SUBMISSION TO THE INQUIRY INTO THE RIGHTS OF THE
TERMINALLY ILL BILL. 2008
The 1997 the Andrews Act was remarkable in overturning the Northern Territory’s The Rights of the Terminally Ill Act. The territory law founded on the will of the people was expressed in a parliament of the nation.
We agree with Bob Brown’s Rights of the Terminally Ill repeal bill of the Andrews Act on two counts: firstly that the ROTI bill gives the provision for people who are terminally ill to have the option of ending their lives, and secondly because it respects he right of the people of the Northern Territory to make their own laws for hemselves as they see fit.

The VESNSW (ACT Branch) has as its aim the support of a right for the terminally ill to seek to end their life when pain becomes unbearable and there is no reasonable hope of cure.

There are many in the community who would seek a wider right to end ife at the terminal stage. According to a poll conducted last year by the VES NSW eighty percent of Australians support a right to voluntary euthanasia. It is virtually certain that the proportion among older people is higher; and as the people most concerned their view should have force.

The time has come for our elected epresentatives to start to take account of these facts.

Bob Brown’s Rights of the Terminally Ill repeal bill also draws attention to the fact hat the constitution allows the Federal Parliament to make laws for the territories.

The constitution is an old fashioned document which many would agree badly needs mending in many ways. From the point of view of those living in the territories the exercise of the constitutional law at times when the Federal parliament arbitrarily chooses is an insult. It undermines territorians right to make laws which they believe
to be appropriate for them. It makes a mockery of their democratic rights.

If the Federal parliament agrees with this bill it will indicate that it recognizes the ights of people in the territories to make their own laws and it will also indicate that it recognizes that the community in general supports voluntary euthanasia.

I urge the Federal Parliament to repeal the Andrews Act and support the Rights of the terminally ill (Euthanasia Law Repeal) Bill 2008.
Jeanne Arthur

 Submission to the Senate Committee inquiring into the Rights of the Terminally Ill Euthanasia Laws Repeal) Bill 2008.

As President of the Northern Territory Voluntary Euthanasia Society, I welcome Senator Brown’s bill and strongly support its passage. Our Society is unique in that it was ncorporated after voluntary euthanasia legislation had been passed and now is prohibited rom lobbying our government for legislation for euthanasia, the main goal of a voluntary
euthanasia society.

Our greatest wish is for the Rights of the Terminally Ill Act 1995 ROTI) to be restored.

Judy Dent
27 March 2008

Submission to the Senate Committee inquiring into the Rights of the Terminally Ill (Euthanasia Laws Repeal) Bill 2008

As President of the Northern Territory Voluntary Euthanasia Society, I welcome Senator Brown’s bill and strongly support its passage. Our Society is unique in that it was incorporated after voluntary euthanasia legislation had been passed and now is prohibited from lobbying our government for legislation for euthanasia, the main goal of a voluntary euthanasia society. Our greatest wish is for the Rights of the Terminally Ill Act 1995 (ROTI) to be restored.

As the widow of Bob Dent, the first person to use Marshall Perron’s “most compassionate piece of legislation” (my husband’s words), I want to see Senator Brown’s legislation passed. Getting his piece of paper signed by the necessary three doctors gave my husband enormous peace of mine. Opponents say good palliative care obviates the need for euthanasia but even good palliative care becomes burdensome. When the terminally ill person reaches the stage where he is still alive but no longer living, the chance to use ROTI gives much comfort. Palliative Care Australia now concedes that even with optimal palliative care, the desire for euthanasia remains. ROTI was the first euthanasia legislation in the world. Now other jurisdictions have similar legislation; none is compulsory, safeguards are in place to prevent abuse, there is no evidence of the slippery slope alluded to by those who are against such legislation. To them I say, you don’t have to worry, this is one law you can safely ignore if you want to.

As an Australian citizen who chooses to live in the Northern Territory, I resent being demoted to second-class citizenship by the passage of the Euthanasia Laws Act 1997.

