Letter to the Editor Northern Territory News appeared on April 22, 2008

Death can be Dignified

To Ed of Humpty Doo. ( A small town situated not far from Darwin)

Sorry to hear of your suffering friend. Many people bear their agonies till their days are up and long after they have been totally reliant on the selfless love and service of others. This doesn’t make them die with any less dignity than those who chose otherwise.

It can actually show a lot of courage and beauty of their souls and should bring opportunities for family, friends and volunteers to show unconditional love which can bring lasting peace that helps in the grieving process when they finally depart.

It is sad that the Northern Territory News put the Christian Lobby’s comments across in a provocative manner in order to get a response from people that would see them as meddlers from another planet.

As Christians they know very well the suffering that Jesus willingly endured for every sinner whether we love him or loath him.

His death and resurrection are recorded in many historical archives (besides the bible) and none of the bible has been proven untrue even though millions have tried to prove so over the centuries.

It is a sin of ignorance to let this law be passed so that people can take their own lives before gaining the hope of eternal life, where every tear is wiped away and pain doesn’t exist and where peace of heart can be found for the rest of our days here and now – whether in sickness and despair or in abundance of blessings.

Yvonne Pratt, Wanguri, N.T

And a reader’s response the following day:

Yvonne Pratt:

Where do u get off preaching about ur religion 2 all?!

How dare u inflict what I can only assume is guilt upon those that are suffering immensely!

I’m Christian too, but every1 deserves to have the right to end their suffering if they chose.

If ur a big believer that it’s wrong, then don’t do it!

Simple!

Kim, Winnellie, N.T.

And my commentary to them both:

Lordy, Lordy, Yvonne, your passion for your faith system is commendable for you and I do hope it manages to sustain you when your time comes to “suffer” Implementation of the policy tends to sort out the chaff from the wheat. Both useable commodities in their own right, but not together – rather like oil and water. Both valuable and precious, depending on whether you are drinking it or running your motor car on it.

“It can show courage and beauty of the soul!!!” to suffer………I don’t care about being courageous or beautiful while dying. I want it to be swift and painless…..

My “soul” will be even more beautiful for the peace a hastened death grants me! and my family will appreciate that I took measures to protect them from watching me die very slowly, and not as my mother did before me. Eyes rolling, tongue lolling sideways as she dribbled unconsciously for 14 very long days……..There was no beauty to be seen in her soul and my soul was gripped in agonizingly pain and despair witnessing the death of a strong woman who had ceased to live long before her last breath was taken. Life support systems I believe is the terminology used for imposing life on people when death is preferable.

Knowing my mother, she would have been mortified to have finished her life in such an undignified death. Like me she always thought that her wish for a hastened death could be honoured by the health professionals when the disease is obviously terminal. Now we have to have a law to protect people like us from people who hold Yvonne’s views.

It is a sin of ignorance Yvonne to believe that all people share your belief that there is an “eternal life”. My sister and brother both believe it, however, I don’t.

In the last Australian census I believe 29% of people were said to have no religious belief. I cannot force myself to believe in what is fundamentally an unproven assumption, but for others it is a comfort to have another force to rely on, blame, intercede or bargain with. Prayer does still the soul but does it mend the body? If the physical body is reliant on the peace and serenity of the soul then perhaps for Christians prayer is solely their tool of trade, but not for cynics such as myself. Prayer has no place in my life whatsoever.

Eternity is not for me and I have no interest in cultivating an education that would assure me of its existence. I believe firmly in the here and now. I believe that when one is dead, there is absolutely nothing to follow on – but that is only my belief system for me!…I have no desire to be one of billions of people wandering around in the presence of either God or the Devil (both mythical ideas without one shred of evidence to prove anything at all)

Science, not faith saved my life and I am not one to stand around prepared to suffer because it is helpful to the friends and relatives to have something “to do” in looking after me. Compassion translated into what I would do for a sick animal is good enough for me, it takes courage to relief an animal of its pain also but in the name of humanity we do it!. The very fact that Australians first, race to a doctor and not to a Church,for relief from both pain and suffering is an indication of which method works best.

No Yvonne, the Christian Lobby group is not from another planet, unfortunately, if they were we’d be able send them home. Instead they are a group of self opinionated Australians who believe in a set of programmed morals which they seek to impose on the rest of us is the only version of morality worthy of consideration. With the same zeal that over zealous Muslims are condemned for their wanting to kill the infidel, Christians seek to impose their version of Mohammad’s Islam on non believers. It doesn’t work like that.

With the same fervor you hold for your own beliefs you think yours in the RIGHT one for me, and yet I am not you. I have my own set of principles and morals and as both a Member of Liberty Australia and a Humanist, I am honour bound to allow people to differ from my POV.

You have at least understood that people who chose a hastened death do not die with less dignity than those who rely on their faith to carry them through the pain barrier to everlasting peace and serenity. Some of us just don’t want to be stalled at the red lights waiting to be allowed to die, sometimes for many Christians; even faith doesn’t warrant the ongoing suffering to be endured. Christ on the cross hung for six hours, not six weeks, or six months….He was dead and buried by sundown as was the custom for Jews of the day. (if the bible is to be believed)

Kim of Winnellie, in my humble opinion has got the right attitude for a Christian to have. Simply do for yourself what you believe to be right but don’t drag all Christians into your sanctimonious belief that suffering is anything but shite!

Mary Walsh, Melbourne

Just recently I acquired the book A Good Death, which I am yet to read fuly,  but on flicking through its pages the first thing I noticed was how easily the words flowed.   It was as if Rodney was holding a conversation with me.

Needless to say the first chapter I looked for was to do with Steve Guest page 231 – 244 with the final sentence dealing with the aftermath, Doctor Syme advises the reader “my journey has almost run its course”.

I am sorry to delay your retirement even further Rodney as if you’d really choose the garden or a good book in preference to the ageing bodies in need of your compassion and intelligence to see things for what they are.   Your journey I believe is still a few stations from the destination, and knowing you, the time will be put to good use in the meantime.

I’ll come back to the book of course, as its very easy to read, obviously with a more mature eyesight in mind, the homework was thorough.

