing his “peaceful pill” suicide concoction at the World Federation of Right to Die Societies bi-annual convention. I almost missed this little factoid in the news report about his appearance. “After a year of trials, the group has synthesized the barbiturate [in the suicide pill] into crystalline form. It is being tested for contaminants in an Australian laboratory. Once they get the assay results later this month, the barbiturate — named the Peanut Project (peanut is an American street name for barbiturates) — should be ready for use, Nitschke said.” (My emphasis.)
Excuse me: But how does one conduct “trials” of a suicide pill? Did Nitschke kill animals with the concoction? Did he give it to people? I repeat: How does one test a suicide pill? Can someone explain to me why journalists so often fail to ask the most obvious questions? 

———————–

Choice says in response: The peaceful pill would have had a number of volunteers lining up to test its potency. It is, Mr Smith about wanting to die voluntarily due to circumstances considered by the individual as no longer endurable in life,

Until one experiences the pain of a chronic or terminal illness no one else can judge the individual’s capacity to endure the suffering caused to both their body and mind, and those who care for them.

The doctor was trying to make the point that choice is the right for the individual to the extent the peaceful pill should be as readily available in supermarkets (only an “idiot” would have taken the comment literally!) Dr Nitschke was reminding us of the difficulties facing extremely ill people when they are required to undergo rigorous psychological testing to prove they are sane and not “depressed” because some of us would rather be dead than continue living a life without purpose. 

Or we do our homework prior to the event of dying because we’ve had some experience of what may lie ahead for us because of what we have experienced in the past.  There is no purpose to the lessons provided in life if we don’t learn from them by the time we are dying.  

Anticipation of an event is as meaningful a journey as the actual event, and the anticipation could last just as long.  In the case of our death, which hide as we might we won’t escape, I would rather do it as a dog on the vet’s table than in a hospital room hooked up to a respirator while my nearest and dearest hovered concernedly with about this is as good as it gets!!   The pill is not called “peaceful” for nothing….it has earned that name because it creates a sense of peace for the individual concerned.

With the same fervor you disagree with Dr Nitschke, there are thousands who support him…..it is called democracy – the right to be different! We still have that!    And yes, in the context the voluntary euthanasia groups,  support dying with dignity,  by means of a hastened death, for the ill and infirmed we want to right for ourselves.

I can’t apologise to a Right to Life person for wanting my “Right to Die” treated with just the same enthusiasm as theirs,  by those who can make the difference, the Politicians.   We are different people with different needs to be treated with different legislation.

Letter to the Green Guide Editor:

 Watching “All Saints” I appreciated its social message in this week’s episode dealing with “Casey”. A fifteen year old boy wanting to die due to Muscular Dystrophy since the age of six. Assisted suicide gone wrong.     The Drama was well researched, focusing on the differing belief systems of its participants. “Casey” lived on because his dad wanted him to “experience him longer”,” Casey’s own POV was ignored. This outcome needs legislative change!

Such a brief letter because it was limited to 70 words on request but with such a story line!   I found myself using expletives I usually don’t use in my frustration at the outcome, but which is the reality of so many incapacitated people who have no voice that is heard!

The story line in the Green Guide ran To the Ends of the Earth, “A father is forced to make a heartbreaking decision about his seriously ill young son.”   The wording gives no real indication of the topic expected within a Hospital Drama on Channel 7.   I did respond on their website to give kudos to the Producers for telling the current status of issues arising out of the right to die “debate”.

I am providing a précis of the story here but I do hope many people watched it themselves and follow up on its potent message, that of the patient’s right to choose their own end of life choices, or the lack of it currently.

Screened September 12, To the Ends of the Earth an “All Saints” episode portrays the story of a botched assisted suicide attempt, where the father playing “Paul Taylor”, father and full time carer of “Casey”, a boy who has suffered an aggressive form of muscular dystrophy.  MD is a disease which causes the muscles to progressively deteriorate until the person is completely helpless.

Casey had been diagnosed at the age of six and at the time of the Drama was aged 15.   Too young to be permitted to make choices for himself in law.   The boy had lost 10 Kg in recent months , had at least six different drugs to take daily, was unable to move without assistance and generally had no quality of life to look forward to.   Statistics provided a possible five year survival rate for his condition at the most.  In Casey words “if he should be unlucky enough”.