Even if I did not believe in voluntary euthanasia, I would want the self-government act restored to the status it had before Kevin Andrews’ private member’s bill was passed so that the people of the territories have the same rights as the people of the states.

Judy Dent

I have done a cut and paste off the NSW Right to Life site as the only source of gaining further information about this book, The Quality of Mercy, published in 2004, was purchased by me this week (2008) in a Chadstone store.

Ross Anderson admits to ‘mercy killing’ his wife on Mother’s Day 2002 – (Australia’s own Leslie Martin)

Australia’s Ross Anderson has done similarly to New Zealand’s Leslie Martin in admitting in a book of how he killed a loved one – his wife, Irene. His book “The Quality of Mercy” was released on Friday 7 May, just before Mother’s Day. The police have read the manuscript and have interviewed Ross. No charges have been laid at this stage.

A compelling tale, but one that will hopefully enable us to put the case yet again, that if some should be permitted to kill or assist in the killing of others (no matter how compelling or compassionate any individual case may be), there could be no adequate safeguards to protect the rest of society from it.

RTL e-mag Editor’s Note: If you should wish for any further details about the case or the book (hard copy or electronic), please reply by e-mail to dccotton@nswrtl.org.au

I believe the book would be quite hard to obtain (there was one left on the shelf) and should anyone contact dccotton at the NSW RTL office as suggested above I can’t imagine that they would give up any information contained within the book easily.

The reviewer within the RTL has said “a compelling tale, sic no matter how compassionate any individual case can be, etc”….Ah well, thank goodness I don’t have to live with a person who holds such draconian and narrow viewpoints.   Of course there can be adequate safeguards, but one does have to open up their minds to new possibilities before the safeguards can be implemented.  Making sure one doesn’t go to a hospital when terminally ill is a very good place to start when one considers their options to “die well”.  We could end up in a Right to Life hospital by default because the Respecting Patient Choices documentation still has no legal status in law.

Effectively we lose control of our dying process the minute we become part of the palliative care system in both private and public hospitals.  Before we enter the admissions we have no way of knowing the health care workers preferred religious or moral status of allowing choice for the individual.   To the person who reviewed the book, the nursing is not about a compassionate and “there but for the grace of God, go I” approach….It is all about inflicting one person’s moral views on a person dying to be free permanently of the suffering brought on by the dying process…and in particular the intolerable pain of many cancers.

I smiled as I read of the Anderson’s Prayers, their shared belief in another life after this one has passed.  That Irene would be thanking Ross for his efforts on her behalf, watching over him to ensure no harm comes to him because of his proven love for her at the expense of his own freedom should the law be administered to the letter.   I don’t believe any police force or Judge would waste Australian taxpayers dollars in trying to achieve a conviction in this case.

There was no malice of forethought involved in this case and one only has to think about a woman weighing 25 kg at her death to know that she had no quality of life to fight the fight any longer.

Any person who read the book and remains unmoved by the implications of Mr Anderson not assisting his wife to die is so heartless as to render even me speechless.   I felt every minute of their shared pain over three years of horrendous suffering with death so close and yet lingeringly so far away when you’re living in that moment….

Mr Ross Anderson author of The Quality of Mercy,  can rest easy knowing he kept the three wishes made to Irene in 1999:

1    Not to send her to hospital to die

2    To enable her to commit suicide with assistance so they could spend as much time as possible with each other to the end of her life.      She had not the physical strength to endure the activity involved in committing suicide by herself, and together husband and wife were able to plan to make the most of every day.  Because the load of pain inflicted by a young person dying was a shared responsibility.

3    And lastly to spread the word in favour of assisted suicide preferably with the help of the medical profession so as to avoid mistakes and stuff up with trying to die without sufficient knowledge or tools.

I didn’t get the opportunity to thank Mr Ross Anderson for being such a wonderful inspiration to partners of the terminally ill for those who chose to leave this earth sooner rather than later.   My husband would not have done for me, I am absolutely sure of it.  That there are folk who take the risk of putting love for another, even above their own freedom says a lot about the depth of those many “I Love You” that this couple shared.