Currently the book is available for purchase from Dying with Dignity Victoria.    Its costs from DWDV including postage is $32.95 which is discounted from what the store price will be when it comes onto the general market

I  love that on the pleasant green cover immediately under A Good Death is written “An argument for voluntary euthanasia”.

A summary from the book’s cover follows:

A Good Death is Rodney Syme’s compassionate and candid account of the many terminally ill people who he has assisted to end their lives.

Over the past thirty years Rodney Syme, at first clandestinely and now publicly, has challenged the law on voluntary euthanasia, risking prosecution in doing so. He again risks prosecution for writing this book. A Good Death is a moving journey with those who came to him for help. It is also a doctor’s personal story about the moral dilemmas and ethical choices he faces working within the grey areas of the law.
In this important book, Rodney Syme argues for the end of the unofficial ‘conspiracy’ of silence within the medical profession and the decriminalisation of voluntary euthanasia in Australia. Through his determination to tell the stories of those he has assisted to die with dignity, A Good Death also draws wider lessons of value for those who find themselves in a similar situation.

Rodney Syme has been in medical practice for forty-five years, primarily as a urological surgeon. He was Chair of the Victorian Section of the Urological Society of Australasia in 1990-92, and chair of the Urology Study Group of the Cancer Council of Victoria in 1992-94. He has had extensive experience with cancer patients and with people with severe spinal injuries. He has been an advocate for physician-assisted dying for nearly twenty years, and the President of Dying With Dignity Victoria for ten years.

Until assisted suicide do us part Glen Schaefer, The Province Published: Sunday, September 23, 2007 A unique intimacy can develop between filmmaker and subject in the making of a documentary. Spending days or weeks getting inside a life story can change the lives of those behind the camera as well.

That intimacy is onscreen in works from several Vancouver film-makers heading into next week’s Vancouver International Film Festival.

Past Oscar-winner John Zaritsky went to Switzerland separately with two couples, Vancouver’s George and Betty Coumbias and Americans Mary and Craig Ewert for his movie The Suicide Tourist. They came for that country’s legalized assisted-suicide: George Coumbias’ heart was failing and he and his healthy wife wanted to die at the same time; Craig Ewert was being slowly paralyzed by ALS, and wanted to die at a time and place that he chose.

The Coumbiases ultimately had their request turned down, but Zaritsky’s camera was there as Ewert and his wife met with the lawyer, doctor and social worker who approved and ultimately carried out Craig Ewert’s last wish. Zaritsky and his small crew were in the room as Craig Ewert breathed his last.

“It was the most intense experience of my life, the last four days in the life of a man,” says Zaritsky. The Swiss euthanasia support group Dignitas had put Zaritsky together with the Ewerts about 10 days before his scheduled death. Craig Ewert was a retired university professor living in London when his disease took hold. The couple met with Zaritsky several times over about a week before agreeing to let him film Craig’s last four days.

“Basically Craig and I swapped life stories,” says Zaritsky, whose 1982 film Just Another Missing Kid won the feature-documentary Oscar. “Craig was very careful about checking me out.”

Zaritsky filmed them last year at their London home, in a park, and on their last trip to Switzerland. “At that stage I knew how precious the time was that remained for the two of them.”

Craig’s appointment with death was Sept. 26, 2006.

“During the year I waited to find somebody to agree to this, there was a lot of [discussion] as to whether I should film the death or not. My response always was: For people to truly and fairly judge the experience, you have to watch the death.”

A Swiss social worker gave Ewert a liquefied dose of tranquilizers in a cup with a straw, holding the cup as Ewert drank from it, Mozart played on the CD, and Zaritsky’s camera rolled.

“It was certainly the biggest test of my professional life,” says Zaritsky. “I was concentrating, when I was in that room and he was dying, to make sure that I got the footage that I wanted. All the effects, emotionally and the trauma, occurred after the fact, because I couldn’t afford to have that, to be out of control.

“I knew that I had shot something very special and important. Usually after you’re done it’s a moment of triumph, but there was no joy. [The four-man crew] all went our separate ways, spent several hours in our rooms grieving and absorbing the experience. And it’s still there, you know. I’m feeling it again as the day approaches again, it’ll be his one-year anniversary.”

He later filmed Ewert’s memorial service and interviewed the man’s adult son and daughter.

The Coumbiases, meanwhile, had their request for a joint death turned down by Swiss authorities. Zaritsky has stayed in touch with them and with Mary Ewert. All three will be at Vancouver screenings of The Suicide Tourist.

 Choice’s Comments to the article above:

1. I am an advocate for choice and dignity in dying and living in Australia. I have participated in a documentary, Do Not Resuscitate filmed and directed by Davor Dirlic also of Australia. In this capacity a reader of my website thought that I may be able to influence Mr Zaritsky to have his documentary filmed in Australia by our international TV Channel SBS, which deals in a lot of overseas documentaries.

   I wouldn’t know the first thing about how such a thing is implemented and wondered if there was any direct contact I can make with someone in the industry.

   Davor Dirlic also filmed in DNR, a journalist (Steve Guest died 26 July 2005) going through the final stage of cancer of the oesophagus which was inoperable and I could imagine that he too had similar life changing attitude in watching a man he held in great esteem, die. I don’t think he actually filmed the death because it could have been misconstrued that Davor had assisted the suicide which is illegal in Australia.

   I appreciate that film makers take on the subject of voluntary euthanasia, eg Patient Directed Dying!…..It really gives the rest of us hope that eventually religion will cease to rule the world and that common sense lined liberally with compassion, will become the order of the day. Politicians too will also die so they may be grateful for an opportunity to prepare the way for its ease!

   While I respect religious views to be right of the individual themselves, I strongly resent their incursion into how I live and die for myself! I want just the same rights accorded to the 60 to 80% of the world’s population that has been surveyed on legislative change to be heard. I want choice for the individual.

   Does anyone know how I may be put in contact with the necessary people to have the film The Suicide Tourist, shown in Australia?

   Mary Walsh
   www.yourchoiceindying.com
   Australia

   Comment by Mary Walsh — April 22, 2008 @ 10:15 pm

I felt physically ill when I read the article published below,  from today’s News 4,  Age Newspaper, headed “Specialists split on euthanasia“.  It shows me that the very people who should the first the understand the level of pain a person can reasonably expect to endure as they slowly die, are the least sympathetic to the cause for voluntary euthanasia.