The opening scene is of Casey arriving in Emergency closely followed up by Dad.    It was quickly established that he’d received an overdose initially thought to be an accident, then admitted by the father as a result of the request from his son to be “allowed to die”.

I learnt that there is a drug available NX8 (?) which can and did reverse the effects of the overdose once it was established which medicine had been used.

Having been revived, Casey was extremely angry and upset with his father, for not keeping his promise to kill him.   Father was mortified but unrepentant.   

The storyline was so well structured,  because very little religion was permitted to intrude into the discussions that took place between father and son, son and health care workers, father to the health care workers,  the doctor with the nurses, and the nurses between each other.   It was a great cross section of feelings verbalized about how important any decision impacts on another person.

In his defence the father told the nurse he’d changed his mind about calling for help in spite of the suicide pact “because he wanted to experience more for his son” and even expressed the opinion that perhaps meeting “a girl would make him want to continue life”.  At this point in the story, I understood he neither stood in his son’s shoes with his suffering knowing his physical condition would make him too tired for normal human reactions to kick in for relating to sex, and that he, the father, did not love his son sufficiently to put his needs before his own.)  

It takes extraordinary courage to assist a person totally incapable of helping themselves to die, and I’ve no doubt it takes extraordinary courage to ask for that help in the first place. 

The initial request for assistance had come two months previously when swallowing became impossible for Casey.   He’d cried with the pain of the physiotherapy, and even its approach made him cry in anticipation of the pain it would create for his frail body.

The father when asked about the value of counseling to develop coping options, played a good role in his response. “What strategy is in place to develop coping when your son asks “if you really love me, you will do this for me”, how do you cope when your loved one is lying in agony – begging you to help them die”?     Sometimes the talking must stop!

One nurse asks the son about his schooling and he quite rightly asks why should he be schooled?   He had no future – 5 years if he is unlucky he said, so requiring education was not an issue for Casey.

Another nurse tells Casey that “perhaps he’d asked too much of his father”.   The son then makes a request of the nurse to help him die as a disinterested person, she neither has knowledge of him or loves him.   She assures him that making life comfortable is all that staff are able to do!    The nurse then tells the other staff that Casey had asked her to kill him and the ensuring discussion then takes place between the differing staff views, the usual “Can’t Play God” and “Why not, we treat animals humanely”.

The Doctor steps in and tells all of them how it is.   The subject is complex but there are rules of engagements that health care workers can use addressing each line as it is arrived at.   The perennial “slippery slope” line was muttered.   The nurses (3 of them) listened as the doctor spelt it out for them.   The first line is when you draw up a lethal dose of morphine, you look them directly in the eye, then watch their eyes close as their heart beat drops, the monitor line flattens, you don’t call for assistance and then you walk away.  The doctor then asks the nursing staff “which one of you will do that for Casey?” and all eyes dropped to the ground.

Casey tells his Dad that he’d tried to stay strong for him but that he couldn’t take it anymore.   Son takes a turn for the worse and Dad has further choices to make.   Let nature take it’s course is one option, do nothing except make Casey “comfortable”, or resuscitate and allow him to continue to live.

The father wavers, decides to allow his son to slip into a coma and die.   At the last second father changes his mind yet again and demands his son be resuscitated.    Staff immediately jump to do the father’s bidding and for Casey his pain and distress continues.

 Both provided a “No Guilt Option” – it was not suicide, it was not assisted suicide, it was nature taking its course without medical intervention.

The final scene of Dad sitting by the son’s bedside cooing a nursery rhyme to his comatose son was a compelling argument for the law to be changed.    The Health Care Workers had the tools at their disposal to permit a good death for “Casey”, the Father had the Law at his disposal to meet his needs “to experience his son a little bit longer” but where in all the story line did the sufferer have the legal tool of “Respecting Patient Choices”

From the expression on the faces of the health care workers they’d been given an insight into the reality of Casey’s ability to tolerate his pain and understand his motives for wanting to die, but by then it was “too late”.     Very strong acting provided “belief” in its message.  

