Ah, I loved the post that reminds the audience that without God being brought into the equation there is really no validity in denying any person the good death of their choice.
Throughout life, we make decisions about important issues regarding the health and wellbeing of not only ourselves but in many employments, that of the public at large and also our families. We are treated with the respect that we are capable of making important decisions in life and death outcomes.
I don’t care what anyone else chooses to do with their own end of life decision making choices, but I do care what others decide for ME. Because I am becoming weaker physically does not mean I am necessarily mentally less competent to decide what is good for me, but in the event that I am, I really do believe that Living Wills, Advance Directives and Respecting Patient Choices documentation should be legally binding on any health care worker that comes across my inert body.
I have Do Not Resuscitate tattooed on my chest at great discomfort to any fashion sense, but its message is more important than my “looks”,
I don’t mean PERHAPS, DEPENDING, POSSIBLY! I mean DON’T and it is stamped on my body, not yours.
My life, MY choice, Your Life, YOUR Choice!
Mary Walsh
www.yourchoiceindying.com
Posted by Choice, Sunday, 29 June 2008 12:30:12 PM
Stickman,
One of the given reason to doubt the judgement of a person is depression. Imagine if I were ill not terminal but sick enough to limit my activity to whereby I figured it all too much. I then asked some Dr to do the deed because I was afraid of botching it would that be permitted? Under The now defunct NT laws it wouldn’t have.
My longer point was that while I understand the need to protect the vulnerable. The choice to why to terminate should be the individual’s alone. Suppose further, that I’m filthy rich (instead of just plain filthy) and I wanted too or had just left 95% of my money to that Dr. I’ll bet that on challenging that action my depressed state would be deemed a significant factor. Two separate issues, but one impinges on the other. Euthanasia Laws should be reflected in all other relevant laws too :-\
Posted by examinator, Sunday, 29 June 2008 1:16:42 PM
Choice,
I had a look at your website, it’s great. How unacceptable that in the case of the example, the wife’s wishes were given priority over the patient’s.
Grim,
thank you for enlightening me about the Sabbath
Although I am not convinced that Jesus existed, I don’t have a problem with imagining that Jesus –minus miracles- might have existed as a compassionate mortal.
I wonder what Jesus-minus-miracles would have done or said about the euthanasia issue.
Without his miraculous healing abilities, he would’ve been in a similar position as doctors- what to do with the incurable, suffering people who would plea with authoroties for a quick and painfree death.
I wonder what David Palmer and other Christians think- WWJD?
Stickman,
People suffering from a mood disorder (should) have equal euthanasia rights to be assessed following application to those who have no mood disorder.
A doctor handling the application “first has to investigate the background to the request. He must make a medical assessment of the patient’s physical and psychological suffering and obtain a second opinion from an independent doctor. Their joint conclusion should have a firm medical basis and conform with accepted rules of medical ethics.”
One of the six statutory criteria for due care which exempt a doctor from prosecution is that he be “satisfied that the patient’s suffering is unbearable, and that there is no prospect of improvement.”
Examinator,
I’m not very concerned about bribery/corruption where tight laws and procedures are in place.
For example, when the doctor, after thorough investigation and assessment, decides to approve a patient’s euthanasia application, s/he first has to consult another. independent doctor for a second opinion. Both assess the patient.
Also, pathology needs to be informed of the doctor’s decision and there’s also a review commission involved. Pathology performs an autopsy after the euthanasia has taken place.
Posted by Celivia, Sunday, 29 June 2008 5:35:34 PM
Anti-religious bigotry is no more impressive than any other kind, and there’s an epidemic of it in these comments on David Palmer’s article. Mr Palmer does not simply argue that “the Christian God is against mercy-killing and therefore it should be illegal” – he refers to euthanasia’s actual operation in the Netherlands and Oregon, and argues that there are several aspects of how things have worked out in practice that might give us pause for thought. Some of the more rabid commentators here make the very uncharitable assumption that the studies he quotes are bogus. What is the basis for this assumption if not anti-religious bigotry? (I would encourage Mr Palmer to call their bluff and cite the studies!)
Anyone with a serious interest in ethics and human flourishing should take at least a passing interest in a Christian perspective on an issue like this – and judge it on its merits, not dismiss it out of hand. In Australia today the Christian, like anyone else, has the right to argue their case in the public square within earshot of legislators – and those who simply howl them down as would-be theocrats would do better to take a more grown-up approach.
Posted by Bearbrass, Monday, 30 June 2008 12:31:53 PM
Bearbrass you assume that all Christians support David Palmer’s rejection of euthanasia, but the majority of Christians in Australia probably support euthanasia and would like their loved ones to stop the medical fraternity from life prolonging measures when enough is enough.
Posted by billie, Monday, 30 June 2008 1:40:20 PM
Celivia
you pulled this quote from nowhere:
“A doctor handling the application “first has to investigate the background to the request. He must make a medical assessment of the patient’s physical and psychological suffering and obtain a second opinion from an independent doctor. Their joint conclusion should have a firm medical basis and conform with accepted rules of medical ethics.”
One of the six statutory criteria for due care which exempt a doctor from prosecution is that he be “satisfied that the patient’s suffering is unbearable, and that there is no prospect of improvement.”
Where is it from? And how does it argue in favour of allowing people with mood disorders access to euthanasia?
“Having a mood disorder” is different from being depressed. People with mood disorders can be treated (for depression) and can recover. Are you arguing that anyone who is currently depressed should be able to walk into a doctor’s office, get the assessment done and off themselves? The proposed Vic legislation SPECIFICALLY rules this out on page 6 of the PDF:
“(i) if the sufferer has a terminal illness—The treating doctor is satisfied, on reasonable grounds, that the sufferer is mentally competent. This condition is not satisfied if the treating doctor has reason to believe that the sufferer’s decision may have resulted from a mental illness, unless the treating doctor has obtained an opinion from a qualified psychiatrist that the sufferer is mentally competent and that either—
(i) the sufferer is not suffering from a mental illness; or
(ii) the sufferer’s decision has not resulted from a mental illness; or
(iii) any treatment of the sufferer’s mental illness is unlikely to alter the sufferer’s decision; and” etc etc
So the legislation would only allow a depressed person to participate if that depression was secondary to whatever incurable and intolerable illness they were suffering from and was NOT the primary reason for their request. That’s the point – obviously people suffering from terminal illness in horrible pain will quite likely be depressed but this depression cannot, according to the legislation, be the reason for requesting physician assisted suicide.
Posted by stickman, Monday, 30 June 2008 2:50:19 PM
Bearbrass
‘Anyone with a serious interest in ethics and human flourishing should take at least a passing interest in a Christian perspective on an issue like this – and judge it on its merits’
You are making a big ask from human secularist who are often more dogmatic about their ‘faith’ than Christians. The only difference is they try and justify their view with ’science’. We saw how Tony Abbott as Health Minister was sidelined by many of these bigots.
Ah, I loved the post that reminds the audience that without God being brought into the equation there is really no validity in denying any person the good death of their choice.
Throughout life, we make decisions about important issues regarding the health and wellbeing of not only ourselves but in many employments, that of the public at large and also our families. We are treated with the respect that we are capable of making important decisions in life and death outcomes.
I don’t care what anyone else chooses to do with their own end of life decision making choices, but I do care what others decide for ME. Because I am becoming weaker physically does not mean I am necessarily mentally less competent to decide what is good for me, but in the event that I am, I really do believe that Living Wills, Advance Directives and Respecting Patient Choices documentation should be legally binding on any health care worker that comes across my inert body.
I have Do Not Resuscitate tattooed on my chest at great discomfort to any fashion sense, but its message is more important than my “looks”,
I don’t mean PERHAPS, DEPENDING, POSSIBLY! I mean DON’T and it is stamped on my body, not yours.
Choice,
I had a look at your website, it’s great. How unacceptable that in the case of the example, the wife’s wishes were given priority over the patient’s.
Grim,
thank you for enlightening me about the Sabbath
Although I am not convinced that Jesus existed, I don’t have a problem with imagining that Jesus –minus miracles- might have existed as a compassionate mortal.
I wonder what Jesus-minus-miracles would have done or said about the euthanasia issue.
Without his miraculous healing abilities, he would’ve been in a similar position as doctors- what to do with the incurable, suffering people who would plea with authoroties for a quick and painfree death.
I wonder what David Palmer and other Christians think- WWJD?
Stickman,
People suffering from a mood disorder (should) have equal euthanasia rights to be assessed following application to those who have no mood disorder.
A doctor handling the application “first has to investigate the background to the request. He must make a medical assessment of the patient’s physical and psychological suffering and obtain a second opinion from an independent doctor. Their joint conclusion should have a firm medical basis and conform with accepted rules of medical ethics.”
One of the six statutory criteria for due care which exempt a doctor from prosecution is that he be “satisfied that the patient’s suffering is unbearable, and that there is no prospect of improvement.”
Examinator,
I’m not very concerned about bribery/corruption where tight laws and procedures are in place.
For example, when the doctor, after thorough investigation and assessment, decides to approve a patient’s euthanasia application, s/he first has to consult another. independent doctor for a second opinion. Both assess the patient.
Also, pathology needs to be informed of the doctor’s decision and there’s also a review commission involved. Pathology performs an autopsy after the euthanasia has taken place.
Posted by Celivia, Sunday, 29 June 2008 5:35:34 PM
In Victoria this week, the Legislative Council was to have had the 3rd reading and vote on the Greens member, Ms Colleen Hartland MLC’s Medical Treatment (Physician-Assisted Dying) Bill 2008 (PDF 168KB).
Perhaps indicating that she may not have the numbers, she has requested that the third reading be put back a week.
Having had an opportunity to read the Bill as well as Ms Hartland’s eloquent second reading speech, I would like to open up public debate on this matter of euthanasia, if only because there is so little appearing in main stream media at the present time.
The issue of dying, whether from a terminal condition or advanced incurable disease, is always something that tugs at our heart strings, particularly for family members and close friends.
Advertisement
The preamble to the Bill speaks of a mentally competent adult person “suffering intolerably from a terminal or advanced incurable illness to exercise their right to end their life …”
In an ideal world this may sound a compassionate thing, though to argue about “a right to end life” is to presume the thing desired. Not only that, but there is no historical precedent for such a right. None of the United Nations human rights instruments contain a “right to die”. They are all about the flourishing and development of each human individual, not the deliberate and orchestrated ending of an individual’s life.
The Bill claims to contain certain safeguards, something emphasised by Ms Hartland in her second reading speech. However, did Justice Menhennit, in his 1969 ruling on abortion, realise that his ruling would lead to one abortion to every three live births in Victoria a few decades later?
Ms Hartland spoke of the virtues of the State of Oregon legislation but fails to mention that, in the years 1994 to 2007, there were 89 proposals in the USA to legalise euthanasia in 22 states, and none succeeded. Oregon is the only state in America allowing legalised physician-assisted suicide. That this is so is due, in part, to the well-recognised under-funding of Oregon’s health care system. To commend the virtues of the Oregon legislation after only 10 years of operation, and as the solitary state permitting euthanasia in the USA, is unwise, to say the least.
A far more appropriate example to quote is Holland where euthanasia has been openly practised since 1973.
Overall, in Holland in 2005, there were about 12,660, or 9 per cent, of all deaths caused intentionally. A 2005 study showed that at least 50 per cent of patients killed under the Dutch euthanasia program were suffering from depression. A 1991 study showed that an average of three people a day underwent euthanasia without their knowledge or consent. Studies in 1991 and 1995 showed that, despite Dutch law requiring physicians to report physician-assisted death, the majority of deaths went unreported.