The report informs us that palliative care workers were generally more religious and therefore less likely to assist suicide.  No surprises there at all.  The more religious a person professes to be, the less likely their compassion.   I’ve had lot of personal experience in that field and speak with first hand knowledge.  Stay away from the Good Christians if you really prefer a hastened Good Death for Yourself.   Preferably stay out of hospitals, nursing homes or hospices if you want to ensure security of tenure over your own life’s ending.

Imagine only 1% of the 121 oncologists surveyed said they would assist a person within three months of dying, with adequate pain relief but no joy in living whatsoever being “extremely tired, short of breath and bedridden”….leaving a massive 99% who have developed a sufficiently hardened heart towards the dying individual who has no quality of life.   We euthanize sick animals with greater compassion than a fellow human being.  

What is wrong with a society that has lost its understanding with the leader of the AMA advocating in the Senate Hearing against Choice for the individual?   What hope as the 80% who want choice for themselves of a hastened death, with or without medical assistance….Is there any way we can by pass the politicians, doctors, lawyers, policeman and religious leaders and get straight to the drug makers themselves?   Or do we die badly by the self service method of hanging, poisoning, jumping in front of a fast moving bus, train, car….For me I can’t swim…..so water too is an option!     We’ve begged our lawmakers to listen, but another thirty years of refining legislation is too late for too many of us!

Mr Parker, Associate Professor of Medical Ethics at the University of Queensland and the author of the study as reported in the Medical Journal of Australia this week is “concerned” that some patients are permitted to die without their consent if they only have less than three months to live.   What planet does Mr Parker live on most of his days? , when as Professor of Medical Ethics he could also assume that ethically speaking the patients, if they could in their drugged and comatose state would welcome death.   

It should be recorded, coded and legally binding on our medicare cards that when there is no chance of recovery to anything resembling a normal life, that we have the right to be allowed to die by medically induced action.  

Leave the drugs with our carers who love us, rather than an unemotional detached health care workers who doesn’t give a damn about our peace of mind.   

I hope some genius attending the 20/20 Summit of the brainiest people in Australia remembered to represent those who seek choice and dignity in dying, because many of them also will one day require the services and expertise of a compassionate doctor..  

Date: April 22 2008
Julia Medew, Health Reporter

ANAESTHETISTS, obstetricians and gynaecologists are more likely to euthanase terminally ill patients with less than three months to live compared with other specialists, a study has found.

The doctors were also stronger supporters of sedating patients in their dying weeks and months compared with specialists who work regularly in palliative care such as oncologists and geriatricians.

Researchers from the University of Queensland discovered the contrast after surveying more than 1400 Australian doctors about how they would treat terminally ill patients in different circumstances.

The study, published in the The Medical Journal of Australia this week, found that 25% of the 169 anaesthetists surveyed would help a patient commit suicide if they had two weeks to live and pain that was difficult to control. Within the same group, 22% of anaesthetists said they would euthanase a patient with three months to live who had pain that could be adequately controlled but was extremely tired, short of breath and bedridden.

The next most likely group to assist suicide in the same circumstances were obstetricians and gynaecologists, with 21% of the 126 surveyed saying they would help the suicide of a patient with two weeks to live. For a patient with three months to live, 20% of the respondents said they would assist suicide.

In comparison, only 1% of the 121 oncologists surveyed said they would assist suicide in both scenarios. Similarly, only 1-2% of the 120 geriatricians surveyed said they would assist suicide for patients in both cases.

Associate Professor of Medical Ethics at the University of Queensland and author of the study, Malcolm Parker, said that while he could not explain the support for euthanasia and sedation among certain specialists, palliative care workers were generally more religious and therefore less likely to assist suicide.

“Their views are more likely to be based on religious views that it’s immoral to help someone die and that bringing about someone’s death is unacceptable.”

The study also found nearly 4% of the doctors surveyed would use drugs to hasten the death of a patient without their consent if the patient had three months to live and was extremely tired, short of breath and bedridden. Given such practices remain unlawful in Australia and patient consent is given great weight in medicine, Mr Parker said the statistic was concerning.

Choice Commentary:   I visualised Judy Bayless, the woman filmed with MS in Davor Dirlic’s documentary Do Not Resuscitate, as I read of Jenny Ringe’s dilemma.   It really does strike home when one sees the level of frustration and mental torture that afflicts a person with full faculties and the inability to use them.   Judy at home struggles with every step she takes, frequently dropping to the floor and crawls because it is easier than trying to walk.   The wheelchair is her constant companion, Judy too has difficulty with her hands, limiting her ability to eat as we in general society enjoy.   She too has difficulty in speaking and being understood….

It is entirely understandable that Earl Ringe weighs up his options about committing suicide to avoid a custodial sentence for assisting his wife to die.   In his shoes I would assist my partner to die, but I would call the bluff of the law makers to charge me with murder, seeing as it could never been proved I had “malicious intent”.   No jury of 12 people could agree that his actions were motivated by anything other than love, and that is his trump card.   The jury that consists of ordinary men and women who are not gripped by an incessant need to keep people alive beyond their endurance.

Interestingly the doctors have turned their back on the realities of multiple sclerosis, when faced with the human suffering this chronic illness has imposed on a luckless soul!….In the “TOO HARD” basket!, but this time its public…….so many others are behind closed doors…..unable to have a voice in the media.  

http://theherald.yourguide.com.au/printerFriendlyPage.asp?story_id=1226708

Saturday, 19 April 2008
I’ll die with Jenny
JOANNE McCARTHY

A MAN who promised to help his terminally ill wife end her life with dignity is considering taking his own life as well, at age 55, in part to escape a criminal charge over her death.

“If I went one way, with Jenny, I’d go the whole way with myself and that way no one could touch me,” Earl Ringe said about the plans made by himself and wife Jenny, who has multiple sclerosis, and the isolation of people who step outside the law by choosing euthanasia.

