A fellow supporter supplied me with this information:

set-out below verbatim for group awareness is a brief but interestion report headed “Suicide Ruling” that appeared in todays Townsville Bulletin dated 23rd April 2009 that was circulated via the Australian Associated Press
The item in focus reports a High Court Decision where six High Court Judges unamimously found Re:” That the law did not oblige a person to rescue another from harm”.
This unamimous High Court Decision should have far-reaching effects where ambulance personnel are concerned. Also one can interpret this decision to refer to another person living in the same dwelling or perhaps even the same room or even those with “Do not resusitate ” requirements.  Further and more to the point, with suicide by law not deemed a crime then this decision could possibly bring into question some possible conflict with the Queensland Criminal Code thereby requiring an amendment.

Subject Report

The High Court has ruled that not all people who attempt suicide are mentally ill and therefore police are not obliged to help them.
The ruling follows action taken by a Victorian woman who sued two police officers she blamed for the suicide death of her husband.
Six High Court Judges unanimously found the law did not oblige a person to rescue another  from harm.
The decision has devided health groups and other stakeholders.
Footnote: I defined this ruling as the ultimate “respecting patient choices” (a Victorian initiative to placate patients while their Health Care Worker is really in charge of their life and death)      I have “Do Not Resuscitate” tattooed on my chest and sincerely hope I will be given the same dignity to die on my terms if and when the occasion should ever arise.

For many months I have been watching repeats of GP at the early morning timeslot…

I have made some enquiries as to the availability of some of these programs on DVD.

These programs were very well presented for issues at the time they were first presented, and are just a relevant to day. One three occasions within the last 4 months I have  found the topics about issues I was wrestling with in my own life.( Namely the effects of youth suicide within my extended family, issues around a family member from another culture, and a member with a mental illness)

Today’s episode was on Euthanasia of a man with AIDS it was dedicated to Greg Palmer…..this is also just as relevant now because of the debates on a good death going on around Australia now…Example your radio program on background briefing two weeks ago by Rodney Syme

When was this episode made, and who was Greg Palmer…
I know another episode was also made on Euthanasia
(peaceful death)of an elderly couple.  Are these episodes available either as Videos or DVD’s

I borrow a lot of DVD’s from my local library and I am surprised that there are no Videos or DVD’s for this outstanding TV series available….or even in the ABC shop  I have had this checked out

There are plenty of UK. series and the West Wing series etc… Why Why Why Aunty do we sell ourselves short on our Dramas a TV shows by constantly repeating UK oldies.

I would like to tick the appreciation circle but I can not have two bites of the cherry

Choice Footnote: I couldn’t agree more with these sentiments.   Australian content is sadly lacking in the promotion of our own productions over that of the American gratuitous violence.   Not so much in the ABC shops but in places like Borders which have a much bigger range and yet still ignore most of the Australian stuff.   Doesn’t the ABC allow other than Dymocks to stock their programs?  Fine if one lives near the restrictive choices of stores.

Steve Guest Rally Speech – Leslie Cannold
To be delivered 21 April 2009, Parliament House Steps

Today I want to speak about conscience.

There are two ways that claims of conscience will impact on a dying with dignity bill.

The first, the idea of conscientious objection, will arise when the contents of such a bill are debated. The second, a conscience vote, will affect the voting process critical to whether such a bill is passed.

This could be subject for a thesis, but in the 5 minutes I’ve got, I want to say what I can about both of them.

Conscientious Objection and the Medical Profession

Conscientious objection is the right claimed by medical professionals to refuse to provide medical care to which they have a religious or ethical objection.

Here in Australia, the right to conscientiously object is invoked by a small coterie of orthodox religious medical practitioners to refuse to provide lawful and effective care including termination of pregnancy, sterilization procedure and contraceptive advice, including advice and provision of emergency contraception for rape victims. When a bill enabling PAD is passed, we can expect this group of medicos to invoke their consciences as grounds for refusing to help their patients die with dignity.

Conscience Rights – who has them?

The truth, is that medical institutions don’t have conscience rights, and those possessed by doctors are far more limited than they would have us believe.

The right to conscientious object comes from the value of autonomy. Autonomy meals self-rule and speaks of the importance of self-determination: the right of all of us to guide our health care and lives according to our own values.

Health care professionals do have conscience rights but such rights – like all rights – are limited by duties. While orthodox religious medical professionals and their clerical defenders like to wax indignant at any suggestion that their conscience rights are limited by their professional obligations as medical professionals, they most certainly are. They are constrained, and significantly so, by the Golden Rule, and their obligation to patient care.