While Ms Hartland’s Bill limits euthanasia to adults 18 years and older, in Holland children up to the age of 12, including newborns, may now be killed by lethal injection with parental consent.
Liberalisation of the law due to presenting cases is inevitable over time. This is precisely the Dutch experience.
Is this what Victorians, including their Upper House parliamentarians desire for their state?
Could these parliamentarians pass Ms Hartland’s Bill and guarantee that none of these things now happening in Holland – a country where many elderly sick people are afraid to seek medical help because they fear being euthanised without their consent – would not happen in Victoria?
Australia, like all Western nations, is undergoing a demographic shift with an increasing proportion of the population being elderly. Will euthanasia become a cost-effective method of medical treatment for the elderly?
To guard against such an outcome, this Bill – in whatever form it takes – should not be approved.
Turning to more specific arguments against the Bill, I offer these additional points for consideration:
The focus in care should always be upon the patient and not upon family and friends, no matter how distressing the patient’s situation appears to be to them.
In respect of the incurably ill, it needs to be remembered that the diagnosis of such a condition is not always correct, as has been demonstrated in the not too distant past.
The statistics on physician-assisted suicide for persons suffering depression ought to sound a clear warning bell. Euthanasia is not an appropriate response to depression.
A major concern is that towards the end of life, people can become anxious about being a burden, not being valued. They are vulnerable to pressure from others, even family members, who from motives that may well be kindly meant, promote euthanasia to the vulnerable elderly.
Ms Hartland quoted statistics from a Newspoll poll to the effect that 80 per cent of Australians support euthanasia and only 14 per cent oppose euthanasia. But the results of polling is highly dependent upon who is polled, the information provided and the actual wording of the questions. I suggest caution be exercised over the Newspoll poll.
One particular factor that needs to be remembered is that persons who indicate when younger that they support euthanasia can and do change their minds as to whether euthanasia is for them. A very interesting poll, if polls now decide how we should act, would be a poll of the elderly and those chronically ill and facing death in the not too distant future. I suggest such a poll would not produce a figure of 80 per cent, nor even 40 per cent for that matter.
Our final point, already alluded to, concerns the nature of the doctor-patient relationship. Doctors are meant to preserve life, not end it. If the role of a doctor is redefined from that of life preserver to not only life preserver but also life terminator, that precious doctor-patient relationship will be potentially jeopardised, thus serving neither the interests of the doctor or patient.
In making the above observation and plea, I am not seeking to be somehow heartless or ignorant of the issue of great pain and suffering. The church I belong to, the Presbyterian Church of Victoria, has a proven track record for showing practical care and concern for people in need, including those who are aged and chronically ill. Currently, this involvement includes the running of a large aged care facility at Kilsyth, along with various pastoral care services conducted at the local parish level as well as through an extensive, largely self funded hospital chaplaincy network.
It is not just the Presbyterians who have been involved in such care.
In one form or other, the entire Christian Church in all its varied manifestations has been involved in the care of the elderly and chronically ill for the past 2,000 years. People have been suffering and dying throughout that period. Present day individuals are not unique in that respect.
Christians worship a God whom they believe creates, sustains and protects the capacity for all human relationships and communities to function harmoniously and effectively. The commandment not to murder not only asserts who ultimately has the rights over all life, but also establishes a boundary condition for the flourishing of all human relationships and communities.
If our politicians truly care, then for the sake of, and for the dignity of our elderly and chronically ill, they should not allow Ms Hartland’s Bill to pass.
Choice Commentary:And in response a number of comments followed in OnlineOpinions (I sincerely hope any contributors are not offended by my correction of their typos in order for easier reading….My “copy and paste” is back the front, with the last entry received on the bottom of these entries…..very interesting cross section of viewpoints….
“…at least 50 per cent of patients killed under the Dutch euthanasia program…”
“Killed” is a very strong word for a peaceful, requested death by euthanasia; it’s use a very dishonest ploy to repel people from euthanasia.
“A 1991 study showed that an average of three people a day underwent euthanasia without their knowledge or consent.”
Another claim to be ignored until the author produces proof of this study.
Dutch parents are able to collude in ‘killing’ children aged under 12. This character uses some very emotive language and ideas to cover up his complete lack of real argument against euthanasia. Nothing new for religious dogmatists.
And, who says, apart from this narrow-minded Presbyterian, that many elderly people in Holland are afraid to seek medical help for fear of being euthanized? Are we supposed to take his word as a ‘good Christian’ who believes in suffering?
Who is this fellow to presume that what might or might not be happening in Holland would happen in Australia, anyway?
It seems that the Presbyterian Church has gone even further backward than it was when I gave it away 50 years ago.
Only a few days ago, a TV programme had on a doctor who openly said that he had been involved in euthanasia; so have many more doctors.
It’s only a matter of time before people will be able to legally request an end to their sufferings; in the meantime, good luck to all those people who now have the means to choose the type of death they want, rather than suffer as the do-gooders and fanatics want them to.
Posted by Mr. Right, Thursday, 26 June 2008 10:22:28 AM
Once again, people who worship a particular god demand the right to impose their morals on everyone. You don’t have that right, and I am not aware that that right exists in any Constitution or UN Charter. Your god may say that it is OK to prolong life to the nth degree, regardless of the quality of that life or the wishes of the possessor of that life, but I will not subscribe to, or be bound by, the rules of any such heartless cruel, uncaring religion. It is my decision, and my right, in these circumstances to to determine the nature and timing of my death.
David makes the common mistake that politicians should be subject to the rules of his church. I don’t imagine that he would be happy if they were subservient to, or led by, non-Christian churches that differed in their approach. Similarly, I take great offence that because David believes something, I should be bound by his belief. Such arrogance is appalling in a member of a church that preaches humility. For David to assert that he is not ignorant of the issues of great pain and suffering is clearly delusional, as he appears to wish to inflict it on those who differ in their approach to life and death. I doubt that a non-subscriber to his faith would get much pain relief from a visit from a chaplain.
I sincerely hope, for David and his ilk’s sake, that they do not end up suffering a prolonged, agonising death, with their only relief being massive doses of drugs that keep one semi-conscious, or the prattlings of a chaplain. In that case, I would fervently wish for the blessed relief of death.
Posted by ianbrum, Thursday, 26 June 2008 10:26:07 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
None of the United Nations human rights instruments contain a “right to die”. They are all about the flourishing and development of each human individual, not the deliberate and orchestrated ending of an individual’s life.
The Bill claims to contain certain safeguards, something emphasised by Ms Hartland in her second reading speech. However, did Justice Menhennit, in his 1969 ruling on abortion, realise that his ruling would lead to one abortion to every three live births in Victoria a few decades later?
I would put it quite differently. Why should the United Nations or the State have the right to deny a terminally ill or worn out elderly person the choice of calling it quits? Living wills should be legal. Now in my late seventies I hope someone will follow my instructions when I have run out of the ability to contribute. I suggest that it is unethical to deny me my last right.
What evidence does the author have that the abortion rate before 1969 was lower? I suggest the rate then was merely unknown. Now at least the woman has adequate care and a much better chance of survival. At a time when it is obvious to even the more dull that we are running out of food and fuel why does the human rate need a birth rate above the replacement rate?
Posted by Foyle, Thursday, 26 June 2008 10:33:20 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Leaving aside all issues of religious belief for a moment, this article is simply deceitful.
A 2005 study showed that at least 50 per cent of patients killed under the Dutch euthanasia program were suffering from depression. A 1991 study showed that an average of three people a day underwent euthanasia without their knowledge or consent. Studies in 1991 and 1995 showed that, despite Dutch law requiring physicians to report physician-assisted death, the majority of deaths went unreported.<<
Four “studies”. None specifically identified.
Holland – a country where many elderly sick people are afraid to seek medical help because they fear being euthanised without their consent
No citation at all.
>>Ms Hartland quoted statistics from a Newspoll poll to the effect that 80 per cent of Australians support euthanasia and only 14 per cent oppose euthanasia. But the results of polling is highly dependent upon who is polled, the information provided and the actual wording of the questions. I suggest caution be exercised over the Newspoll poll.<<
Caution, Mr Palmer? If you ask us to exercise caution over this, how do you suggest we approach your other assertions?
Cynically, perhaps?
Posted by Pericles, Thursday, 26 June 2008 10:40:16 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
“Give me that old-time religion!” The author seems to be steeped in the old dour Scottish Presbyterianism which campaigned against the introduction of anaesthetics for use during childbirth. It decreed that minimization of occasions of extreme pain in birthing situations was un-natural.
Such extreme preaching did not stop the advance of the high standard of medicine in that country. Perhaps there might be affinity by the author with the then locals on Scotland’s island of St. Kilda (now abandoned) when they killed the last Great Auk, after it waddled out of the sea, on the basis that it might have been the reincarnation of a witch.
Posted by colinsett, Thursday, 26 June 2008 10:43:49 AM
David’s last point is “the” point for me. He speaks of Drs maintaining “life” which raises the question of how we define “life”. Life which has lost all quality is not “life”, for me it is “existing”. Medical science has brought us many great outcomes but it can also extend our existence beyond the point where it is really living. Society needs to recognise this fact and not cling to the norms of the past or impose the constraints of religion or any other dogma on intelligent people who spend their lives making choices and who seek to continue that in their final choice. I want only to make the choice about when “life” ends and “existing” begins at which point I prefer to check out thanks all the same.
Posted by Lesleyb, Thursday, 26 June 2008 10:59:25 AM
My mother will be under the surgeon’s knife for her heart this afternoon at 1.00 PM.
My sister, my mother and I have always agreed that should her health deteriorate to the point where to prolong her life, my mother would be confined to bed hooked up to life-support, that she has a ‘no-resuscitate’ order. My mother is 83, she has lived a full active life. If the surgery is successful she will have a few further years of a full active life. She wants and is entitled to nothing less.
My mother is fully mentally competent and it is HER CHOICE to die with dignity. Not the governments, not some religious organisation or any other group who wishes to control my mother’s life, her choices and her well-being.
The sooner Australia has a well structured euthanasia policy – such as the one in the Netherlands, the better for all people who are now currently suffering, immobilised and merely surviving instead of LIVING
Posted by Fractelle, Thursday, 26 June 2008 11:17:52 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It is really hard to take seriously anyone who “worships” at all. The capacity to worship a supernatural deity does not confer special insights into morality. People who worship just interpret a set of ridiculous and often contradictory ancient exhortations that belong to an era of great ignorance. We should have moved on since then. Like a lot of non-believers, I can’t understand the arrogance of a believer in the supernatural telling me how I should die, based solely on what they think their invisible friend tells them. I know the writer of this piece is well-meaning but you really need to critically examine your belief system at the most fundamental level and question whether the strange, obviously human-invented god you believe in actually exists. And in the meantime, let everyone else decide their own fate.
Posted by Liz T, Thursday, 26 June 2008 12:42:47 PM
Life is shitt
I’m depressed
But I see no reason for govt to legalise murder
There seems to be a lot of murder going on already
Considering we don’t conduct routine autopsy for EVERY death ,the causes of death presently are whatever the doctor supervising dictates
Death by smoking is a typical case in point
19,000 deaths were ‘ATTRIBUTAL’ to smoking [that doesn’t mean they died from smoking [or the affects from smoking] but that the doctor wrote that as the cause of death
Just as likely they died from poor medicine [or the very 'treatment ' the doctor was giving] but we dont check on that [we don’t do autopsy to find the REAL cause of death] we just accept the doctors word upon the death certificate THEY WRITE OUT.
We live under a presumed Christian creed [one supposedly respecting life] and while Atheists might revel in saying suffering is a Christian belief this simply is only the extreme version of a sect, Jesus was clear in revealing that we do unto others will be done to us 7 fold ,that you did to the least you did to god.