In his closing chapter, Ross Anderson tells the reader he is under investigation for murder, but hopefully the RTL won’t have any glee in seeing this man suffer any further.   He has “done his time” well and truly already!

I’ve been awake for hours, first listening to the welcoming rains belting down on the roof…perhaps three really good downpours.

I’m feeling very philosophical wondering where I’m headed in the twilight years of life.   I suppose what has triggered both my early rising and my pensive attitude is preparing a submission for the Senate Hearing currently being organized.

An inquiry into the Rights of the Terminally Ill (Euthanasia Laws Repeal) Bill 2008.  The Bill, a private senator’s bill introduced by Senator Bob Brown proposes to repeal the Euthanasia Laws Act 1997 to allow the Northern Territory, the Australian Capital Territory and Norfolk Island to make legislation for people who are terminally ill.

A number of people I’ve met still think the Northern Territory legislation is applicable and that the Rights of the Terminally Ill are paramount in people’s minds.

80% of people interviewed by successive Morgan polls,  throughout Australia believe in the right of individuals to choose to die with dignity.  

Successive State Governments have refused to address the issue outright with legislation because of the powerful lobby groups within the conservatives, such as the Catholic Church who regard life as absolutely untouchable.     “ In God we Trust”  America has the death penalty with 3000 awaiting execution but that’s somehow different.   The life of a soldier, civilian in a war torn country or a prisoner is not the same life, –  that is applicable to a terminally ill person – somehow it becomes so much more precious because a person is sick and frail and may even want to die!

The States already had the right to implement legislation but are yet to do so.  Had Victoria implemented the ROTI Legislation, the Federal Government would not have been able to interfere, but because the Northern Territory does not have autonomy in the strict sense of the word, the Howard Government with the help of Kevin Andrews was able to overturn the NT’s wishes. (With the able assistance of Mr Beazley)

 In Victoria, Mr Kennett had intended to put forward legislation after seeing how the NT legislation worked in a practical sense.  Unfortunately on that count, Mr Kennett was swept from office as Premier by a very real conservative in Mr Steve Bracks who wholeheartedly concurred with what the Howard Government had done federally.

I am hoping that Mr Brumby (Labor) will be more accommodating in meeting the needs of Victorians when a Private Member’s Bill is introduced by a Liberal colleague in the foreseeable future.

I’ve typed up my Submission and put it to a couple of “experts” on the topic for validation of my thought processes.   I’ve remembered sleeping on the back seat of my car, lost in Canberra without petrol while attending another Senate Hearing a couple of years ago.

I wonder what drives me to put so much of myself into what I believe in, whether it be choice and dignity in dying, local issues or perhaps the most important role of all that I play in our society, that of a mother and grandmother.  I have a sense of urgency about important issues that won’t be denied.

It is just after 6 am and I’ve already been awake and active for four hours.   It is perhaps healthy for my state of mind that today I meet up with ex work colleagues of some ten years ago, in another life, with standard of work ethics that I both understood and appreciated. A good meal, good wine, good company and no angst….nothing “I have to involve myself in” ……..

I read all the stuff that the Glen Eira Council issues in the name of Information, I look at their words and their statements about community involvement and it just all seems so shallow and wasted space because they don’t live their own Mission Statement…..

I looked at the response of the last public question I asked of the recent Council Meeting and look at the methods taken to avoid the real questions…..I wonder why it is that residents have to be left feeling so powerless in a democracy.   I read emails of frustration from Community Leaders who want to make a difference and share the same feelings of futility about where life living in Glen Eira is taking us.

Just the other day, I was talking to a good friend about Council Issues and he finished the conversation with “now we’ve both managed to depress each other”….

Is this any way to live?   Ah well, perhaps I can work on promoting legislation that helps me die well!

No diseases for old men

Pneumonia used to be called “the old man’s friend” because it often brought a fairly swift and painless end to a life that was already of poor quality, and would otherwise have continued to decline. Now a study of severely demented patients in Boston area nursing homes shows that the “friend” is often being fought with antibiotics. Such practices raise the obvious question: are we routinely treating illnesses because we can, rather than because we ought to?