I understand fully that it was a dramatized TV version of how is for the frail, chronic and terminally ill.   The really unfortunate outcome of the drama lived out in All Saints Emergency Department,  is a genuine example of some people’s health circumstances.

The “patient” was a boy of fifteen, unable to make an informed legal consent for himself.  His opinion was not valued and yet people of his age become parents on a regular basis throughout the world.   Too young to decide his own fate and yet not too young to have procreated a child under Mother Nature’s Law of Ability to Reason sufficiently to be responsible for life’s greatest role – that of birthing a life.

The least heard was “Casey”, the individual suffering patient, who should have been the most important of all.  

The article relating to the 14 Victorian politicians is available for reading under Additional/Related Readings/Political elsewhere on this website together with my comments.

Interesting though,  on another track, is an Age Article (Opinion 15,  07/09/06) headed “The Manner of death can change forever our view of a life” regarding the death of Steve Irwin.   An article written by Alan Attwood which quite aptly described how when one’s time has come to die, there can be better ways than others and appropriate too!.    I thought yes, yes, I know what you mean Mr Attwood and if only we could bring that logic into the euthanasia debate and change the circumstances from a happy go lucky, extremely healthy Australian doing what he loved best, dying quickly in an environment he was at one with, to the reality that is the majority of deaths for Australians.

Dying slowly in a hospital usually of illness, be in chronic or terminal,  dragged on by fruitless tests and procedures, is the lot of the average Australian death.   Very few get hit by the “proverbial” bus!   Mr Attwood makes the connection “that whilst tragic, Mr Irwin’s was a good death, preferable to a long and debilitating illness”.    Amen to a quick death in preference to a slow one!   The sadness experienced by the  suddenness of a quick death is invariably tempered with the satisfaction of knowing the person did not suffer.   

However along with a preferred choice in dying, we make choices in living,  and when Mr Attwood addresses the subject of the little known Nguyen

 Van before he faced execution in Singapore last year he spoke of a kind of nobility arising out of his enforced death because he demonstrated stoicism.   I could not agree with Mr Attwood’s sentiments of a “brutal death” in that Mr Nguyen created his own outcome when he knowingly trafficked drugs for profit.   Drugs which create the living hell of addiction for those here in Australia that curse the necessity to live each day seeking its whereabouts.  

As reported in the AGE (pg 14) 070906,  2148 people were executed in 22 countries – In 2005, (1770 in China and 60 in America).   A year of Government sanctioned killing equates with about three months bombings in the Middle East.   Australians can be so pious about imposing the death penalty on people who have by their actions forfeit their own life – without that same piousness translating to the innocent civilians and even “soldiers” defending their own homeland from the enemy perceived as invaders.  

 ”Inconsistency over executions rebounds on Australians”  is the headline but lets not forget the execution of the war victims when feeling so paranoid about the imminent demise of Australian drug traffickers.   Already around the dinner table is the general consensus that these Australians will not be shot or killed in Indonesia  but if they’d been Indonesians doing the crime, the average Australian could not care less.  

Australian lives are seen as more precious than most others in the world, but it is also Australian lives that those nine couriers would have destroyed had their mission to import been successful.   I would agree there is contempt for Australia by Indonesia because we are choosy about which actions our Government involves itself in for political gain.   eg Mr David Hicks is conspicuous by his lack of support by the Australian Government as distinct from its people,  and he hasn’t had the benefit of any legal system to judge his innocence or otherwise.

The Australian Government has been assessed by the Indonesian Government and we have been found wanting.   The drug traffickers knowingly did what they did and should pay the price accordingly.   The Indonesia Government has every right to run their legal and justice system without interference from Australia, but are coy enough to know they will be able “to call the shots” because they have their diplomacy skills down pat when dealing with a Government that is selective in its protection of its citizens.   The condemned are guilty of a crime caught on camera.   Based on this, David Hicks should then be perceived,  as at least equal to, or if not superior, to expect his Government to defend his rights for real justice.

It is about the value of a life depending on its colour, race or creed!   

Like Mr Nguyen, the “Bali Nine”, peddled death for profit!   They knew the rules of engagement when they entered Indonesia, they knew and broke their laws, not because of a need for Nembutal or the like for personal use due to serious health issues involving only themselves,  but to profit from the pain of addiction in others.