We live in the time of lies, in a time where govt. persecutes upon victimless crime, passing rules allowing it to lie to us ,theft and oppressing its OWN people because of a plant [not a drug, while the truly evil people get away with legal murder ,where a plant that can cure depression as well as cancer is declared war upon ,
While the silent multi-national owned media gives us its yearly promise of a future cure for these problems while it vilifies the only god given cure [gen 1;29 ,i give you every seed bearing plant, they will be yours for food]
revelations 22.2 the leaves of the tree for the healing of the nations ,bearing 12 fruits[cannabis has 30,000]
ex 25;40 make them the design ye saw upon the mount[see the early police posters of the plant of life[tree of knowledge of good and evil]
Posted by one under god, Thursday, 26 June 2008 1:08:10 PM
One Under God has done us all a favour. He has confirmed that it is only his/her (allegedly christian) beliefs that count, and the rest of us had just better do as s/he says or else. Get a life mate, or, better yet, allow someone else to end theirs in their own time and manner.
Posted by ianbrum, Thursday, 26 June 2008 1:29:25 PM
It is really hard to take seriously anyone who does not” worship” at all. To think people could be so arrogant and ignorant towards their Creator. You only have to look at the mess the Western World is in as they have embraced the unscientific idiotic philosophy of secular humanism. They murder the unborn by the truckload and then claim to be moral guardians in regards to Euthanasia. They refuse to smack their kids and ask dumb questions as to why we have so much violence today. They ignore every sensible moral boundary and wonder why our hospitals can’t hold all the mentally afflicted. Not being happy enough with not being able to keep together a marriage they want to brainwash our kids with their own god denying and god hating philosophies.
Posted by runner, Thursday, 26 June 2008 1:36:39 PM
Good point, Lesleyb
He speaks of Drs maintaining “life” which raises the question of how we define “life”. Life which has lost all quality is not “life”, for me it is “existing”… Society needs to recognise this fact and not cling to the norms of the past or impose the constraints of religion or any other dogma on intelligent people who spend their lives making choices<<
My guess is that we would see a fairly precise correlation here between the anti-abortion lobby and the anti-euthanasia brigade.
Both groups share a religious (in the broadest sense) belief that our lives are not in fact our own, but “belong” to the Almighty. Therefore any attempt to thwart God’s designs for us – suicide, for example – is deeply sinful.
They also have the most expedient view of what constitutes “life”: from zygote to vegetable.
So there are no right answers, folks.
There never are where religion is concerned. Just a truckload more questions.
And hi to you, runner.
You only have to look at the mess the Western World is in as they have embraced the unscientific idiotic philosophy of secular humanism.
Mate, you and your fellow religionists held the stage for centuries, and what did you give us? The Crusades. The Inquisition. The ducking-stool. Healing-by-incantation…
http://www.maggietron.com/med/religion.php
Not sure that’s a record to boast too much about.
Posted by Pericles, Thursday, 26 June 2008 1:49:57 PM
Most reasonable people would agree that the right to die is as valid as any other right to choose what we do with our own bodies even if there is no historical precedent as the author claims.
That given, the only issue I can see with euthanasia is how it will be implemented and monitored and the potential negative impact on funding for good quality life-extending palliative care and mental health services. Once those issues are sorted out and laws in place to protect patients then the only issues remaining are philosophical ones. This issue is similar to same sex unions, where one group of people attempt to force their own views on another based on their own version of what is right or wrong. While we are all guilty of that to varying degrees, the concept of ‘harm’ would have to play a role in decision making where there are opposing moral and ethical considerations.
The author argues that a doctor’s role is to preserve and prolong life not to terminate it. Could it be suggested that a doctor’s role also encompasses the concept of ‘first do no harm’. If forcing a terminal patient to live against their will whose life has lost all ‘quality’ is preserving life always the ultimate aim even if ‘harm’ is the result? Doctors already make those choices by upping morphine to control pain knowing that the dose is terminal. Euthanasing a life should of course be voluntary to protect doctor’s who might have moral or religious objections.
As another poster said we should think about how ‘life’ is defined before deciding whether to prolong it. Is life only determined by a beating heart?
Posted by pelican, Thursday, 26 June 2008 3:44:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
One of the biggest problems against Voluntary Euthanasia are the religious people, life is sacred they cry and God must end it at the appropriate time, but are quite happy to send young men and women off to be killed in unjust wars.
I do not believe in Gods, Godesses, Fairies etc, therefore I should have the right to end my untold suffering and indignity when I feel I have had enough of pain, which will never be relieved until “God” decides it is time for me to go, I don’t want to wait for an untrue belief system where there is no proof of any such things as Gods, but I do respect your decision to suffer pain and indignity until the imaginary “God” calls it a day for you.
I must have that right to end my suffering the same as you have the right to not end your suffering
Ojnab
Posted by Ojnab, Thursday, 26 June 2008 3:56:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Reading Dr Palmer’s article I understand why most Presbyterians joined with the Methodists to become the Uniting Church in Australia. Most Australian Presbyterians were brought up to be independent and look after their own – so why would they take kindly to an outside influence telling them how to run their lives.
My mother and my father’s brother were dying at the same time. My mother’s hospital nurses wouldn’t allow talk of dying – but my uncle, still in his own home, briefed me on living wills, refusing forcible feeding on my mother’s behalf. Fortunately for mum and me, her desire to die prevailed because the religious hospital ignored the written enduring medical power of attorney invested in the youngest child, who can’t put down a sick cat, and listened to the wishes of the oldest child.
I am sure most members of Exit International are over 60 and have lived long enough lives and had the experience of watching their parents become sick, frail and die. They know from their own experience that there is nothing more lonely than being surrounded by other old people in a nursing home watching Channel 9 while you wait for lunch.
Levels of depression amongst the elderly and dying are probably much higher than the levels of depression found in university students.
I have seen other loved ones filled up with morphine in their final days of life and I am sure that a grieving relative could argue the toss making the prescribing doctor very vulnerable to prosecution. I would like to see the Hartland Bill passed to provide boundaries of acceptable behaviour that reflect the community interests.
Posted by billie, Thursday, 26 June 2008 3:59:00 PM
Pericles
Your select parts of history might ease the conscience of many who reject the Saviour’s forgiveness but it makes little sense. Yes the Catholic church has been corrupt and done many horrendous things in the past in the name of God. Unfortunately they clearly ignored Christ and showed they had no real knowledge of Him. What many ignore is that more unborn babies have been murdered than the total number of all others killed in wars throughout history (as a direct result of secular thinking). Added to this the number killed by Marxism (at the heart of secular humanism) far outweigh the horrible crimes committed by Catholics and others calling themselves ‘Christians’.
Posted by runner, Thursday, 26 June 2008 3:59:39 PM
“The capacity to worship a supernatural deity does not confer special insights into morality”.
That line should be included in every national anthem and constitution and said aloud as part of the Australian naturalisation ceremony.
Posted by Sancho, Thursday, 26 June 2008 4:05:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks Sancho. I do, of course, completely agree!
Posted by Liz T, Thursday, 26 June 2008 4:24:15 PM
So Runner, you wont be attending the Catholic Youth jamboree in Sydney!
Assuming you are a male your principles are respected, but when you can give birth to a child, your comments on abortion are meaningless!
Posted by Kipp, Thursday, 26 June 2008 4:56:30 PM
Well I am Dutch and I must say this article is a bit misleading. You must be terminally ill and of sound mind when requesting euthanasia. It also has to be requested several times.
Mere depression doesn’t qualify you for an early exit. Perhaps the 50% of people who died and had depression were depressed because of their terrible suffering and terminal illness.
“9% of intentional deaths were caused by euthenasia”. According to the Dutch central bureau of statistics the percentage of euthanasia in total deaths in 2005 was 2.2%. See (In Dutch) http://statline.cbs.nl/StatWeb/publication/?VW=T&DM=SLNL&PA=71439ned&D1=a&D2=a&D3=a&HD=080626-0828&HDR=T&STB=G2,G1
This Lancet survey of European countries based on a smaller sample size had the percentage in 2003 as 2.59. http://image.thelancet.com/extras/03art3298web.pdf You’ll note that Holland has correspondingly less cases of “Alleviation of pain and symptoms with possible life-shortening effect”
Framing euthanasia legislation is tricky as you must clearly define consent and quality of life. Unlike say a blood alcohol limit these are not easily measured. Not being a lawyer I won’t make any suggestions there.
I have had family members depart both ways. Would you prefer to die at home surrounded by your family or after a few weeks more suffering, strapped to a machine in a ward full with strangers?
Dying is a very personal thing and I am sure that given a choice people will want to do it in different ways. We all do it at some point. Why should atheists have to suffer in the same way Christians do?
If we have no “right to die” we must have a “duty to live”. No one is immortal but with medical technology we can extend life well beyond its natural term. However at some point the quality of life becomes minimal.
When our pets are terminally ill and suffer unbearably we do the humane thing and put them to sleep. Ironically if humans are terminally ill and suffer unbearably we submit them to advanced medical technology to draw out their death and extend their suffering.
Posted by gusi, Thursday, 26 June 2008 5:23:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Here we go again:
I’ve lost count of the number of times I have posted on the subject since 2005,
I find the objection to legalising suicide in certain instances invariably arises from that element in our society whose religious belief urges them to resist any attempt at rational thought about the rights of the terminally ill to choose their time place and means of dying with dignity.
I have concluded that apart from the biblical texts that are trotted out and the invoking of God’s will,the main drive is to preserve fear and ignorance about death.
After all, it is often the fear of dying and the ‘wish’ for eternal life that helps preserve church heirarchy .
Death is the final part of the journey of life we need to understand this and embrace it. We are still allowed to grieve the loss of loved ones dying prematurely but that does not mean we should stand in their way when they choose to end an existence of pain and suffering.
Posted by maracas, Thursday, 26 June 2008 5:31:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It is all very simple really. If I find myself in a position of unbearable pain with a terminal illness I certainly, do not want some self-righteous religious fanatic who has sold her/his mind to an un-evidenced belief they will live forever, to make my decisions for me. That is how the vast majority of Australian think and politicians in our secular democracy have only one choice and that is to implement a system where voluntary euthanasia is a choice.
The sanctimonious amongst us do not have to avail themselves of the service but they have absolutely no right to impose their own particular views onto those who think differently.
To do otherwise is known as tyranny, and it is the hallmark of religion.
Jonathon
Posted by Jonathon Byrd, Thursday, 26 June 2008 6:23:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi David Palmer, long time no see since your abortion article
Do you think it is more humane to
a) force patients to suffer unbearably against their will with no positive outlook until they die a possibly slow, painful and lonely death, or
b) allow them to choose a soft, quick and peaceful death in the presence of their loved ones?
Two persons I personally know have been approved for euthanasia. One didn’t go ahead with it because she kept postponing the date and died the night before she booked her euthanasia.
Last week, a 35-year-old family friend opted for euthanasia after a three-year struggle with cancer. She underwent all kinds of treatment, from chemo to radiation therapy and two operations.
She had a loving husband and a 4-year-old daughter.
Her specialist told her that there was no more treatment available, and that her cancer was terminal, giving her no more than 2 months to live.
She suffered much pain despite high doses of pain relief that made her feel nauseous and dizzy. She was bed ridden and needed fulltime care.
To have her euthanasia application approved her GP and oncologist consulted with her and her husband. She also, on request of her husband, went for a second opinion from another oncologist before the euthanasia was approved.
She, in her own bed surrounded by her husband, daughter and parents and semi-covered under a pile of soft, cuddly toys as a last gift from her daughter, died very peacefully and without pain.
Do you think that her decision was wrong and she should have been forced to suffer for another two months?