The study, carried out by Erika D’Agata and Susan Mitchell and recently published in the Archives of Internal Medicine, showed that over 18 months, two-thirds of 214 severely demented patients were treated with antibiotics. The mean age of these patients was 85. On the Test for Severe Impairment, where scores can range from zero to 24, three-quarters of these patients scored zero. Their ability to communicate verbally ranged from non-existent to minimal.

It isn’t clear if using antibiotics in these circumstances prolongs life, but even if it did, one would have to ask: what is the point? How many people want their lives to be prolonged if they are incontinent, need to be fed by others, can no longer walk, and their mental capacities have irreversibly deteriorated so that they can neither speak nor recognise their children? In many cases, the antibiotics were administered intravenously, which can cause discomfort.

The interests of patients should come first, but when it is dubious that continued treatment is in a patient’s interest and there is no way to find out what the patients wants, or would have wanted, it is reasonable to consider other factors, including the views of the family and the cost to the community. Medicare costs for beneficiaries with Alzheimer’s disease were $91 billion in 2005, and are expected to increase to $160 billion by 2010. (For comparison, in 2005 the United States spent $27 billion on foreign aid.)

Moreover, D’Agata and Mitchell suggest that the use of so many antibiotics by patients with dementia carries a different kind of cost: it exacerbates the growing problem of antibiotic-resistant bacteria, putting other patients at risk.

Pneumonia also has not been able to play its friendly role for 84-year-old Samuel Golubchuk of Winnipeg, Canada, who for years has had limited physical and mental capacities as a result of a brain injury. Golubchuk’s doctors thought it best not to prolong his life, but his children, arguing that discontinuing life-support would violate their Orthodox Jewish beliefs, obtained a court order compelling the doctors to keep their father alive.

So, for the past three months, Golubchuk has had a tube down his throat to help him breathe and another in his stomach to feed him. He does not speak or get out of bed. How much awareness he has is in dispute. His case will now go to trial, and how long that will take is unclear.

Normally, when patients are unable to make decisions about their treatment, the family’s wishes should be given great weight. But a family’s wishes should not override doctors’ ethical responsibilities to act in the best interests of their patients.

Golubchuk’s children argue that he interacts with them. But establishing their father’s awareness could be a double-edged sword, since it could also mean that keeping him alive is pointless torture, and it is in his best interest to be allowed to die peacefully.

The other important issue raised by Golubchuk’s case is how far a publicly-funded health care system, such as Canada’s, has to go to satisfy the family’s wishes. When a family seeks treatment that, in the professional judgment of the physicians, is not in the patient’s best interest, the answer should be: not far at all.

If Golubchuk’s children can convince the court that their father is not suffering, the court might reasonably order the hospital to grant them custody of their father. They can then decide for themselves, at their own expense, how much more treatment he should have. What the court should not do, is order the hospital to continue to care for Golubchuk against the better judgment of its health care professionals. Canada’s tax-payers are not required to support the religious beliefs held by their fellow-citizens.

Peter Singer is professor of bioethics at Princeton University and the author of, among other books, Animal Liberation, Practical Ethics, One World, and, with Jim Mason, The Ethics of What We Eat.

Copyright: Project Syndicate, 2008.

www.project-syndicate.org

 Talking of the previous article!

It is our life Mate!  Dying can be a voluntary action taken by an individual to meet their circumstances!  The onus is the word “voluntary” so why do so many people have trouble with the concept of voluntary euthanasia???

http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/chantals-terrible-tumour-doesnt-have-last-word/2008/03/21/1205602642850.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1

“You cannot leave families, the ill, in such dramatic situations with no way out. On the other hand, you cannot create a right to die, a right to
death,” he said. “That would be contrary to our principles and our values.”