•    That is, a HCP can NOT exercise his right to conscientiously object at the expense of his patient’s right to act on her conscience – to direct her life, and her healthcare, according to it.
•    And, a HCP can NOT exercise his conscience when doing so puts his patient at risk. For instance, of not receiving timely medical care, or any care at all. HCPs have a duty of care to their patients and this comes first. Professor Julian Savelescu, a philosopher and a medical doctor himself, feels so strongly about the primacy of this duty over the HCP’s right to conscientiously object that he says any doctor “not prepared to offer legally permitted, efficient and beneficial care to [a] patient because it conflicts with [his] values…should not be [a] doctor.”

UPSHOT?

That when PAD legislation is drawn up, preferably by the Victorian Lw Reform Commission, it contains a clause that explicitly and fairly balances the rights of doctors and patients with regard to PAD. That it balances the right of doctors’s to conscientiously object to assisting his patient die with dignity with the right of that patient to get timely medical advice and care with regard to his request to die with dignity.

Politicians and Conscience

Currently, little guidance is available to politicians about how they should exercise their conscience, or free, vote.

Some claim it as

•    an opportunity to express their own moral view on an issue

•    deploy it for political gain
•    others—having surveyed their electorate—use it to express the ethical position of the majority.

None of these approaches are legitimate. Rather, the obligation of elected representatives in liberal pluralist societies is act so as to foster the autonomy of their electors. Put simply, it is unconscionable for our elected representatives to exercise their conscience rights so as to deny conscience rights to those they represent.

What does this mean for Victorian MPs voting on a Dying with Dignity Bill? It means that such MPs are duty-bound to use their conscience vote to pass such a Bill. Why? Because the only way to protect the conscience rights of electors is to make physician-assisted dying lawful. Only when PAD is lawful will Victorians have the capacity to choose for themselves, when faced with a terminal illness and intolerable suffering, how they wish to proceed.

Conclusion: We all have consciences

Last month, Father Frank Brennan, an opponent of the right to die with dignity and the Chair of the National Human Rights Consultation, said we need to accord a “higher value to the formed and informed conscience”  of medical practitioners over what, one can only presume, are the unformed and ill-informed ones of patients seeking to die with dignity. I find such a view elitist, paternalistic, insulting and wrong.

We all have consciences and the right to a legal framework that enables the dictates of those consciences to be respected, whether at the beginning, middle or end of life.

I look forward to the day when we have legislation in this state that allows each of us, according our own circumstances and values, to decide.

Date: 30 July 2008
Activity: Second Reading
MEDICAL TREATMENT (PHYSICIAN ASSISTED DYING) BILL
Second reading
Mrs COOTE (Southern Metropolitan) –

Although interest groups, individuals and the media have all concentrated on the dying aspects of this bill, I believe it is more about dignity than it is about dying, and thus I will be supporting it. Each of us has within us a threshold, a level of what we feel we can deal with.
As members of a society we rarely think or discuss how we want to be at the very final moments of our lives.
As many of my colleagues have said here today, this is a very uncomfortable bill. It pushes us as legislators and as individuals to search the very core of our beliefs and values to decide what is right ethically. It is not a decision that is taken lightly, and I admire and respect the views of people whose opinions differ from mine. I thank everyone who has contacted me to express their concerns about the bill and indeed those who have expressed their support for the bill. We live in a democracy and a vital and healthy part of that democracy is the right of an individual to express their personal views. Many of the people who have expressed their views to me will not agree with the approach I am taking, but I hope they understand that this is not a decision I have taken lightly, and that I have spent a great deal of time in coming to my conclusion.
I want to record my praise for my colleague Colleen Hartland for her courage in bringing this bill to the Legislative Council. Her second-reading speech is professional and comprehensive, and I commend her on the research she conducted and the detail she included in it. I want to place on record also my thanks for the information provided on a continuous basis by Neil Francis and the Dying With Dignity Victoria organisation.
As I said, this is not a decision I have taken lightly. In fact, this was one of the very first issues I was confronted with in 1999 when first elected as the member for the then Monash Province. I was first approached by a constituent whom I admire.