Doctors have two distinct duties to their patients. The first is to relieve suffering and the second is to preserve life.
But what if the doctor is not able to relieve the suffering and/or to preserve life, in case of terminal illness?
http://www.minvws.nl/en/folders/ibe/euthanasia_the_netherlands_new_rules.asp Click the link at the bottom for the euthanasia pdf brochure
Dear Fractelle,
I wish your mother all the best, I hope the operation was successful.
Posted by Celivia, Thursday, 26 June 2008 6:39:47 PM
I have never understood why so many Christians are so terrified of dying.
Why do they grieve? Why do they cry and moan at funerals?
My father’s house has many mansions.
So many beliefs of the various Christian churches are extremely hard to find in the gospels.
If ‘Do unto others…” is the penultimate law, let me die with dignity.
How can we claim any concept of freedom, if we don’t own our own bodies?
Posted by Grim, Thursday, 26 June 2008 7:47:31 PM
I hate having to waste my time responding to David Palmer
he doesn’t declare his superstitious baggage. I try very hard not to be superstitious at all.
David is one of those creepy Christians like Kevin Andrews that are
Presuming to know what is “good” for me . bah & humbug .
when I decide my time to die has come I will tell David I am breaking the 4th commandment ( keep the Sabbath ) . I will then expect David’s sky fairy to “put me to death”.
however I do ask for a little mercy : if I am to be stoned , can big stones be used
it is difficult to respond to David’s “ arguments “ except with ridicule and contempt
David s. ( yes , I am ashamed of my “Christian” name )
Posted by david s, Thursday, 26 June 2008 8:59:41 PM
What a pompous, self righteous and ignorant item from Mr Palmer. I assume he knows Mrs Palmer well. And her 5 children.
Has he ever suffered depression? Obviously not as it’s hell on earth and to have someone like this one handed activity type tell you it’s not your right to die is, well, enough to make you suicidal.
He says there is no historical precedent and yet then tells us all about how it fails in Holland. He is very narrow even then as it was legal in the NT and people did use the law and die voluntarily then until Howard, the man who was dead from the neck down stopped it. He obviously wanted more tax payers to fleece.
If there is any truth to what he says about Holland then the answer is obvious is it not? Learn and adjust.
The most telling point to say it is everyone’s right to die is that people are doing it every day regardless. All this sort of moron achieves is to force them into a situation where they may fail and end up either crippled or mentally disabled. As well as in pain for the rest of their time.
Frankly Palmer, get a life, or in your case, take you own and leave the rest of us alone. Or are you pushing for jail for those who fail? The good old days.
Depression is no reason. There is NO CURE for depression you idiot. NONE. Just relief for periods until it bangs you again.
Posted by pegasus, Thursday, 26 June 2008 9:19:16 PM
I find the responses to this piece very heartening.
Especially the low caliber of reasoning behind the posts, opposing voluntary euthanasia. Really, without the ‘god’ angle, you’ve got no good reasons to force people to endure such pain.
What’s more, the ‘god’ angle does not apply to people who do not believe in your god. What’s more, all but the most fanatical Christians agree you can’t force god on anyone therefore society must respect that many, and I suspect most, people aren’t particularly religious (I’m not saying a majority are atheists or agnostics, I’m saying a majority are only nominally religious).
Actually, I can come up with some good arguments to deny voluntary euthanasia, but I sure haven’t seen any of them here. However, on further consideration of those points, I can’t see any of them being sufficient justification for a blanket ban.
So, I’ll leave you with this article in favour of voluntary euthanasia. It’s more in jest, though the reasoning behind it is far more sound, and somehow it feels far more honest than the tenuous arguments put forward in this piece.
Posted by TurnRightThenLeft, Thursday, 26 June 2008 9:34:44 PM
Thanks Gus and Celivia for exposing the extraordinary lies the author sprouts.
It is foolish to refer to the Netherlands to support an argument AGAINST euthanasia.
Depression is excluded as a reason for requesting assisted death.
To appease the religious amongst us I’ve referred to recent information from a source that is opposed to euthanasia, so does not put a favourable light on this; the Catholic Church. The Church is up in arms at the continuing rise in numbers of deaths through euthanasia: 2003 there were 1815 deaths, 2004 there were 1886, and 2005 there were 1933 deaths.
Sorry, it is in Dutch, but you should be able to read the numbers.
These are verified numbers. A very, very small number of people eventually avail themselves of ending their lives like this. Of all the people who request euthanasia not all will fulfil all the criteria and of those who do only a very, very small number do eventually die with assistance.
Legal voluntary euthanasia permits those who have a terminal illness, to openly discuss their death, it allows those who know they do not have long to live to actually live the life they have left. By preparing and being the main decision maker in one owns death takes away the anxiety of no relief from possible unbearable situations.
At present in Australia, it is your physician who decides when and by how much to crank up your morphine. This has two serious implications: 1.your doctor’s personal moral philosophy plays a large part in determining your death, not yours.
2. this generally is a gradual thing, though you know you are dying you may not have said all you wanted to say to those important to you before you were rendered semi-conscious.
This was a very sloppy counter argument to voluntary euthanasia.
http://www.nvve.nl/nvve2/home.asp?pagkey=71070 is another interesting link for Dutch speakers.
Lastly: it is not mandatory to avail yourself of this law if your personal beliefs do not allow it.
Posted by yvonne, Thursday, 26 June 2008 10:29:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I have really enjoyed *almost* everyone’s very clever comments. Even though many may sound harsh in David’s eyes, it’s far harsher to interfere with people’s choice about their own life.
I’d find it interesting to hear what David Palmer thinks about our arguments in favour of euthanasia.
Thank you for the links, Yvonne, I like the NVVE and have been receiving their newsletters for some time.
Why don’t Christians who are concerned about euthanasia direct their frustration, energy and funding in a more positive way rather than trying to constantly block people’s free choice?
I’d be far less critical of Christians if they, for example, funded more scientific/medical research, or go on a mission to pester politicians for a better health care system and palliative care so that at least patients would have a bigger chance of healing or have more efficient alternatives at their disposal.
There will always be people who want and need help to end their life prematurely, but the more inviting the other options are, the more freely they are able to choose.
BTW David, did you know that many euthanasia requests are disapproved? Only when there is no positive outlook for the patient, euthanasia is a way out.
And surprisingly, only a minority of the patients that are approved actually go through with it- for them it is a great peace of mind to be able to have it available as a last option- they hang in there knowing that if they cannot cope any longer, it takes only a phone call to end it all.
Like my aunt, they live day-by-day, and don’t have to worry and stress about their situation for the next day.
They don’t have to be constantly scared of a cruel death, of not knowing how painful and scarey the end is going to be for them.
Posted by Celivia, Friday, 27 June 2008 11:53:03 PM
Hear, hear Celivia, I don’t get it either.
Euthanasia is something that happens when you are dying, when your quality of life has been reduced to unbearable suffering, it saves a few weeks or months of agony.
I think that when you have a terminal disease there comes a point where you give in, you make your peace with your family and world and then just wait for it to happen.
A third of all deaths are sudden and some people will fight to the end. But I imagine that when you’re old and lived your life that is how it goes.
But why extend the waiting when it is so painful. That is what I don’t get.
When judge Drion proposed his pill 15 odd years ago the concept was enthusiastically received by much of the senior community.
I too David, would like to read your thoughts.
Posted by gusi, Saturday, 28 June 2008 5:12:17 AM
Good grief, the subject is about euthanasia not a battle of religions or atheist festival nor is it an opportunity to proselytize.
For the record I am a Secular humanist and I respect the right for PERSONAL beliefs.
To the point as someone who suffers from Bipolar Type 1 (the predominately depression version) I find the assumption that being depressed is a reason for denying my right to make decisions that have no direct effect on others is arrogant, misinformed, insulting if not plain ignorant.
No one has the right to dictate to another how they should feel or think. I can assure you fortunate people who don’t suffer constant or constantly reoccurring pathological depression that it is real pain not imaginary. Imagine being racked with pain that excludes virtually all else and without the hope of lasting relief. Rather than being exclusion it IS a palpable reason for possibly choosing the ‘big’ out.
How dare anybody who isn’t in my mind or body enforce their ill-informed opinions on me. Much less some religious belief I don’t share. I don’t tell them what to believe so why should they tell me.
The law should simply catch up with the INDIVIDUAL’S right to determine THEIR fate if only because Australia is a secular country. So why should the (irrelevant) views of the religious dominate surely this is unconstitutional.
Posted by examinator, Saturday, 28 June 2008 9:23:13 AM
Well said, gushi and examinator.
I think we can conclude that our collective comments on this issue have plutoed Palmer’s article.
It’s mostly the fundamental Christians who are indefatigably in their pursuit to control other people’s lives.
I wonder if all this anti-euthanasia nonsense is just based on the one “Thou shalt not kill” commandment.
If so, it makes no sense, because Christians have had no problem killing others (the uncontrollable) without their consent, in the name of God.
God (if he existed) had no problem having his own son killed.
God had no problem drowning almost everyone including innocent animals and children just because he was in the mood for it and hadn’t thought of creating anger management classes yet.
God had no problem putting to death homosexuals, people working on the Sabbath, adulterers…
And now a commandment that was ignored by God and Christians is conveniently being used to deny people control over their own life and death?
Posted by Celivia, Saturday, 28 June 2008 10:28:43 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
damn you Celivia. I wish I had made those points.
Bravo.
Posted by Grim, Saturday, 28 June 2008 1:48:21 PM
A small, pedantic point, Celivia.
Jesus actually had to defend himself and his disciples against a claim about working on the Sabbath. (They were gathering wheat, I believe from memory).
His defence was: The Sabbath was made for Man, not man for the Sabbath.
As a secular Christian -I have great admiration for the ethical teachings of Christ, the religious mumbo jumbo was… religious mumbo jumbo- I read the gospels frequently, and am always amazed that ethics really haven’t changed over the centuries.
The Christian churches, however, tend to change more than the weather.
Posted by Grim, Saturday, 28 June 2008 2:42:43 PM
Examinator said: “To the point as someone who suffers from Bipolar Type 1 (the predominately depression version) I find the assumption that being depressed is a reason for denying my right to make decisions that have no direct effect on others is arrogant, misinformed, insulting if not plain ignorant.”
While I agree with all those who have spoken in favour of the right to voluntary euthanasia, you won’t find euthanasia legislation anywhere that does not attempt to exclude people suffering from a mood disorder from participating. I work in an emergency department and we get people in EVERY day who have tried to off themselves. Following your reasoning, we should just let ‘em walk back onto the street and throw themselves under the next bus. Obviously, there is a legal duty of care to those who are suffering depression, predicated on the fact that most of them are able to be treated, at least to some extent, and may not feel the same in a week’s time. You may be right in making an argument that the suffering created through continuing to live may exceed (for some, severely depressed) that created by ceasing to live, sort of a utilitarian basis for euthanasia in the mentally ill, but trying to enact legislation to cover this scenario is next to impossible.
Palmer’s article is dishonest twaddle, attempting to re-cast voluntary euthanasia as state-sanctioned murder, and as you can see David, none of us are buying it (other than your co-deluded flock).
Kipp said: “Assuming you are a male your principles are respected, but when you can give birth to a child, your comments on abortion are meaningless!”
If you are looking for anything other than meaningless Kipp, runner’s posts are not where you look.
Posted by stickman, Saturday, 28 June 2008 3:39:51 PM
The death of Alzheimer’s sufferer Graeme Wylie; was it kindness or a cold-blooded killing? A jury in Sydney found Graeme’s long-time partner Shirley Justins guilty of manslaughter, and the couple’s close friend, Caren Jenning, guilty of being an accessory.