__._,_.___

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=539574&in_page_id=1811

Grandfather builds gun-toting robot from Internet and kills himself to
avoid care home
Last updated at 12:04pm on 19th March 2008

A grandfather who wanted to end his life built himself a gun-toting
robot with plans downloaded from the Internet and used it to kill himself.

The bizarre suicide machine was set up to remotely fire a .22 semi-
automatic pistol – and when the 81-year-old man activated it he was hit
several times in the head.

Police refused to name the man, who lived on Queensland’s Gold Coast,
but last night confirmed the death and that an ‘unusual device’ had been
used.

It is believed that based on internet plans he devised a method of
setting up the gun on a platform and then used a remote control which
activated the trigger on the gun.

He had positioned himself in front of the weapon in his driveway so that
when it fired he knew he would be struck in the head.

The man, who lived alone, left notes describing his intentions to kill
himself as he struggled to come to terms with demands by relatives, who
live in another state, for him to move out of his house and go into an
elderly persons’ home.

According to the local Gold Coast Bulletin newspaper, which was given
details of the unusual suicide, the man’s notes explained that he chose
the driveway to activate his home-made robot because he knew there were
tradesmen working next door who would find his body.

His plan worked – when the workmen heard the crack of gunshots they ran
to investigate. It is understood the weapon was loaded with four
bullets, all of which were fired by the robot.

It is difficult to find instructions on the internet on how to make a
gun-firing robot, but the elderly man is understood to have spent many
hours carrying out research on his computer before he found a way of
constructing a device.

One internet page – complete with photographs and instructions -
describes how a man was able to attach a toy gun to a remote controlled
model car.

He then built a special switch on the car’s remote control device which
could be operated to hit a target with the gun on the car.

Sophisticated gun-firing robots – a variation of remote-controlled
bomb-defusing devices – have been used by the US military in Iraq.

The first three “armed combat robots” fitted with large-caliber machine
guns proved so successful that 80 more were ordered.

Professor Judith Murray, a senior psychology lecturer at the University
of Queensland, said less unusual suicide devices were usually used by
people who wanted to euthanase themselves but did not want to involve
others in the illegal act of.

Dr Philip Nitschke, who invented the world’s first euthanasia machine
using a deadly cocktail of drugs, said he had never heard of such an
“extreme and bizarre” case but it highlighted the need for those who
wanted to end their lives legally to be able to do so peacefully and
with dignity.

__._,_.___

http://news.theage.com.au/qld-man-suicides-with-homemade-machine/20080319-20fz.html

“Many of these people are people that are finding themselves in a situation where they find death is the preferred option but they have no access to anything more peaceful and certainly there’s no legislative way out.”

Mary’s commentary:

How unfortunate for those members of the public to have to view death in such a manner.   Suicide will always be a fact of life and death, and it behooves governments to ensure legislation is in place that allows people to end their lives with dignity.  Which ever method the “desperate”  choose, physician assisted dying, would enable a more dignified end to long lives that have grown tired with the waiting.   Sickness, loneliness for an era long past, bad health ongoing, a lack of energy, a sense of freedom whatever the reasons, the cause to end it,  will make people look for alternatives to living!

15 March 2008 from Pressemitteilung (Austria)

 http://www.pr-inside.com/author-pratchett-considers-euthanasia-r484046.htm

AUTHOR PRATCHETT CONSIDERS EUTHANASIA

2008-03-14 08:22:46 - 

  Beloved British author TERRY PRATCHETT has refused to rule out euthanasia as he battles Alzheimer’s disease.
The writer, 59, – who announced he was suffering from a rare form of the disease in December (07) – says medically-assisted death is an option for people battling the degenerative disease.
He says, “My view is that when there is clearly no ‘me’ left, whatever else might be left, then painlessly disposing of the remnants would be a sensible idea.” Meanwhile, Pratchett – who this week (ends14Mar08) donated $1 million (£500,000) to the Alzheimer’s Research Trust – is determined to continue writing.
He says, “My plan is to do two more books. I believe that should be possible and hope I will do more.
“But the moment it becomes physically difficult and too problematic then, well…”