Initially I was surprised by the stance he was taking towards euthanasia. He explained his personal experience and encouraged me to spend time and effort in researching this vexed issue. I did this against a background heightened by media hype about euthanasia and fuelled by Philip Nitschke and his controversial methods.
I do not agree with Dr Nitschke’s sensationalist approach, but he has been consistent in raising debate on this issue over the years, and for that he is to be commended.
Not long after my first involvement when I had started to take note of the issue and indeed had taken the point of the person I admired so much and was beginning to research it, I was next approached by another constituent, Dr Rodney Syme. At that time I had a series of long and comprehensive meetings with Dr Syme when we discussed euthanasia. Many members have received a significant amount of information from Rodney Syme, so I will not elaborate on the details of his opinion, but I would like to quote the following paragraph from his book, A Good Death — An argument for voluntary euthanasia, which has a foreword by Pamela Bone. On page vii the foreword encapsulates what Dr Syme believes:
A right to live does not include an obligation to do so, under any or every circumstance. It is surely true that we can waive such a right, and this is the basis of our autonomy in end-of-life decisions.
I think many speakers today have reflected the views of their constituents who hold just those sentiments.
At this stage in the debate it is important to reflect on the purpose of the bill and some of its elements. As many previous speakers have said, this is:
A Bill for an Act to enable a mentally competent adult person suffering intolerably from a terminal or advanced incurable illness to exercise their right to end their life by requesting medical assistance from their doctors, to protect doctors who so assist, to prevent misuse of their ability to assist, and for other purposes.
It is essential to remember that a purpose of the bill is to protect doctors. Many contributors to the debate have already alluded to the fact that doctors and family members agree to end a person’s life after consultation and with discretion and a great deal of debate. However, doctors themselves need to be protected, and that is one thing that the bill sets out to do.
I would like to discuss the contents of the bill. To help us deal with the bill the parliamentary library prepared for members an excellent paper entitled Medical Treatment (Physician Assisted Dying) Bill 2008 — Parliamentary Library Research Service No 2. The paper lists the major elements of the bill:
In order for a sufferer to qualify for physician-assisted dying, all of the following conditions must be met.
As I have already said, the purpose of the bill is to prevent misuse. The paper goes on:
That the sufferer:
o    makes a request that the treating doctor provide assistance to that sufferer to end his or her life;
o    be an adult;
o    be mentally competent at all times;
o    be informed of the nature of his or her illness, its likely course, and medical treatments, including palliative care;
o    has had his or her settled or usual residence in the state of Victoria for a minimum of 12 months;
o    has a terminal or incurable illness that is causing the sufferer intolerable suffering;
o    has received the advice of a doctor practising in palliative care (and an additional consultation if the sufferer has an incurable illness that is not terminal);
o    sees no other medical treatment, including palliative care, as acceptable and likely to relieve the sufferer’s intolerable suffering;
o    that the sufferer’s decision to end his or her life has been made freely, voluntarily and after due consideration and is not being influenced by a treatable mental illness; and
o    that 48 hours has lapsed between the signing of part A and part C of the certificate of request (including an additional cooling-off period of 14 days for an incurably ill sufferer).
We must remember, and I charge all those going into this debate from this point onwards to remember, what is in the bill — its thrust and its details. However, it is important to note also what this bill does not allow. I would like to refer to an excellent document prepared by Dying With Dignity Victoria.
In this pamphlet it says that the bill does not allow:
o    Assistance for minors.
o    Assistance for non-Victorian residents.
o    Assistance for those of unsound mind.
o    Assistance by injection.
o    Anyone to be compelled to participate or not participate in providing assistance against their will.
o    Prosecution of anyone attending the death for merely being present.
o    Anyone who signs or witnesses assisting documents, provides assistance, or unduly influences the request for assistance, to benefit financially or otherwise whether directly or indirectly from an assisted death.
Parts of the debate to date have been very emotive. I believe parts of the debate to date have in fact misconstrued what is, and what is not in this bill. I agree with the speakers before me that it is important to get the details of this bill right, and I suggest that Ms Hartland has gone to considerable lengths to make certain that the issues that have been of concern and which people have raised with her have been addressed. I know she will be presenting some amendments later in this debate, and I believe they address even further some of the issues of concern.
Accurately gauging public opinion on any issue is exceedingly difficult, and opinion polls are probably the best measure that we possibly have to do just that. We see the swings in political polling; in that case we actually get to see the end result because there is an eventual election, and we see whether in fact the polls have been right or not. Measuring public opinion on major issues is a little less transparent but we must take into account what has been noted by the research of our parliamentary library on opinion polls, and what it has quoted that the opinion polls have said.
I read from that excellent briefing paper by Dr Gregory Gardiner on opinion polls. This is the most recent information that we have on political polling.
It is important to gauge what the public in Victoria are thinking on this issue at this time, because certainly we have all been bombarded with information from people who agree with this legislation and people who do not agree with this legislation.
There has been a plethora of information sent from a particular organisation by way of just form letters with a top and tail signature; quite frankly, many of the emails presented did not even give us the dignity or the understanding of stating where the originators lived. That is not an appropriate way to approach politicians. Most of us as politicians put an enormous amount of detail in the replies that we send, but form letters being sent out in bulk is a very distressing way for all of us to be approached on this issue. I suggest that in many instances it had a counteractive response.
The independent polls that were taken are interesting to read.
The following is, as I said, from the research paper developed by the parliamentary library. It says Roy Morgan Research in 2002 and Newspoll in 2007 conducted a survey into euthanasia. The briefing paper states:
Roy Morgan Research conducted a survey of 1232 people aged 14 years and over around Australia and found that 73 per cent of respondents thought that doctors would be allowed to give a lethal dose to hopelessly ill patients who were without hope of recovery.