The jury decided the pair didn’t help Graeme carry out an act of free will. Rather, he was in no condition to make a decision to end his own life and the pair made that decision for him.
Damien Carrick: Today on the Law Report: character tests and the law, that’s later; but first the death of Alzheimer’s sufferer Graeme Wylie.
Last week Shirley Justins, his partner of 18 years, was found guilty of his manslaughter. And close family friend Caren Jenning was found guilty of being an accessory.
Newsreader: A jury in Sydney has convicted two women in a controversial euthanasia case. They maintained they were just trying to help an Alzheimer’s sufferer die with dignity, but the jury found the dead man lacked the mental capacity to make the decision to end his life, and that the two women had breached their duty of care.
Reporter: The 71-year-old had been suffering from Alzheimer’s disease for three years. The court heard by the end he couldn’t recognises his own daughters.
Woman: I think the verdict is correct.
Philip Nitschke: I think it’s a disgusting decision, and I’m very, very distressed by it. And as I said, it sends a dreadful message to the elderly people of Australia and especially those either with Alzheimer’s disease, worrying about getting it, or caring for people with this condition.
Damien Carrick: Euthanasia activist Dr Philip Nitschke, who’s disgusted by the jury verdict. And before him, one of the daughters of Graeme Wylie, who believes the jury made absolutely the right decision.
Initially, Shirley Justins and Caren Jenning denied any involvement in the death of Graeme Wylie. They pleaded not guilty to the murder/manslaughter charges. However, once the trial commenced, Justins was prepared to plead guilty to assisted suicide. And Jenning was prepared to plead guilty to importing the drug, Nembutal. But by this point the prosecution declined to bargain, and the trial continued until the end.
Cameron Stewart is an associate professor of law at MacquarieUniversity. He says there is no question that at some points Graeme Wylie wanted to end his own life. He had tried to commit suicide a number of times. In December 2005, he approached the Dignitas Group in Switzerland, an organisation that facilitates assisted suicide.
Cameron Stewart: Graeme Wylie was an ex airline pilot who had been diagnosed with Alzheimer’s disease, and he’d made a decision, or it was argued that he’d made a decision, that he’d wanted to end his life. He, with his partner and friend, had made an application to go to Switzerland to visit the Dignitas Group in Switzerland and have access to their treatments for euthanasia. During that process of evaluation, whether he would be allowed into that clinic, it was decided by the Dignitas Group that he was not competent enough to make a decision with regards to ending his life, and so they rejected his application to go to Switzerland for that.
Damien Carrick: That was in December, 2005.
Cameron Stewart: Yes. And so that was a couple of years back. From what we know, also from the media reports on the trial, after that decision he was disappointed, then he sought other options for ending his own life. And that eventuated in a drug called Nembutal—which is primarily used in veterinary medicine, in Australia, it’s not available for other things. It’s a form of phenobarbital—that drug was procured for him from Mexico, and it was provided to him; he took that drug and he died.
Damien Carrick: How exactly did he die? Was the Nembutal placed on a table in front of him and he picked it up and put it in his mouth?
Cameron Stewart: Basically that seems to be the case, that it was provided in a form for him to swallow, and he took that and he swallowed it. There were some media reports that a statement was made to him at the time that ‘this will help you with your pain’.
Damien Carrick: What were Shirley Justins and Caren Jenning arguing?
Cameron Stewart: They were arguing that it was a suicide. And on the basis of the guilty plea, I suppose their argument was this person had made a conscious decision on their own to end their life. And we may have been guilty of providing support in terms of that person killing themselves. And they were arguing that’s a very different thing from a situation where someone would intentionally end the life of another.
Damien Carrick: But the jury found that Graeme Wylie was not of full mind; he was not capable of making a meaningful decision to end his own life, so therefore this pair weren’t involved in assisting a suicide, they were involved in something much more serious.
Cameron Stewart: Yes, I mean that’s an assumption we make from the jury’s finding, but I think it’s a credible assumption to make. I think that they were really not convinced that this was a person who could make a decision on their own. There was conflicting evidence about that, and in the end the manslaughter conviction appears to be an acceptance that this man was not able to make a decision to kill himself.
Damien Carrick: What was that conflicting evidence?
Cameron Stewart: Well the evidence comes from various sources. The evidence with regards to why it was that Dignitas rejected his application to go to Switzerland, the reasons for that were primarily based upon his cognitive ability, his ability to functionally understand the decision that he had to make with regards to ending his life. There were also conflicting reports about his memory—whether he could remember even his daughters around the time of some of these decisions being made. And there was also conflicting evidence about the status of his will. And I think the combination of all those events may have very much affected the jury’s assessment of whether he had the ability to make his own decision about ending his life.
Damien Carrick: So the evidence was cognitive tests and the post-mortem of the brain, which revealed moderate to severe dementia—and also, I think, testimony from his daughters, who are profoundly angry with Justins and Jenning, that he was unable to hold proper conversations and was unable to identify everyday objects and identify people, even.
Cameron Stewart: That’s correct. I think we need to be careful, though, when we’re talking about capacity, when we’re talking about functional cognitive abilities. It’s not purely a question of some medical test. Capacity generally is a legal test—and when we’re looking at wills, if we’re looking at other types of decisions, medical treatment, refusal of treatment—the test for whether a person has the ability to do that in the legal sense is a legal test, it’s not a medical one. So we could have many tests that are biological, we could have many tests which are psychological, psychometric; they’re not necessarily going to tell us whether at that particular time a person had the capacity legally to make a decision or not.
So medical evidence is helpful, medical evidence gives us an indication of the person’s capacity, but ultimately it comes down to that functional ability, whether a person at that particular point in time can understand what they’re being asked to do, assess the information, believe that information, and communicate the decision. Now that’s very difficult to do in this situation because we didn’t have that type functional assessments going on regularly, in fact as far as we know, it probably didn’t happen at all. But the real problem for us is drawing a distinction then between the question of whether he had a legal ability to understand what he was doing, and that medical evidence about the level of his cognitive impairment due to the dementia.
Damien Carrick: It was clear, or likely, that at one point when he had his full mental capacities, that he had expressed a desire to end his own life and to not lose control over his body, but the question here was whether at the time of his death, he was still of full mind, he was still making a choice, rather than having a choice made for him.
Cameron Stewart: Yes, and that’s the pivotal issue in determining whether this is an act of suicide to which they were assisting, or it was a type of homicide, an intentional killing. That’s the key difference. If the request is being made by a competent person, it’s easier for us to understand that as being a form of suicide to which they’re assisting. If not, then we are really concerned, and it seems the jury was obviously concerned and they’ve decided that it wasn’t that type of situation, rather this was a situation where he really didn’t have that capacity and these women had basically been involved in commiting homicide.
Reporter: The Crown had been seeking a murder conviction for Shirley Justins, saying she was motivated by money. A week before Graeme Wylie’s death his will was changed, which left Justins most of his $2.4 million estate. But Justins argued that although her partner had Alzheimer’s he knew he wanted to die, and had twice tried to kill himself.
Damien Carrick: There was of course the question of the will. In his original will he had left 50% of his $2.4 million estate to his children and 50% to his long-term partner, Justins. But under the new will, almost everything was left to Justins, and she was the one who instigated the change to the will.
Cameron Stewart: This is a problem with all of these end-of-life decisions, because we want families to be involved in end of life decision-making just generally, it’s better for families to be involved with physicians and carers, so that everyone’s on board, everyone’s able to give the person the most dignified death possible. But when we go out of even the ordinary spectrum and into more active forms of euthanasia, any question of conflict of interest is really going to complicate the matters even further. And I think people have a justifiable suspicion in those more active forms of euthanasia, combined with questions of competence, and now combined with some form of financial conflict. In those situations, people I think are rightly suspicious of the motivations.
Damien Carrick: And so the Prosecution was essentially arguing that Justins wasn’t interested in facilitating her partner’s clear and lucid wish to die, but rather killing him so she could inherit the cash, and there was no love there. I think that was essentially the argument.
Cameron Stewart: Well that may have been an argument. What the jury ended up deciding in that room we’ll never know, but maybe that is one of the conclusions we might be drawing. I’m not so sure, I think perhaps it’s the combination of all these events which has led to the jury finding in the way that they have.
Reporter: The euthanasia campaigner, Philip Nitschke, who was present throughout the seven week trial, said he was stunned by the jury’s decision.
Philip Nitschke: I think it’s a disgusting decision, and I’m very, very distressed by it. As I said, it sends a dreadful message to the elderly people of Australia, and especially those either with Alzheimer’s disease, worrying about getting it, or caring for people with this condition.
Reporter: The jury found that Graeme Wylie no longer had the mental capacity to decide to end his life. Dr Nitschke said …
Reporter: While the jury had been told that this was not a referendum on euthanasia, Philip Nitschke says the verdict sends the wrong message.
Philip Nitschke: As people who know they’re getting Alzheimer’s disease will take the option and end their lives earlier rather than later.
Reporter: Justins and Jenning were both …
Reporter: And the euthanasia campaigner, who wept outside the court and was comforted by supporters, said he’d been holding workshops advising his supporters to keep any signs of dementia secret.
Philip Nitschke: Don’t go to your doctor, don’t have the tests done, and if you do have the tests done that show that you’re starting to lose mental capacity, make sure it’s not recorded. So we’ll be giving all of our members a test and telling them to do it privately behind closed doors, and never mention it.
Cameron Stewart: I think that’s a very dangerous thing to be saying to people who’ve newly discovered that they’re suffering some form of dementia. I think what we really need to be doing is encouraging people to work very closely with their carers and their medical professionals, we need to be having conversations about their wishes, and there are ways that you can currently give medical directions, place down advance care planning, so that your decisions will be respected in the future, and they are legal and they are available now. But the best way to have them go ahead is for you to speak to your medical professionals and get them involved in your care with your family. So I feel the heartstrings pull for Dr Nitschke, I understand why he’s upset, but I think that’s a very dangerous thing to say to people.
Damien Carrick: His statements have certainly enraged some doctors who treat Alzheimer’s. They say the comments are profoundly irresponsible because if you don’t diagnose an illness and provide appropriate treatment, then that’s a terrible outcome.
Cameron Stewart: It’s a real danger to people because this is about ongoing care as well. While they still have their cognitive abilities, they need to be given an opportunity to speak about what they would like to have happen in the future. And I’m sure that Dr Nitschke has often argued for that, but getting people not to go to their doctors would result in the opposite outcome.
Damien Carrick: This case is being seen as opening up the debate around legalising euthanasia, but is that really the case? Because Wylie did try to access the Dignitas program, the Swiss-based clinic which assists people to die, and in an Australia where euthanasia was legal, we’d still have cases exactly like this, wouldn’t we? Where people would try and access whatever programs were legal and then might still be knocked back, and we might still find ourselves facing this situation.
Cameron Stewart: That’s correct, that’s absolutely right. If it’s the case that Mr Wylie was not competent, he wouldn’t have been able to access the Northern Territory scheme either, even if it had been legal at the time. These schemes are for people who have full competence, in control of, and have a functional understanding of their conditions, are able to make decisions. They’re not schemes for people who are unable to make decisions, and in fact I don’t think anyone is arguing for a scheme of involuntary euthanasia of people with cognitive impairment. No-one is arguing for that. But the question you’ve asked me is whether this case would happen again. Well one of the arguments is (I’m not sure if it’s correct) but one of the arguments is if we have a voluntary euthanasia regulation, or regime, you’re not going to see as many cases like this happen, because the field will be better regulated; people will have better access to treatments and you won’t have people trying to access Nembutal, you won’t have people trying to access drugs through the back door; there won’t be that social pressure for people to commit suicide in that way. They’ll have another avenue, they’ll have a medical avenue for that to happen.