His public comments come just weeks before a NSW Supreme Court trial of Sydneysider Shirley Justins, 59, who has been charged with murder and aiding and abetting the suicide of her partner and Alzheimer’s sufferer, Graeme Wylie, 71.

Ms Justins’ friend Caren Jenning, 74, also is charged with murder and aiding and abetting a suicide.

Both women have entered not guilty pleas to all charges.

Mr and Mrs Ringe, from the Central Coast, had discussed the matter many times and Mr Ringe concluded it was “just something I would rather do with Jenny and go together”.

“Our doctors don’t want to know, psychologists don’t want to know, family members don’t know and when Jenny raised it with one of her case workers, she got a formal letter from a government department saying euthanasia was illegal and she wasn’t to discuss it with any of their staff again.”

The letter, in April 2006, noted the department “can’t facilitate nor support your choice in relation to your intention to end your own life”.

Mrs Ringe wants to end it.

“I’ve had enough,” she said. “I don’t want to have this bullshit disease.

“I’m not religious. I don’t give two spits about dying. Once I die, I’m dead.”

Mrs Ringe, 53, was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis when she was 18.

She is confined to a wheelchair, is clinically blind, uses a hearing aid, has technical aids and catheters for her bodily functions, speaks
with difficulty, has problems swallowing and using her hands and cannot balance.

Her condition had deteriorated markedly in the past year, Mrs Ringe said.

They have no children, though Mrs Ringe has two adult children from a previous marriage.

She has limited contact with them and her extended family.

Mr Ringe, who works three days a week, leaves his wife set up in her wheelchair by the kitchen bench when he goes to work, with the
television for company, a large and ferocious dog to keep her safe and drinks made up, which she sips from straws.

He comes home to feed her lunch.

Mr Ringe is taking anti-depressants because of the pressure of long-term
caring.

Mr Ringe hopes the final decision is some way off but Mrs Ringe said last week it would be soon.

Exhausted after an hour of following a conversation, Mrs Ringe nodded when Mr Ringe indicated the ability to speak and swallow might be the final straw.

Being cared for in a home was not an option for them.

They receive four hours respite care each week but Mr Ringe made a vow to his wife when they married 18 years ago.

“The other night I lost it a bit and said ‘I can’t bloody do this anymore’ and Jenny said ‘Just put me in a home’ but I promised her I
wouldn’t put her in a home and I never will.”

Euthanasia activist Philip Nitschke, who was in Newcastle last week for an Exit International workshop on assisted suicide, said the incidence of couples choosing to end their lives together was “not uncommon”, though the people tended to be in their 70s or 80s.

“It’s happening enough for me to take notice of it,” Dr Nitschke said.

Though 55 was out of the ordinary, he said it was not for him “to put onto others my opinion about whether their life is worth living or not”.

“It is far better that we listen to what they’ve got to say, rather than judge,” Dr Nitschke said.

 The article written in the Age newspaper dated April 17, 2008 was written by Nick Miller who is the Health Editor. It is a significant point I feel that the Health Editor is writing an article about dying well as a health issue.   It is one very important issue for everyone who will participate in the process sooner or later.

Quite rightly the Dying with Dignity Victoria organisation believes the time for talking should stop and implementation should begin.

In the original Age article there were two photos, one of a group of very seriously minded individuals and the other, unnamed, of myself bearing my tattoo.  I had not come dressed for the occasion but I did have the distinctive purple hat of Exit International fame showing My Life, My Choice which unfortunately was not shown at all.   This hat would have been visible above the large placard which I carried for three hours while sitting on the steps of parliament house.  The message “MY RIGHT TO DIE WITH DIGNITY” led me into discussion with both a Christian and a Muslim, which I’ll share another day.

Nick Miller

April 17, 2008

PETER Hammond still has a twinkle in the eye but his keen mind is trapped in a failing body riddled with motor neurone disease.

The 77-year-old wants to die on his own terms. Not just yet — but one day, not too far away, he will lose the ability to live life in any way that he feels matters.

Then he will ask his wife Mieke to take out the deadly bottle of barbiturates hidden in his house and provided, in defiance of authority, by Melbourne doctor Rodney Syme.

And then he will die, peacefully, in the hope that he will be one of the last in Victoria to have to sneak around the grey edges of the law to die in a way of his own choosing.

Mr Hammond is the new “star” of the Dying With Dignity movement. He was literally wheeled out for yesterday’s rally on the steps of Parliament where 200 greying Victorians urged support for a private member’s bill legalising “physician-assisted dying”, to be introduced this year.

He doesn’t see himself as a crusader. His battle with his disease is personal. “I am past my use-by date,” he slurs with a small smile. He started to lose his voice about 2½ years ago, and at the same time his neck muscles got weaker. It was the first sign of an inevitable decline. When he was told he had two years to live, he “cried and got angry all at the same time”.

“A neurologist prescribed a drug that would prolong the development of the disease,” he says. “I decided not to take it. “I have two dogs called Libba and Jack. If something is wrong I will take them to the vet and put them down. I believe that it shouldn’t be prolonged. Let’s get on with it. Let’s get on with it. Let’s get on with it.” He drags the repeated plea out of the depths of his heart and pushes it through his failing speech.

He saw his mother die over eight years after a stroke. He does not want to go the same way. That’s why he and his wife went to Dr Syme for help, making contact soon after he was diagnosed.

Dr Syme gave him medication last year. “When I get further degeneration, when I can’t speak at all, I can’t use my hands, I stop walking and my breathing gets worse, all the degeneration accumulating to a point of no return … goodbye Earth,” Mr Hammond says.

He is determined that laws won’t stand in their way. He wants those laws to be changed to legalise some euthanasia, though in a careful way that prevents abuse.

At yesterday’s rally, John Guest, the brother of Steve Guest, the oesophageal cancer sufferer who died almost three years ago with the help of Dr Syme, said it was the “second death” under palliative care in a “foreign and unhappy” hospital bed that had scared his brother most.

Access to a deadly dose of Nembutal perversely gave him a “new lease of life. He was still dying but he knew his death would be his,” Mr Guest said.

Dr Syme called on doctors to help patients in the same way he had helped Mr Guest and Mr Hammond, and to support a change in the law. “The law is a mess and more honoured in the breach than the observance.”