And then we have the odd doctor, nurse, relative, friend who is tried and convicted of murder or manslaughter for trying to assist a seriously ill person to an easier death.    Where is the sense of justice in implementing Australia Law, when drug couriers are seen as more worthy to defend than a person demonstrating genuine compassion?

The use of legal resources funded to defend drug couriers in Indonesia against those pitted in haranguing  a compassionate person assisting a dying person to a good death.   Both could be better used in the education field for our children.  

A rarity for me I actually purchased the Herald Sun last night because two people had told me of two letters responding to Mr Ferguson’s article already previously discussed,  and a brief article regarding support of 14 Politicians publicly for legalising rights for the terminally ill.  

If only it was just the internet, the Suicide Related Materials Law was introduced to prevent – but the laws makes it illegal to hold a telephone conversation, or fax, or email, between friends and that really does smack at censorship for a non victim crime.   Forms of communication hardly open to the general public between like minded individuals communication.  Talking “about”  what is essentially,  a legal action, is itself, illegal – from my POV this is a stupid law and should be rescinded. 

Both view points have their merits, but until the law provides the civilised solution of a medically assisted program, botched suicide will continue at 30 failure rate to 1 successful odds!   Not good odds if one was a betting person, but we are not dealing with horses, just desperately ill people in the main.  Even as people attempt suicide knowing these odds, their desperation behooves them to try it anyhow.    Yet a compassionate society condones the withholding of the very information (and legislative change)  that would avoid the anguish arising out of the bungled attempts.     

Youth will survive attempts, the ill, on the other hand will just compound their pain and incapacity,  if they can’t succeed the first time.   Information is vital in the right hands and under the auspices of organisations such as Exit & DWDV.  They are in a perfect position to assess the worthiness of a person’s legitimate claim of “intolerable pain” for Pro Choice participants. 

Letter No 1.:

Brave Words in Parliament:   Surely it is the individual’s right to have as much (or as little) knowledge as they require about suicide.

If people want or need to commit suicide they will do so, but under much more stressful conditions than necessary if this knowledge is withheld.

Sandra Kanck (“A Dying Cause”, September 5) must be a brave person and in touch with what the majority of ordinary people want.

Beryl Campbell, Garfield

Letter No 2:

Patients in Control:   John Ferguson (A dying cause”, September 5) makes two fundamental mistakes in his assessment of medically assisted dying.

First, he seems to equate the position of Philip Nitschke as representing the dying- with- dignity movement.

Dying with Dignity Victoria, representing more than 2000 members, does not support the Kanck/Nitschke position of apparent support for suicide advice on websites.

We also oppose the development of “D.I.Y” methods that eliminate medical assessment from assisted dying.

Second, there has been a significant shift around the world from doctor-administered lethal injections, to Oregon-style legislation that allows doctors, in clearly defined circumstances to prescribe medication that the patient self-administers if their suffering becomes intolerable and unrelievable.

In this situation, control remains in the hands of the individual, not the doctor.

Dying with Dignity supports this approach.

Dr Rodney Syme, president, Dying with Dignity Victoria

 (part two)

Mr John Ferguson’s emailed response as follows:

hi mary,

john ferguson

John Ferguson’s response to my second email which is much more intelligent than his first one.   From his comment that suffering is a central part of life I can assume he is a Pro Life advocate which explains everything about his inability to empathize with genuinely physically and chronically suffering people.    He tells me to “go away” and for him I will do as he asks,  because there can be no communication when minds are closed, at this level. 

Pro Life & Pro Choice cannot meet amicably with any sense of a meaningful outcome.  Like “faith”, you either “believe” or you don’t.  Research has shown that until circumstances happen, no one can foresee their individual reaction to a disaster in the making.   Prayer assists those who believe in its power, for others pure science holds the power, and for some it is a mixture of both.

Euthanasia is not wide spread in that only 40% of doctors support the concept, meaning the majority do not.  That leaves a lot of people enduring their terminal illnesses over a very long period of time.  My own pain levels told me an hour can seem like a lifetime when one is within the cycle of pain intensity.   Nerve damage can be excruciatingly painful.  Not to mention the loss of dignity experienced with being attended to from your bum to your mouth when most of your life has been lived independently of others to such a degree so no training is in place for us to accept this loss without intense mental pain.