Damien Carrick: But Graeme Wylie was a man of means, he had funds, and he or his family did try and access that Swiss-based program, Dignitas. So the argument would be that already in a globalised world, these options exist for people and if that’s the case, then as the jury found here, there was abuse. And if in Australia we had a legalised system we’d still have these difficult cases, and we’d still have this, as the jury found, criminal behaviour.
Cameron Stewart: We may still have cases like Mr Wylie’s case, but what we won’t have—well the argument is what we won’t have is the number of people who are suiciding at the moment, and taking their own life, using illegal means. If you provide an avenue for people to have medicalised euthanasia, the argument goes then you reduce the problem of people committing suicide. Suicide is not illegal, the problem at the moment for medicalised euthanasia is that assisted suicide is illegal.
So yes, you may have outlying behaviours and you may have people that will be prosecuted, but another way to look at it is that means the Dignitas process worked. For all those people that say that voluntary euthanasia schemes don’t protect people with cognitive impairments, that there’s a slippery slope. The Dignitas people did not euthanase Mr Wylie, they refused to, they did an assessment, they protected his vulnerability. He ended up being killed, that’s true, but that’s not because of the euthanasia scheme, it’s not because the laws didn’t say that it was wrong for him to die. So in one sense, in a sort of a reverse sort of logic, maybe having a voluntary euthanasia scheme would protect more people with these vulnerabilities. Because there would be a process where people could go and get their capacity assessed, there would be a system of checks and balances to make sure that if they didn’t have capacity, then you wouldn’t have access to these types of behaviour.
Damien Carrick: Finally, the judge in this case will hear sentencing arguments in October and sentence the pair in November. What do you think are his options, and what do you think he’s likely to do?
Cameron Stewart: It’s hard to say. I’m reluctant to look into any form of crystal ball. What I do know is that studies have shown us that generally mercy killing cases are ones which are normally treated with leniency, and people often get suspended sentences or lighter sentences, non-custodial sentences, in many of these cases. But there are some features of this case though that are different. There are some features of this case which make it stand out from the traditional suicide or murder-suicide arrangements that often happen in elderly married couples. What are those features? The fact that we have this tainted will; the fact that we have arguments about financial conflict; the fact that we have arguments about whether there was proper capacity assessment. In this particular case there may be reasons for the imposition of a heavier sentence.
Damien Carrick: Cameron Stewart, associate professor of law at MacquarieUniversity. Caren Jenning is suffering terminal bone cancer and her lawyers will be seeking a non-custodial sentence.
Quite coincidentally, this week the Senate will consider a bill put forward by the Greens that would repeal the federal legislation that stomped on the Northern Territory’s voluntary euthanasia scheme back in 1997.
Guests
Cameron Stewart, Associate Professor Law, Macquarie University
Most are from the Age Newspaper because the Walsh household had to make financial choices in subscribing. Those for and against make interesting reading. What a shame I missed the advertisement of letter signed by church leaders. Some kind individual might email me a copy to share with others.
Letters to the Age:
June 27, 2008
My husband is terminally ill with motor neurone disease and his body is slowly wasting away. He has decided that he doesn’t want to wait until he has lost control over his own life and live in a vegetative state. He would rather end his life when he and only he feels life has become unbearable and not worth living any more. He was lucky that with the support of Dying with Dignity Victoria, and Rodney Syme in particular, this wish has become possible when he decides the time is right.
Although I have a lot of respect for the wonderful work of Adrian Dabscheck (Comment & Debate, 15/6) in providing quality palliative care, I feel that somehow he got hold of the wrong end of the stick when he talks about the fact that physician-assisted dying or
euthanasia “reflects a disturbing degradation of the value we as a society place on human life”. It is because of lack of this value of human life for terminally ill people that physician-assisted dying is a welcome choice for those who cannot face the pain and suffering in their lives any more. It is the patient’s wish to end their life because life is not worth living any more; it has lost its value.
David Kelly (Comment & Debate, 25/6) starts his article with the following phrase: “It is tyranny for others to impose their beliefs on those who are ill and wish to die.” And that is exactly right.Everybody should be able to make that choice whether to end their life
or not in the case of a terminal illness. We hope and pray that the physician-assisted dying bill will be accepted so that those who choose to end their suffering will be able to have the choice to die with dignity.
Mieke Hammond, Drouin
Nor is it reassuring to cite the longstanding practice, particularly in the Netherlands, where the slide from voluntary to non-voluntary euthanasia is well documented. Third, the oft-cited statistic that almost 80% of the community approves of physician-assisted dying in some circumstances should be put alongside the parallel statistic that approximately the same percentage approve capital punishment in some circumstances. Both should continue to be resisted for the same reasons: they are both killing and we make mistakes. Finally, terminal sedation and administering a lethal injection are quite different: one is killing, the other isn’t.
Reverend Bill Uren, Parkville
Staff must make kindly blanket statements that such requests are illegal, and the patient/family may be referred to a chaplain or psychologist. Euthanasia has been a taboo topic in palliative care circles. Senior clinicians who are privately sympathetic fear speaking publicly. The opposition logic is well-meant, deeply entrenched, but seems morally and theologically based rather than medically so. We should not continue to ask patients to bear the brunt
of our moral uncertainty.
Paul Maher, Chewton
Letters to the Age June 26, 2008
Physician Assisted Dying – Who protects the vulnerable now?
Adrian Dabscheck (Comment & Debate, 25/6) says that where palliative care fails, “in extremely rare cases, a patient may, with consent, be sedated at the end of life”. This is also called “terminal sedation”. In terminal sedation, the patient chooses not to suffer. The physician administers the treatment with the patient’s consent, knowing this treatment will result in the patient dying sooner man naturally. The suffering is ended once the medication is given and death follows.
This also describes physician-assisted dying. However, in terminal sedation, the patient takes days to die. There are no safeguards whatsoever to protect the patient—no written consent, no second doctor required, no cooling-off period. There is also no annual reporting to the government.
How often does this practice happen, and who is-monitoring it? Has the family put pressure on the patient? How often is the practice carried out without the patient’s express consent? Is it only done to legally competent patients?
How often is the purported intention of the doctor “to relieve suffering” ever interrogated or proven?
Dabscheck states that where terminal sedation is used “the intention is beneficent, the primary motivation being to relieve pain and suffering when no other method is available”. This is exactly what physician-assisted dying legislation is about, as a complement to palliative care in the rare cases where palliative care fails. In these cases, both patient and physician should be protected by law.
Janine Truter, The Basin
Palliative Care is not for All:
I admire palliative care workers and support much better funding of this sector as Australians, living longer, face more prolonged dying processes. However, the proposition that if only better funded, palliative care will relieve the indignity and suffering of everyone who is dying is simply wrong.
The assertion by Adrian Dabscheck that those of us who support euthanasia legislation—and that includes 80% of Australians if a recent poll is right – or have lost perspective or are “desensitised” raises the question of his judgement of human nature and sensitivity.
This is an important debate, but I am concerned that personal or religious conviction, rather than an objective insight into the diversity of individuals and death processes in this wide world, maybe behind the mistaken idea that palliative care is the be-all and end-all for everyone.
Bob Brown, Australian Greens Leader, Senator for Tasmania
Mindless Cruelty;
I am constantly amazed by the inability of individuals such as Adrian Dabscheck to comprehend exactly what is proposed by legalised euthanasia. Suggestions that euthanasia will “impose quality of life judgements” are not simply wrong, but misleading and deceptive and have no place in rational discussion of the issue.
Whether or not this deception is intentional or simply reflects a lack of understanding I do not know, but it is simply fearmongering and belongs with the “slippery slope” myth. The whole basis of the “right to choose” principle is to place the decision-making process upon us as individuals and to exclude external imposition of any kind. The level of built-in protection is more than enough to outweigh any abuse of the process.
Dr Dabscheck could not deny that palliative care cannot ease the suffering of 100% of patients. What then of the remainder whose pain and suffering cannot be alleviated? Do we simply ignore them? Do we accept their suffering as an “acceptable” statistic?
What is this inhumane obsession with maintaining life at all cost, even when the cost is borne by the sick and dying among us. We owe it to ourselves to demonstrate true humanity and compassion by allowing each person to control his or her destiny. Forcing our own kind to die with pain and suffering is nothing short of mindless cruelty.
Bob Thomas, Blackburn South
It’s My Right to Choose
How can an individual’s right to choose access to legal and safe end-of -life choices translate to us all becoming a burden and therefore feeling pressured to depart this wood at a time that suits others? The physician-assisted dying bill is about individual choice and I want my choice. I do not fear a good death but I do fear not being able to have a good death.
Anne Lakh, Northcote
Letter to the Age 23rd June, 2008
Kill bill furphy
Luke McCormack (Letters, 21/6) implies that the Victorian Physician Assisted Dying bill would permit mercy killing such as the Wylie/Justins case recently prosecuted in NSW.
He is quite misinformed.
The bill provides a comprehensive range of protections for those suffering intolerably and without relief despite the best that modern medicine can offer.
Just two protections in the bill that would outlaw cases like the NSW one are
(1) that to qualify for assistance, the sufferer must be currently mentally competent, which it was determined Wylie was not, and
(2) any person who provides assistance to die forfeits their right to any benefit of the estate, removing this potential motive. The bill also provides heavy penalties, including a $250,000 fine and up to 14 years’ jail for anyone who unduly influences a person to use assisted dying.
I extend an invitation to McCormack and others to actually read the bill, which is in plain English, from the parliamentary website at www.parliament.vic.gov.au, or review summary information at www.dwdv.org.au, before making misinformed judgements.
Neil Francis, president, Dying With Dignity Victoria
Letters to the Herald Sun June 23, 2008
I am appalled by the result of the Justins/Jenning trial (Mercy Killing Women Guilty, June 20)
The decision indicates that if you have Alzheimer’s disease you are denied the legal capacity to the most fundamental of choices — that of control of your fife and control of your death.
People with this medical label do not just switch off their ability, rationality, awareness and their wish to remain in control of their being.
Rod Powell, Benilee, NSW
I find the medical treatment (physician assisted dying;) Bill before the Victorian Parliament, extremely worrying.
I am severely disabled, and use a wheelchair full-time.
Twenty years ago 1 wanted to die — a wish that lasted more than 10 years.
If such a law had existed I would have requested “assisted dying” and I would have qualified for it.
I would have missed the best years of my life.
We can do better for suffering people than kill them in the name of misplaced “mercy”.
What suffering people like me really need is help and support to live with dignity, until we die naturally.
Alison Davis, Blandford Forum, Dorset, UK
Note: Bill only applies to Victorians and its participation is entirely voluntary!!!
THERE are many issues associated with the possible legalisation of doctor-assisted deaths.
Could this possibly become just another routine medical procedure, with no thought to the moral implications?
What about the dilemma for doctors who consider it wrong to end someone’s life?
After all, it is still illegal now. Legalising it won’t convince everyone that it’s not a crime.
What of the pressure felt by sick people or an expectation that they should end their lives, so as not to inconvenience their carers and families? Congratulations to those church leaders who have stood up for what is right, and are opposing the physician assisted dying Bill.
M. MacDonald, Vermont
Note: Read the Bill please and make informed comments.Participation is voluntary by both the dying and the medical staff.Another pov is that watching a person suffering intolerable pain and offering nothing more than platitudes is an immoral act.The word “Moral” has its own definition depending on one’s own values applicable to themselves.Some make other choices.
Letters to the Age June 21, 2008
Dying without dignity
It is no wonder the debate on the Physician Assisted Dying bill in Victoria has been delayed. The conviction for manslaughter of two women in NSW shows how dangerous legalised mercy killing would tie. Family members struggling to care for their sick and lured by inheritance would find legalised killing a convenient way out.Swallowing a drug designed to kill pets after your partner changed your will is no dignified death!.