The Victorian secretary of the Australian Nursing Federation, Lisa Fitzpatrick, said it was a critical issue for nurses who were often begged for help by patients who wanted to end their life.

Liberal MP Ken Bass, co-sponsor of the bill, said he was trying to introduce the bill to Parliament but it was being held up by the Government, which said it wanted to give priority to a full legislative program.

Opponents of the bill were at the rally. Margaret Tighe of Right to Life Australia said laws allowing doctors to assist patients to die would be a dangerous step that encouraged the elderly to “get out of the way”.

Final Comment:

“come off the grass Margaret Tighe of Right to Life” even you don’t believe that the proposed legislation is NOT about the protection of the individual’s rights!    Understand once and for all, Ms Tighe that any legislation is about VOLUNTARY EUTHANASIA for people who unlike yourself see don’t virtue in sustaining life when death is preferable given its inevitability.

It would be interesting to see just how strong many RTL retained their voice against a hastened death in the face of motor neurone, muscular dystrophy, Parkinson’s Disease or any of the more agressive forms of cancers.

Not all who support choice and dignity in dying are elderly.  Many young people too,  have debilitating conditions that make death a friendly face.

 

 Wasn’t it a very successful rally folks?   I am so very grateful Mr Ken Smith, Liberal Member for Bass cosponsor of the bill, together with Colleen Hartland, Australian  Green’s Member for Western Metropolitan reaffirmed their commitment to introduce the bill.  I am also grateful to the  Victorian branch of the Australian Nursing Federation, Lisa Fitzpatrick who told the rally that it was a critical issues for nurses who were often begged by patients to be helped to die.

 Letter in Friday’s Age 18 March 2008

Dignity law danger

I SYMPATHISE with the many euthanasia campaigners who feel that they are dying without dignity (The Age, 17/4). However I do not feel that they recognise the consequences of a law allowing physician-assisted death. I am no expert, but when faced with an ill dying man and a sick child who may improve, I know who I would treat first.

Palliative care is extremely expensive, however, currently there is no other treatment for fatally ill people. If euthanasia legislation is passed then what hope for the underprivileged? It will be giving them a death sentence, because if you think about it logically, by killing one poor person a hospital will be saving money that can be spent saving many taxpayers’ lives.

I’m not saying all doctors will abuse such laws, I am just asking whether it is fair that in order for some people to have choice we must jeopardise people in society who need us most.

Jessica Zimmerman, Caulfield North

In response Jessica:

Is it so very difficult of people that when such comments are made by Jessica that invariably they failed to understand the absolute truth of the meaning of VOLUNTARY EUTHANASIA. That not only is it a voluntary act, that it is also a good death.

I am the campaigner photographed in that article with the words tattooed on my chest “Do Not Resuscitate”. I am ensuring that the piece of paper confirming my voluntary act to choose a good death cannot be misconstrued, or lost, or inferred I would ever change my mind!. I don’t want to be a little bit treated in my terminally illness. I want to be allowed to die! I don’t want to live by any half measure of existence according to any other person’s definition of life!

Dying has absolutely nothing to do with wealth! If there is a poor or rich old man who chooses a hastened death, because he is in the dying process which cannot be reversed due to the nature of his illness, then he alone should have the right and the opportunity to say “I want assistance to die”….The slippery slope Jessica has well and truly been bored to death!…

It is my living wish, that I die well. I would prefer to have the option of doing this with a medical solution which would minimize the distress my human body would feel in dealing with my mental capacity to cope at that a traumatic time in the final stages of life.

I would prefer for the sake of my loved ones I’m leaving that my parting could be sweet and easy given I am to die sooner rather than later. It is very stressful for relatives waiting for someone to die, but it is even more stressful to the dying individual living their life in gasping immobility!

I don’t want the added distress of an untidy suicide for my loved one to cope with, but at the end of the day, I am not to suffer intolerable pain when there is no light at the end of the tunnel.

Lawmakers have the opportunity to provide legislation which protects the interests of all parties! Bring it on! and Now!

Media Release 14th April, 2008: For immediate release
Glacial Investigation Keeps Death On Ice

Nearly 3 years after the death of Steve Guest , a journalist and former media adviser to the Cain Government in Victoria, the coroner still has not handed down a finding.

Steve Guest suffered intensely from cancer of the oesophagus and on the 774 ABC Jon Faine programme, publicly aired his intention to take his own life. He railed against those who would deny him the right to die his way and condemned those who preferred to see him die an agonisingly slow and painful death.

Police have investigated the death for nearly three years. They told Dr Rodney Syme, a medical doctor and prominent Melbourne campaigner for dying with dignity law reform, that he died of an overdose of barbiturates.

At a Melbourne rally last year (held to commemorate the second anniversary of Steve’s death), Dr. Syme told hundreds of supporters and the media how he had provided Steve Guest with advice and medication. He urged the Victorian Parliament to get on with enacting legislation to enable doctors like him, to respond to the requests of people like Steve Guest.

Dr Syme remains under investigation yet police have not re-interviewed him since that public statement. “I conclude the authorities hope that a glacial pace of investigation might effectively put the issue on ice” Dr Syme said. “But it won’t. No one can escape the fact that legislation significantly lags the will of the people. 82% of Victorians believe in the right of people like Steve to receive medical assistance if they choose to end their own life”.

The publicity surrounding Steve Guest’s death ultimately led to a Private Members Bill that is now being introduced into the Victorian Parliament. “It is similar to legislation that has been in operation for 11 years in Oregon without any abuse”, Dr Syme said. It allows, with very strict safeguards, a person suffering intolerably from a terminal illness, the right to request a prescription for medication (that they must ingest themselves) to end their own lives.

A 3rd-anniversary rally (themed “Lets Get on With It”) will be held on Wednesday 16th April (1-2 p.m.) on the Victorian Parliament steps. Speakers include:

• Steve Guest’s brother, John.
• Dr. Rodney Syme
• Co-sponsors of the Private Members Bill, Ken Smith (Liberal) and Colleen Hartland (Greens).
• Marshall Perron, (former Chief Minister of the Northern Territory) who introduced the Rights of the Terminally Ill Act into the NT in 1996.
• Lisa Fitzpatrick, Australian Nursing Federation (Victorian State Secretary)
• Prof. David Kelly, former Chairman, Victorian Law Reform Commission.