Physical pain usually results in mental health issues because of the insecurity of knowing that it may not get any better,  than what one is experiencing right now.  The knowledge that this is as good as it is going to get usually results in “depression” because the opposite is happiness and who in their right mind can be “happy” with this knowledge.  If feeling no joy in suffering intense pain because “it’s a big part of life” and  “an enormous opportunity for growth” then for some of us Mr Ferguson, we don’t want to grow any more! we just want relief, albeit permanent relief from the pain ongoing and without hope of survival to continue leading a meaningful existence.

Who defines what “mental health” is?  but let’s be quite clear about it – it is not the sole prerogative of the young and otherwise healthy to have their rights for protection enshrined in law.   There are just as many elderly frail and very ill people who too have a right to be classed as “vulnerable” but unfortunately do not have the capacity of youth to bounce back into having a life worth living.  

If Mr Ferguson refers to people suffering from illness such as schizophrenia,  needing protection then medication is able to “fix that” but for many, no amount of medication will “fix them” unless it is in lethal doses.  Like the man says, I know nothing of his family and he too knows nothing of mine.   However suffice to say that the will to live is just as strong in those suffering a mental illness as it in those who believe in Pro Choice.   In fact, it is my considered opinion without any medical training but from talking to some on the streets that their will to live is stronger than many undergoing and yes surviving chemotherapy.   It is about the individual’s interpretation of their ability to survive and endure, pain.

No one should have to take a “back seat” to any one else’s choices in their end of life struggles, just having their own choice respected as their legal entitlement would be what most people would want.

Strange the differing points of view, Mr Ferguson sees my comments as offensive and ignorant, when that was exactly how I felt about his, but was too polite to say so.   I don’t usually resort to offensiveness but I did find his article extremely offensive and spoke in defence of a cause I believe passionately in.    Choice for the individual!

John Ferguson’s”Response”  from the Herald Sun Newspaper, to my email of yesterday, received the same day.“sandra kanck is beyond defending”

——————

and my response to his was:

 “sandra kanck is beyond defending”  (no definitive clear thinking involved in this response, no signature)

I can’t resist asking “is this a computer generated response because he does not have the professional ability to articulate his own response to the indefensible?”

Mary Walsh
www.yourchoiceindying.com

The man is a journalist (?) writing in the Herald Sun and. I feel I can say reasonably confidently “move over Andrew Bolt”  if this is the level of his “journalistic”  capacity to articulate words that attack the individual rather than the subject matter.

I can imagine that many good people use illegal drugs, prescription drugs, along with alcohol, cigarettes and countless other substances that are injurious to health.   Dying is injurious to health but people should still have the right to chose their path in life by the very nature of having been given a brain that allows us to make choices accordingly.

Senator Kanck is facing the reality of how people live their lives without being sanctimonious about the virtues of it.   Suicide will not be prevented because of the Suicide Materials Related legislation, it will merely make it more unpleasant to achieve, and I am the very first to acknowledge this fact. 

Many Pro Choice advocates do not support Suicide – and I would prefer legislation that makes it unnecessary but along with Senator Kanck I am facing the reality of what is, not what I’d like.  

Dying with Dignity Victoria does not condone suicide, preferring the more arduous route of trying to have legislative change adopted by Parliament.   Unfortunately, age and illness do not permit many of us to wait so very long for the politicians to ponder over this “serious and contentious” subject because we are dying in the queue waiting for decisions to even be debated least of all, actually made into law. 

One of my bigger disappointments has been the lack of legality in a document touted as “Respecting Patient Choices”.  I support anything that alleviates unnecessary pain and suffering whether the illness be chronic or terminal – sometimes pain is just so overwhelming death is a good alternative.    That is the reality for some.

For pain of the heart, pick up the phone, ring a friend – trust me, you’ll get over that sort of pain!

But for those with a pain caused by disease eating away from inside outwards, without physical and official support – how does one eliminate its impact?    

——————–

I came across this verse elsewhere on this website and thought again about its inspiring message:

Use What Talents You Possess: The Woods will be very Silent, if no Bird sing Except those who sing the Best.     (Henry Van Dyke)