Luke McCormack, Hadfield
Noted: a person who’d already read my paper had scrawled “READ THE BILL, STUPID!”
What sort of ‘life’ is this?
While have every with Alison Davis’ situation (Letters, 20/6) , the exception does not make the rule.When palliative care doctors have removed a patients source of nutrition then they are admitting that the patient is about to die.
If the same patient’s agony is only controlled (intermittently) by massive quantities of morphine which in turn keeps them largely comatose, where is the logic in prolonging “life” if the patient has already expressed while still of sound mind, the firm wish that their life be terminated under such circumstances.?
Lewis Winders, Sheffield, Tasmania
Furthermore:
So Dr Graeme Duke (letters 19/6) wants to protect my freedom of choice by denying me the freedom to choose?One of us is wearing a pink shirt and a grey suit.
Peter Morgenroth, Bon Beach
Note: I felt a bit foolish with this item as I didn’t understand the message about a pink shirt and grey suit but admit to liking the combination.
Letters to the Age June 17, 2008
Physician Assisted Dying – Letter Writers Do Not Speak for Me
The open letter signed by the leaders of various churches in Saturday’s Age stated their resistance to the Physician Assisted Dying Bill, currently with the State Government.
No one can take this seriously. Opinion polls have consistently recorded rising numbers of people who realise that help in dying is to be welcomed: 82% at the latest poll. Therefore, these churches and recent statements by Archbishop Pell are representative of only 18% of the population.
They certainly do not represent me, nor any of my friends and acquaintances, with whom I have discussed this problem over many years.
Physician-assisted dying is for those who have chosen in advance not to continue living if their medical condition has become intolerable.
Safeguards are in place to ensure that it is the patient’s choice, clearly expressed when of sound mind.
Those who wish to endure painful death are at liberty to do so. Those of us who do not so wish seek the legalisation of medical practice to provide the means to help us die. It is the choice that we seek and we resent die interference of strangers to compromise our wish for a good death.
Pauline Reilly, Aireys Inlet
Nothing to fear from this
The open letter stated that “the fear of being a burden is a major risk to the survival of those who are chronically ill”.
Palliative Care Australia’s own publication The Hardest Thing We Have Ever Done states that “carers experience an increase in adverse health effects related to stress, a change in eating patterns leading to weight loss, and a disruption of sleeping patterns leading to carer fatigue.
“Carers have reduced opportunity for social and physical activities, further reducing their own physical wellbeing… Carers report feelings such as guilt, fear, frustration, anger, resentment, anxiety, depression, loss of control and a sense of inadequacy.”
The sense of burden is not just a “fear”, it may be a devastating reality. To want to spare one’s relatives and friends such distress may well represent a selfless act of altruism of the highest order — a thoroughly Christ-like act.
People have nothing to fear from this legislation, which demands careful medical practice for its implementation. More importantly, the person making the request for assistance in dying retains control over the process, as they must ingest the medication — no doctor may give them an injection that they do not want.
Rodney Syme, vice-president, Dying With Dignity Victoria, Toorak
I want the right to choose
None of what I read in this expensive ad is valid or proves any reason to reject the bill. Words such as “may fail”, “may lead”, “usually arises” do not prove that they will.
The statement that “the bill would not benefit Victorians who suffer from chronic illnesses, instead it would make protection of their lives dependant on the strength of their will to continue” is not based on fact.
How could they know this for sure? How dare they assume that I would not be able to make my own informed decision. This statement has no proven truth to it; it is just highlighted to frighten.
The member’s bill 2008 is in the interests of all Victorians and we should have the right to choose, the right to decide how we live and how we die.
I understand that people disagree — I respect their decision. They have a choice — at present I do not. I am asking that they respect my right to choose.
Linda J.Kocken:Thornbury
Chance I’m happy to miss
I can agree that if I somewhat casually decide, during the course of my final illness, to have myself topped, and that if I am abetted in this decision by obliging assistants, uncaring medical staff and eager legatees, then my final illness will be cut short. I can also agree that I might, in consequence, miss out out on a priceless opportunity to experience the ennobling effects of pain and suffering, and to share that experience with my family and friends I am, however, willing to take that chance.
Second, I would be interested to see evidence, over and above assertion and expressions of pious anxiety, that there would be “a moral pressure to relinquish one’s hold on life”. Third, I would suggest that there is something a little coy about the references to “similar legislation” being found wanting.
June 22, 2008 04:14am
Article from: The Sunday Telegraph
When it comes to euthanasia, or the more anodyne but no less lethal “assisted suicide”, there are no shades of grey. People are either
vociferously for it or, equally, stridently against it.
It provides one of the great moral mazes of our times, particularly in Australia with its ever-ageing population and questions about the
ongoing burden of the elderly on the public purse.
To my mind, though, there is no burden. We should care for our aged regardless of the ailments and cost. We should respect their wisdom and experience in all its forms. Sadly and sickeningly, we live in a society in which the elderly have somehow become disposable, or have been led to believe they have a use-by date.
On Thursday in Sydney, the issue was front and centre again with the convictions of two women in relation to the death of a 71-year-old man suffering Alzheimer’s. Graeme Wylie died after drinking the veterinary drug Nembutal, which had been illegally imported into Australia from Mexico, in March 2006.
Wylie’s partner of almost two decades, Shirley Justins, was convicted of manslaughter after giving him the lethal drug. Caren Jenning, the woman who imported the drug and who is terminally ill with cancer, was found guilty of being an accessory before the fact to manslaughter. They could be sentenced to up to 25 years in jail.
Justins and Jennings are members of a pro-euthanasia group, but their trial revolved around Wylie’s mental capacity to make a properly informed and independent choice to die, as well as alleged motivations of changed wills and inheritances.
The convictions were described as a “blow” to the pro-euthanasia movement. Its most vocal champion, Philip Nitschke, cried outside court upon hearing the verdicts. I was unmoved.
It’s worth remembering that, away from this case, euthanasia is illegal in every jurisdiction in Australia. The problem with legislating for euthanasia – or whatever people want to call it – is that it can be abused. Interpretation is everything.
Patients already have the power to apply DNR or Do Not Resuscitate to their charts, which doctors and medical practitioners are, by law, expected to uphold. They also have the right to determine their own treatment and, even, to refuse it.
Doctors also know how to manage pain for those who need it. Indeed, the Australian Medical Association’s position on what it calls end of life care is clear.
In a statement released last year, it says the AMA supports a guidance framework rather than a legislative system to oversee end of life care. Where legislation does exist, the AMA supports uniform, flexible legislation that protects medical practitioners and allows them to undertake their clinical duties in line with good medical practice.
The reality is that people have been looking after their own interests for years with the assistance of caring doctors who, as the AMA says, respect the patients’ goals and values for end of life care, ensure that terminally ill patients are free of suffering and in an environment of their choice, among other things.
Husbands, wives, children and next of kin have a vested interest in a certain outcome and, no doubt, many people believe that euthanasia by medical experts or assisted suicide by non-medical experts is the greatest act of generosity and offers a peaceful and dignified exit for people with terminal illnesses. And they may be right.
But here’s the thing. It’s not their decision to make.
Advocates for euthanasia talk about quality of life, but who has the right to determine what quality of life is optimal, or right, or wrong? Where does it stop?
There is no denying that this is an incredibly difficult area but life and death are the most intimate of acts and they should remain private, not encoded in sterile legislation that strips away all dignity and humanity.
Pro Choice Comments: A gentleman sent off a copy of this article to me and commented “What a load of rubbish but what can we do?” and my first instinct was “to respond” to Sandra Lee’s article from another point of view.
Obviously the lady has no first hand knowledge of all the Australian State Laws as they stand today. Should she live in Queensland she would have more rights than if she lived in Victoria. In Victoria where I live, Do Not Resuscitate has no legal status UNLESS the doctor agrees to it. I have a tattoo on my chest and depending on which doctor happens upon my unconscious body first, they will decide for me, whether I should or should not be resuscitated. In my case, even a mild heart attack or stroke, I WANT TO BE “PERMITTED” TO DIE AT THAT POINT IN MY LIFE. I do not want to be bum wiped or spoon fed at any stage in my life again. No grey areas thank you.
Sandra asks “who has the right to determine what quality of life is optimal”? Who better to determine that, than the person living the life? Who owns my life? Sandra or Mary? What Sandra does with her own is her business, but she sure as hell doesn’t have any right over mine! Nor does any one else!
Sandra talks of many people believing in a hastened death, but that it’s not their decision to make! Wake up Sandra, the great debate is about obtaining that very right for themselves through the legal systems available to them, Parliament and the Medical Profession!!!! with permission of course from the real rulers of society, religion!
That Sandra Lee remained unmoved by a man’s tears of distress says more about Sandra Lee than it does about Philip Nitschke. Caren Jennings is a great personal friend of Nitschke and it’s a human thing to do when expressing grief for a bad result.
To adopt the option of voluntary euthanasia is another method of treatment Sandra, at end of life choices, and no we don’t have that right anywhere within Australia! We don’t have that additional option of terminating a life that is already lost by nature’s intentions for us, were she not interrupted by medical intervention.
The right to determine what defines “optimal” is to ask the person lying in the bed!!! You know Sandra, the person actually doing the suffering. As I’ve said a thousand times, when you’ve walked in my shoes you then have a right to your POV speaking from my perspective.
Most pro life activists talk as if society is going to take every aged person and stick them in mandatory place to be lined up for death. Anyone who has followed the path of the debate on voluntary euthanasia knows that it has everything to do with the dying process whether you be 25, 55 or 95. Nature ensures that as we age, we experience more illness as the body beautiful deteriorates to make way for new life on earth. It is nature’s method to ensure we don’t overstay our welcome on a depleted planet. It is to do with whether your health circumstances warrant you hanging on to life on the chance there may be a recovery or scientific discovery around the corner…..now for some people we don’t want to retain a prolonged dying process when we could just as easily end the pain and suffering quickly. Some people don’t enjoy suffering and want it to end accordingly without a light at the end of the tunnel.
Sandra Lee has not made her case for “why death should not be legalised”…Death will occur with or without the legal system, but the ease with which it occurs could be part of the legal system.
Multiple sclerosis sufferer Debbie Purdy shares a kiss with her husband Omar Puente outside the High Court. Photograph: John Stillwell/PA
A woman with multiple sclerosis who wants her husband to help her end her life today won a landmark legal review of the law on assisted suicide.
Two judges gave Debbie Purdy permission to bring a high court challenge forcing the director of public prosecutions, Sir Ken Macdonald, to clarify under which circumstances people could be prosecuted for helping their loved ones die.
Purdy, 45, wants her husband, Omar Puente, to accompany her to the Dignitas clinic in Switzerland to end her life once her suffering has become unbearable. However, she is worried he could be prosecuted on returning to the UK.
Puente would be liable to prosecution and a prison term of up to 14 years if found guilty of assisting, aiding or abetting a suicide.
Lord Justice Latham, sitting with Mr Justice Nelson at the high court in London, ruled that “without wishing to give Ms Purdy any optimism that her arguments will ultimately succeed”, she did have an arguable case which should go to a full hearing.
It is currently illegal in the UK to assist the suicide of another person – even if it happens abroad and assisted suicide is legal in that country.
But the legal situation is unclear because none of the relatives of the 92 Britons who have already died at Dignitas have been prosecuted on their return to the UK.
“I am delighted that the courts have decided to officially review the law surrounding my case,” said Purdy.
“If the DPP does clarify that my husband will not be prosecuted for accompanying me to Dignitas, I will be able to wait until I’m ready to go. I want to wait until the last possible moment – if I can no longer bear being alive – but I cannot do that while there is a chance my husband will be prosecuted.