More information is available at www.dwdv.org.au, or phone (03) 9877 7677
Contact: Dr Rodney Syme (Vice President). rodney.syme@dwdv.org.au

---

The overwhelming majority of Australians believe in the right of the terminally
ill to seek and obtain medical assistance to end their life with dignity.

Dying With Dignity Victoria, Inc. Reg. No: A0006974B ABN: 80 591 186 892
3/9 b Salisbury Avenue, Blackburn, Victoria 3130
Web: www.dwdv.org.au Email: dwdv@dwdv.org.au
Phone: (03) 9877 7677 Fax: (03) 9877 5077

Clem Jones, ex mayor of Brisbane, allows for the work of the VE Societies to continue with a generous donation of $5 million dollars.  Sunday Courier Mail’s article of today by:
Daryl Passmore and Steve Connolly

April 13, 2008 12:00am

FORMER Brisbane lord mayor and philanthropist Clem Jones left $5 million in his will to fund a campaign for the legalisation of euthanasia.

The legacy was inspired by the experience of watching his beloved wife Sylvia suffer before her death nine years ago.”I saw Sylvia suffer the most dreadful agony from disease and illness that destroyed her physically and mentally and caused her to suffer day after day not only the pain, but also the indignity of being something that could not truly be described as a human being,” the will said.

“But Sylvia was only one of millions of people who are committed to varying terms of torture by their fellows.”

Dr Jones, 89, who died in December, never spoke publicly on the right-to-die issue, but the strength of his feelings are clear in the notes on his final wishes, made public yesterday by his lawyer, David Muir:

“If we have a definition of living of any sort, it cannot include the existence of people simply artificially kept alive against their will and in circumstances that can only be described as totally inhuman or, indeed, barbaric.”

Dr Jones instructed that $5 million be used “in whatever way” his executors see fit to help the “fine people” fighting to change the law so patients who choose to end their lives can be given ways and means to do so.

“I do not, of course, criticise the splendid endeavours that the medical fraternity make to preserve the quality of human life but when that quality falls to a level where life is one of pain and suffering – or when one’s mind can no longer function – those self-same medical practitioners should have the right and the responsibility of releasing persons from that torture, misery and indignity.”

The couple had been married for 49 years when Mrs Jones, 89, died in 1999. They met when she worked in his surveying office. After Dr Jones was elected mayor in 1961, the two philanthropists dedicated their lives to working for the city and charitable organisations.

With 14 years as mayor, he was the city’s longest-serving leader and earned the title “Mr Brisbane” through his vision and commitment to modernising Queensland’s capital.

He led the city through the devastating 1974 flood and was later called in to head the operation to rebuild Darwin in the wake of Cyclone Tracy.

He built a personal fortune, through property and shareholdings, worth an estimated $150 million.

It includes commercial and industrial properties in Cairns and Rockhampton, a prawn farm in Mackay, the Anchorage on Maloja luxury apartment development in Caloundra, the Shangri-La convention centre at Wynnum, a small shopping centre in Goodna and houses and units across Brisbane and the Gold Coast.

The investments will be maintained to generate income, with his will instructing the establishment of a Clem Jones Foundation to distribute $250,000 a year, rising with inflation, to a host of charities, sporting clubs, school bursaries and prizes and other philanthropic initiatives.

Suitable projects would include “things which enhance the lifestyle of the less fortunate including the sick, the aged, the disadvantaged or the handicapped.”

The will leaves $2 million to another cause very close to Dr Jones’ heart – an Australian republic.

The money will be held in trust for Mr Muir to use to campaign for a republic with a president to be elected by the people.

Mr Muir told The Sunday Mail yesterday that Dr Jones was a “passionate believer” in the model and he would do everything in his power to fulfil his wishes.

He was pleased to see Prime Minister Kevin Rudd lifting the republic issue up the priority list and the first step would be pushing for a plebiscite at the next general election on whether Australia should sever links with the monarchy.

Dr Jones bequeathed $5 million to stem cell research aimed at finding a cure for brain damage and the same amount to research for the prevention or cure of macular degeneration of vision.

His longtime support of the Brisbane Strikers soccer club continues with $5 million over 10 years for the development of youth soccer programs and a $1 million interest-free loan to expand the clubhouse at their Meakin Park ground. All loans to the club have also been waived.

Dr Jones was particularly passionate about supporting young people, especially disadvantaged youngsters, through sport and left $1 million to the Clem Jones Beenleigh Community Services and Recreational and Welfare Association to build a youth centre.

The existing Clem Jones Youth Centre at Carina and Clem Jones Home for the Aged at Bulimba will each receive $1 million – but only if the organisations amalgamate. And there’s a further sting in the tail, with Dr Jones stipulating that the use of all money given to the home for the aged must be approved by his executors.

“The reason for this is that in my opinion, the home has deviated from the philosophy on which it was established and it is not my wish to contribute further to highly paid administrators and the institutionalisation that such inevitably creates.”

Ongoing support will continue for dozens of organisations including YMCA Queensland ($100,000 a year), PCYC ($25,000 a year), University of Queensland department of sport $50,000 a year) and Women’s Sport Queensland ($10,000).

There will be annual scholarships of $25,000 to the University of Queensland and $10,000 to the University of New England, Armidale. A new $10,000-a-year bursary to be known as the Clem and Ted Jones Memorial, in memory of his father, will allow former Ipswich Grammar School students to undertake post-graduate work in pure or applied mathematics at the University of Queensland Ipswich campus.

Queensland Cricket Association will be allocated $2000 a year plus a $500 perpetual trophy.

Others include Foodbank Queensland and a program which provides free breakfasts for students at 27 schools in the Logan area.

Dr Jones’ will recognises a number of individuals who played an important part in his life.

Delia “Del” Townsend – who worked in Dr Jones office for years, chaired his company The Clem Jones Group and organised much of his charity sponsorship – was left $250,000 plus his shares in Shanlodge Pty, the company which developed the $40 million Anchorage on Maloja development.