“If the DPP does not give this assurance, then I would need to go to Dignitas a long time before I want to die, but at least I would know where I stand.”
Sarah Wootton, the chief executive of the charity Dignity in Dying, which is supporting Purdy’s case, said she was “relieved” by the court’s decision.
“This is an important step forward for Debbie Purdy and others like her. If the DPP issues a policy on the law, Debbie may be able to live longer, knowing that if her suffering becomes too much to bear, she has the option of having an assisted death, with her husband by her side.
“Of course, the decision to travel to Dignitas is far from ideal. People who are terminally ill and mentally competent should have the option of requesting a medically assisted death in the comfort of their own country, surrounded by the people they love.”
Many of the relatives who accompanied people to Dignitas were questioned by police on their return to the UK and had to wait several months before finding out that the cases against them had been dropped.
About this article
Close
This article was first published on guardian.co.uk on Wednesday June 11 2008. It was last updated at 15:42 on June 11 2008.
Choice Comments: Interestingly the whole Eastern of Australia is involved in choice and dignity dying matters, what with the Federal Senate about to hear (June 25th) 2000 Submissions later, Bob Brown’s case for overturning Kevin Andrew’s legislation revoking the Rights of the Terminal Ill in 1997 which saw the demise of the Northern Territory legislation. In Sydney this week Australia saw two women found guilty of aiding a suicide which is very very sad – a “so called” crime precisely because no parliament and therefore, court in Australia has the guts to protect people who want to end their loved one’s suffering. If legislation was put in place that protect the desperately ill from continual pain in the face of death, what alternatives do we have but to step up to the podium and be counted!…..Like Dr Syme, a Victorian retired doctor who has put his liberty at risk to assist people in agony.
And there is there the Physician Assisted Dying Bill currently before the Victorian parliament!….For the various letter writers in our newspapers, if only they could COMPREHEND the wording of the Bill they would be reassured that their lives are not at risk. A patient has to ask for the option of a hastened death, then there is a cooling off period and then if medical staff think you’re too sad about your imminent death and the pain endured arriving at its door!…You get to see a physiatrist to reassure everyone else around you, that as there is little purpose in continuing the charade of medical intervention, can you please just be ALLOWED to DIE!!!!
Dr Philip Nitschke is right, as a result of the findings in a NSW Court, more people will take their own lives earlier rather than risking it too late and having to rely on others to help them. The good Christians who cheered in Courtroom as the verdict of Guilty was read, knew they had it won because the system does not allow for an alternative to murder, manslaughter when the reality is those crimes are committed out of malice of forethought. These actions were taken out of a compassionate concern for a friend/loved one’s prospects of a lousy life until death. Those who cheered in the court will one day face their own demons of impending end of life choices and I would love to be a fly on the wall, to see the courage they demonstrate in the face of their agony!….
There needs to be another word invented that covers the definition of Killing out of Love:
The following poem is copied and pasted from an Australian Website www.dadsindistress.asn.au and I thought it was just so TRUE!!!
IF I KNEW
If I knew it would be the last time That I’d see you fall asleep, I would tuck you in more tightly and pray the Lord, your soul to keep.
If I knew it would be the last time that I see you walk out the door, I would give you a hug and kiss and call you back for one more.
If I knew it would be the last time I’d hear your voice lifted up in praise, I would video tape each action and word, so I could play them back day after day.
If I knew it would be the last time, I could spare an extra minute to stop and say “I love you,” instead of assuming you would KNOW I do.
If I knew it would be the last time I would be there to share your day, Well I’m sure you’ll have so many more, so I can let just this one slip away.
For surely there’s always tomorrow to make up for an oversight, and we always get a second chance to make everything just right.
There will always be another day to say “I love you,” And certainly there’s another chance to say our “Anything I can do?”
But just in case I might be wrong, and today is all I get, I’d like to say how much I love you and I hope we never forget.
Tomorrow is not promised to anyone, young or old alike, And today may be the last chance you get to hold your loved one tight.
So if you’re waiting for tomorrow, why not do it today? For if tomorrow never comes, you’ll surely regret the day,
That you didn’t take that extra time for a smile, a hug, or a kiss and you were too busy to grant someone, what turned out to be their one last wish.
So hold your loved ones close today, and whisper in their ear, Tell them how much you love them and that you’ll always hold them dear
Take time to say “I’m sorry,” “Please forgive me,” “Thank you,” or “It’s okay.” And if tomorrow never comes, you’ll have no regrets about today.
When a jury yesterday found Shirley Justins guilty of the manslaughter of her elderly partner, there were cheers from one group and tears from another.
The case, which centred on the assisted suicide of 71-year-old Graeme Wylie, has highlighted the arguments of right to life and pro-euthanasia groups.
Mr Wylie was suffering advanced Alzheimer’s disease when Ms Justins helped him commit suicide by consuming the drug Nembutal in 2006.
Her friend Caren Jenning was found guilty of being an accessory to manslaughter after she imported the drug from Mexico.
The Sydney jury found Mr Wylie was not mentally capable of making that decision to end his life. The women will be sentenced in October.
Dr Rodney Syme is the vice-president of Dying with Dignity Victoria. He says the case demonstrates flaws in the legal system.
“The laws that we have in this country, they’re opaque. Generally, where you have any unregulated activity in this area, like there used to be with abortion back in the 60s, you have bad practice and bad outcomes,” he said.
“It’s only by having good law, which brings practice out into the open and regulates it, that we will make any progress.”
Dr Syme says the New South Wales case will have little bearing on the progress of the euthanasia campaign.
He points to the Victorian Parliament which is considering legislation which would allow doctors to assist the terminally ill to die – but with strict conditions on consent, financial interest and expert medical opinion.
But CEO of Right to Life New South Wales Chiang Lim expects the Victorian legislation to fail.
“While there may be a number of people who are very sympathetic to the euthanasia cause, there is no safeguard possible or legislatively possible to prevent foul play, or extra opportunities that [can] be exploited,” he said.
Professor Megan Jane Johnstone is an ethicist at RMIT University. She predicts Australian states will legalise euthanasia.
“I think you’ve got a new generation of people coming through that have a very different view of all sorts of ethical issues, have a very new view about their so-called ‘right to decide’, rightly or wrongly, and I do think there will come a time when it will happen,” she said.
But she is warning of unintended consequences.
“If you’re going to say, ‘OK, euthanasia is okay for people who have very painful end-stage illnesses and wanting an exit strategy’, then say ‘well it’s OK then to say that people who have severe depression would be candidates for euthanasia’, we could imagine a world where, depleted of resources due to climate, them saying they want an exit strategy,” she said.
“Some might say that’s extreme. I would suggest it isn’t, that once you start, then that policy can then be expanded to be inclusive of all sorts of life and death scenarios that hadn’t been anticipated.”
It is just so very sad that the Law does not service the needs of our loved ones in dying. The message I receive from these findings is that I must be prepared to die sooner rather than later. I cannot ever allow myself to become dependent upon another person to assist the process of my dying. I cannot put their liberty at risk. The Government funds Beyond Blue enormous amounts of money to ensure people are protected from suffering depression, the Churches cry Love and Compassion for their fellow man. Neither get the Message!!!! People will not suffer unnecessarily if they can help themselves at all.
My choice in dying is for it to be swift and effective.
Although I am sad for Ms Caren Jennings, I believe Shirley Justins motives were slightly suspect given the changing of the Will immediately before the Suicide was assisted.
At 75 and with terminal breast cancer I don’t think “the Law” can do too much to Caren Jennings. Her life is basically coming to a close but she didn’t need the stress of a court case to hasten her death. She’ll probably have to suffer more pain as the cancer progresses as a result, because the medical staff will ensure she doesn’t have sufficient morphine to overdose and end her pain, before the legal system gets their pound of flesh.
The way the law is there could be no other verdict because helping a loved one to die is classed as Murder (killing with malice of forethought).What hope do proponents of voluntary euthanasia have?
Mercy-killing death: women found guilty
Geesche Jacobsen
June 19, 2008 – 3:50PM
In a blow to the euthanasia movement, a jury has found one women guilty of the manslaughter and another an accessory to the manslaughter of Alzheimer’s sufferer and former Qantas pilot Graeme Wylie.
Mr Wylie’s partner Shirley Justins, 59, and his long-term friend Caren Jenning, 75, were accused of plotting to kill him.
Justins was found guilty of manslaughter and Jenning of being an accessory to manslaughter.
Mr Wylie, 71, died in March 2006 from an overdose of the veterinary drug Nembutal, which Jenning had bought and illegally imported from Mexico, and which Justins had given to him in their Cammeray home.
He had been diagnosed with Alzheimer’s disease in March 2003 and the case centered on his capacity at the time of his death to decide he wanted to commit suicide.
Evidence on this had been conflicting and the jury deliberated for three days after the six-week trial.
The prosecution had argued Mr Wylie, who had been assessed as suffering from moderate to severe dementia, and who, four months before his death, could not remember the number or sex of his children or his own date of birth, was no longer able to decide to kill himself.
Therefore, Crown prosecutor Mark Tedeschi, QC, argued his death was not a suicide, but murder or manslaughter.
But the court also heard evidence from his sisters and a former friend, who said they had lucid conversations with him in the three months before his death.
Nine days into the trial, Justins changed her plea and admitted to aiding Mr Wylie’s suicide, but Mr Tedeschi told the court he did not accept the plea and was going to pursue the other charges.
Euthanasia advocate Philip Nitschke gave evidence about a consultation with Mr Wylie, who had applied to have an assisted suicide in Switzerland.
But the Swiss organisation Dignitas rejected the application in December 2005, finding the evidence about his capacity was conflicting and it could not be certain he would qualify for an assisted suicide under Swiss law.
In February 2006, Dr Nitschke again met Justins and Jenning to discuss further options for Mr Wylie.
The court also heard that Mr Wylie’s will – in Justins’ favour – was changed a week before his death. Under an old will she stood to gain half of his $2.4 million estate, with the rest to be divided between his daughters.
Under the new will the daughters were left $100,000 each, with Justins to gain $2.2 million of the estate. The daughters are contesting the will in the Supreme Court on the basis Mr Wylie did no longer have the capacity to make a new will at the time.
Jenning is also to be sentenced for importing the Nembutal, a charge to which she has pleaded guilty.
The women did not react to the verdicts, but their supporters in the public gallery cried out in surprise.
Outside the court, Dr Nitschke said that his organisation Exit International would now be warning its members to “tread very carefully” and hold workshops for people with Alzheimer’s disease to inform them about how to get around the implications of today’s decision.
Members of Jenning’s family and other supporters wept and muttered angrily.
Justice Roderick Howie thanked the jury for their attention in what he said must have been an extraordinarily difficult case.
Outside court, Jenning said she did not wish to comment, but her lawyer Sam Macedone briefly spoke to reporters about the verdict. “I’ve been in this too long to be shocked by anything,” Mr Macedone said.
“Caren is quite well and everything will be fine.”
Justins also offered no comment to waiting media as she was escorted from court by her barrister Peter Bodor, QC, her eyes shielded by sunglasses.
Bail was continued for both women, and Jenning’s counsel indicated they would be seeking a non-custodial sentence.
“I would ask that a pre-sentence report be obtained to see what available options there are, other then a custodial sentence,” Michael Williams, QC, told the court.
“This is a very unusual case, your honour, and not one, in my respectful submission, that would [require] an ordinary sentence for my client.”
Jenning is suffering from terminal cancer.
Justice Howie adjourned the matter to allow for the gathering of medical and other evidence on sentence to October 7, with a likely sentence date in November.