The will also gives her free rental of a house in Camp Hill for life and any domestic or nursing or medical care she may need in future “in recognition of her devotion and assistance over many difficult years in my office and, above all, her personal kindness to me and Sylvia and to all those who have dwelt in the Clem Jones Home during her years of administration.”

For her “loyalty, devotion and dedicated service over almost a lifetime”, another longtime colleague and friend, Maris Osborne, will receive $100,000, an annuity of $24,000 per year and lifetime free rental of Dr Jones’ property at Quay West Apartments in the Brisbane CBD as well as living costs and future medical support.

Lung specialist Maurice Heiner, who cared for Mrs Jones during her illness was also mentioned in the will.

“Dr Maurice Heiner has been a friend of mine since his childhood days. Sylvia was very fond of him and when she became ill, he looked after her in a most wonderful way, giving her constant medical attention and comfort,” wrote Dr Jones.

“Since her death, Maurice has been equally kind to me with a friendship that is almost impossible to repay.”

Dr Jones will offers to build three units on the site of an existing property at Garfield Tce in Surfers Paradise, valued at $3 million-plus.

One would be sold, one retained by the foundation and one given to Dr Heiner at construction cost.

The will also contains a direction that the executors do what they can to establish a permanent relationship between Brisbane and its sister city Brisbane, California.

Dear Secretary and members of the Senate Committee 

 

With an eye on social justice issues, this indeed is a poignant and reflective time for me and hopefully a new moment in time where the long ignored repealed “NT – ROTI Act” is concerned.  When considering the upheld contemptuous past “Euthanasia Laws Repeal Bill” and with many people still coming to terms with the injustice of its enactment, I welcome the opportunity to have civil input into this pending Senate Committee Hearing.

 

 In addressing end of life choices to ensure both a life and death with dignity for all territorians, it was via the Northern Territory Governments desire for change to protect the most vulnerable in their society that saw the acclaimed Marshal Perron (ROTI – Act) pass into NT law in July 1995.

 

 As history will attest, the federal Government’s shameful repeal of the ROTI Act, unquestionably represented both a travesty in NT social reform and an infringement of the territories civil and democratic rights. 

 

At this juncture I wish to amplify that at no time prior to the past tabling  of the Kevin Andrews Private Members Bill re; “Euthanasia Laws Repeal Bill” can I recall seeing in any electronic or print media reporting, a public calling that necessitated such heavy handed Government interference.  In highlighting this and as the community at large had not called for such un-wanted repealing legislation and with some politicians disrespecting the will of their constituents, who were they listening to?

 

In reflection it was also an interesting observation that not one State or Territories had complained of their interest being morally threatened or injured by the NT-ROTI Act – legislation.

 

As our politicians are the elected representatives of the people, the decisions they make have far reaching effects upon the life of every citizen and the revoking of the NT-ROTI – Act has surely made Territorians feel more like subjects than citizens.

 

Our Federal Parliament at work brings to life the great political principal expressed in the famous timeless words of Abraham Lincoln – “Government of the people, by the people, for the people”.

 

Subsequently, even today the House upholds Abraham Lincoln’s eminent words as a paragon of parliamentary virtue. With all prior 1996 and more recent “End of life” community surveys revealing an approximate 75% upwards majority support for patient directed dying, brings into question the federal parliaments actions in 1997 that was an affront to the NT Government’s ability to autonomously self-govern. Such undemocratic conduct that expeditiously repealed the NT – ROTI Act, saw some politicians fail, as a prerequisite to firstly refer this important sensitive civil liberties issue to their constituents. Such actions diminished parliamentary standards and Lincoln’s revered political criteria of “By the people, for the people” and in my humble opinion, this past conscious vote, for good reason should be invalidated.

 

 In stating this, it is choice in all aspects of daily life that makes life worth living.  When considering the majority will of the people in support of change, our politician should be taking the lead on this fundamental human rights issue which should be beyond political debate and be an inalienable civil right for all citizens.

 

As people face end of life, each patient knows what constitutes quality of life and what is endurable and what is not as we lose control of not only our bodies and mind but also our dignity and destiny.  The deepest foundation upon which morality is built is the phenomenon of empathy.  It must surely be understood in this contemporary era of enlightenment, that what angers and hurts to-days marginalized sick and dying people may one day come to us all.   

 

Relative to the above, following the 2002 Queensland Nancy Crick disobedience stance and the Melbourne death of Sandy Williams, the Channel Nine Sunday program and ABC radio conducted a national community survey on the question of autonomous end of life decisions. In both instances the results were 81 – 19 and 74-26 respectively in favor. 

 

In view of this reality I hasted to add that the debate is not only about death but also about patient autonomy, choice and respect for doctor – patient privacy and control by the patient over their own body. 

 

Somewhere everyday somebody is born and so dies, its nature’s paradox, but the victims of unrelenting suffering have become the casualties of cruel political indifference which is an assault to the senses of all compassionate people.  Instead of politicians capitulating  to a do nothing approach, with the only right being “the right to live” and the alternative being an “obligatory right to suffer”, I know in my sole, that this type of dehumanizing whole of life approach is wrong.

 

To engage with life is to engage with death and each of us should be able to freely decide what makes life worth living.  When all alone in a palliative care hospital ward, or a for profit nursing home, possibly surrounded by strangers, morphine addicted and on chemotherapy in the false hope of extending dying beyond natures normal process, then in our time of need, the right to choose to be medically assisted to die with dignity becomes a necessary freedom.  Also central to this issue and on a point of morality, we should all ask ourselves, “Who owns my life” and if not ourselves “then who”? 

 

Having witnessed this over-riding government decision to revoke the “Euthanasia Laws Repeal Bill – 1997” was indeed an extremely disappointing political event.  Clearly I can’t ever recall where politicians, via an act of duplicity by both sides of politics carried a conscience vote, contrary to the democratic process and prior well known majority wishes of their constituents. 

 

With the insensitive “Euthanasia Laws Repeal Bill” not representing well reasoned humanitarianism, in good conscience and as moral imperative, the peoples elected representatives should have asked themselves one very poignant question.  That question being “Why should people experiencing unrelenting suffering as a miserable prelude to death be denied via discriminating revoking legislation, voluntary access to the compassionate and supportive NT – ROTI Act law that offered a humane choice.

 

With the NT – ROTI Act having been repealed for over a decade and for modern times, ten years can be a comparatively long duration.  What happened in 1997 demonstrated a total lack of respect for the NT community and their democracy should not have been abused in this unsanctioned over-riding way.

 

As our laws are constantly changing to meet the needs and demands of our ever evolving society then why should end of life issues, as accommodated by the past NT – ROTI Act be treated with indifference via ignorance and religious intolerance.

 

With all States and Territories now secular societies with freedom of mind and spirit and free from rigid pious ideals, people in general don’t now look to priests and ministers of religion for guidance in these more enlightened times. 

 

Some Christians believe it wrong to access right-to-die legislation but religion is a belief system and not evidenced based.  Religious people have their right to their beliefs: others have their right to their beliefs.  To deny the right to access voluntary euthanasia under the guise of religious authority is to deny freedom of religious expression in our society.

 

With a measure of religious balance, most recently the Anglican Arch Bishop of Sydney Dr Peter Jensen said “People in the church and elsewhere should not expect politicians to legislate in defiance of public opinion”.  Such a statement by his eminence has a correlation with the past revoking of the NT-ROTI Act whereby politicians repealed good progressive NT law on their own volition.

 

On a point of inconsistency and irony, whilst the “NT-ROTI Act” was being illogically repealed in1997 in what could be least described as lacking circumspection, Oregon US conversely legislated their 1997 “Death with Dignity Act” into law which was warmly welcomed by the Oregon people.  

 

 Please find setout below verbatim, a recent report from Oregon US outlining the US experience emanating from their “Death with Dignity Act -1997” which depicts the benefits that has been regrettable denied the NT people over the past decade.

 

                    Oregon Celebrates Ten Years of Assisted Dying.

 

By Barbra Cooms-lee, Compassion and Choices excerpted from her OP-ED piece in the Oregonian, Oct 26^th – 2007.

 

       _______________________________________________________________

  

 In October, Oregon passed the ten year milestone for the Death with Dignity Act.  For ten years that law has been a still, small voice of hope for dying patients- a quiet powerful message that no one will be forced to suffer needlessly or endure the relentless loss of body and mind because there are no other options. 

 

Keeping the law in tact has required vigilance and fortitude.  It has prevailed in both Oregon’s Legislature and in Congress.  It has overcome extended legal attacks by right-to-life groups and the John Ascroft led – Justice Department, until Oregon’s law making authority was finally vindicated in the US Supreme Court.  The law’s opponents claimed it would destroy end of life care, would harm vulnerable populations and become a slippery slope of abuse.  None of that has happened.

 

On the contrary, end of life care in Oregon is both better and more accessible and there is no evidence that the law has harmed anyone…Palliative medicine and pain care have made huge strides…doctors throughout Oregon recognize the importance of proper pain treatment, referred more patients to hospice and improve their ability to recognize depression among the terminally ill.  Approximately 50% of Oregonians now die in hospice care.  Fewer Oregonians die in hospitals and more die in the familiar, loving environment of their homes than any other State.

 

Since 1997, 292 Oregonians have used aid in dying.  That’s about one in one thousand deaths.  In contrast, many more terminally ill patients think and talk about aid in dying, as one in six discuss it with loved ones.  About one in 50 actually begin the eligibility process by speaking to his or her doctor.  Many consider it, few need to use it. And that’s a good thing.

 

The law helps all people equally and harms no one.  The Journal of Medical Ethics recently published compelling evidence that the Death with Dignity Act does not adversely affect people considered “vulnerable” such as the disabled, the elderly and the uninsured.

 

Ten years of compelling scientific research have persuaded even some staunch moral conservatives that they should not oppose a legal medical alternative that is desirable to so many, harmful to none. 

 

Oregonians have drawn a wonderful road map, empowering patients with choice, control and dignity at the end of life.  Our State can now serve as a guide to others as they approach the previously uncharted territory of aid in dying.  (end of report)

        ______________________________________________________________

 

As vindicated in the above, it appears self evident that access to voluntary euthanasia gives life, it doesn’t steal it, in fact just the opposite.  Central to this merciful issue and rather than be blind to the misery of others there is a requirement for empathy and respect for those NT citizens who have been denied a decade of benefits via the repealing of the ROTI Act which made their physician assisted dying law inaccessible.

 

Patient directed dying is an issue that will not diminish whilst the terminally ill and those experiencing unrelenting suffering demand more autonomy and better quality of their own death.  Also with our population aging, the question of patient’s rights will become more acute.  This important issue of personal choice should be beyond political debate and be an inalienable civil right for all State and Territory citizens to decide for themselves how they want to die and not for others to make that decision for them.

 

With reference to the above and whilst suicide is not a crime, it is disappointing to note how our inflexible State and Territory Criminal Codes decrees it murder to compassionately assist somebody to die and with no malice involved or intended, why should it be deemed a crime to assist a non-crime.

 

It was Edmond Burke who in 1780 made the following statement ; “Bad laws are the worst kind of tyranny” and when confronting the existing prejudicial law that discriminate against the dying then his words are as valid today as when first spoken.

 

Along with the Netherlands and Belgium it was with well reasoned humanitarianism that the liberal thinking small country of Switzerland decriminalized its punitive Assisted Suicide Law in 1937, in fact the year I was born 70 years ago. During this time span and  contrary to common misconceptions espoused by sectarian Right-to-life groups, Switzerland reports no cited cases of criminality and this welcomed social change in Swiss Law has been overwhelmingly popular with its citizens.

 

Given the advantage of hindsight and for the Senate Committee to honestly and comprehensively undertake this review of such a critically important issue, it must be via the engagement of procedural fairness rather than the offensive political ideology of the past. This can only happen if our elected politicians as men and women endowed with reason and mature good sense can embrace open-minded and even handed points of view. 

 

To conclude, I will include for Senate Committee consideration, a copy of a past editorial extracted from the Townsville Bulletin epitomizing North Queensland public opinion following the repeal of the NT-ROTI Act, titled “Capital cowards kill a good law”  

                                                  

Ron Bennett  –  Australian senior