But more recently than that:
In February 2007 Newspoll released their report into euthanasia which was commissioned by Dying with Dignity Victoria.
It had a far more substantial group of people that it polled nationally, aged 18 years and over, and found that:
… 80 per cent of the respondents thought that doctors should be allowed to give a lethal dose to hopelessly ill patients who had no hope of recovery.
This is indicative of what the public at large expects and believes at this stage; as legislators it is very important for us to get the balance right and to understand that we are representing all the views of the communities in which we live.
I too have concerns about this bill. My concerns are slightly different from those of some of the other speakers. I was a shadow Minister for Aged Care. Sadly I had to confront the issue of elder abuse. Elder abuse comes in many forms.
It can be emotional, physical, verbal, financial, and it can happen to any family. Victorians have been horrified to learn of the scale and the extent of elder abuse, and it is something that will be heard about more in the future as people begin to be courageous enough to talk about their own experiences.
When I first heard of this impending legislation, with the introduction of this bill, I was significantly concerned about what might happen if family members or friends could find loopholes in this bill and use it against a fragile elderly person or, for that matter, someone who is suffering a terminal illness. It was therefore imperative for me to read through what safeguards were in this bill.
It was particularly important for me to read through and to understand that all the checks and balances had been met, that I was actually satisfied that in fact there would be no loopholes, that indiscriminate family members would not find a way in which to cause unnecessary and unwanted harm to people who were frail and did not have the mental capacity to deal with a number of these issues.
My one criticism of this bill is that it does not allow for revision. The need for revision and re-evaluation is very important. We have seen medical technology develop at a very rapid rate, and it is important for us to understand, go back and analyse this bill, and its ramifications, to find out what transpires out of this bill, and to make quite certain that medical technology is keeping up with the expectations that are in this bill. It is important that this is revised on a regular basis by us as legislators. We are going to be responsible for the passing or otherwise of this bill.
It is important that if this bill goes through, it contain a clause so that the legislation can be revised and dissected on a regular basis.
I do not believe this legislation will open the door for thousands of people to have assisted dying. I agree with my colleague Johan Scheffer when he said that the passing of this bill will only relate to a discrete group of people. It is my opinion that people live their lives and make significant decisions from the moment they reach their late teens. If people are faced with a terminal illness, who are we to deny them the right to decide what their own personal threshold is. Making a decision about how one wants to die is the final decision a person will ever make. It should be their choice. As I said before, this is a bill about dignity. We must allow people to decide at what stage they die with their own personal dignity in place. I commend this bill to the house.

A letter written by an elderly lady unable to attend the Steve Guest Memorial Day meeting of like minded individuals on the steps of the Victorian Parliament House at 10 am Tuesday, 21st April…..Abled bodied others though will share her POV.

Brian Tee
Parliamentary Secretary Justice
Legislative Council
128 Ayr Street
Doncaster   3108                                                                                             17 April 2009

Dear Mr Tee,

While visiting the office of Exit International yesterday I noticed your office, so took the opportunity to visit to voice some of my concerns. I spoke to your receptionist.

I have been a member of DWDV (formally Voluntary Euthanasia) since 1983, following the death of my parents, both who had long drawn out deaths, my father from Cancer and my mother from a stroke “over speech and memory”. My experiences like hundreds of others are now being used to push for change in the law regarding “end of life issues”, as it was also apparent in the need for change around abortion legislation.

A recent TV program on the ABC, mentioned the urgent need for debate around the issues of assisting someone to end their life, when living has become intolerable. Debate has been continuing for longer than the last century, but WHO have been the key people on the platform.

Seldom are the voices of the very ill, or frail elderly, listened to. I admit to my own limited understanding of the real issues (their issues & requests) at the time of my parents passing, how often in my later life have I said to myself, “Mum now I do understand!”

This issue will not go away, and more & more health care employees are adding their concerns, that people are being kept alive by the revolving door method of nursing home to hospital and back again. Your certainly would be aware of the growing number of older people becoming members of both organizations seeking information so they may have some choice in the manner of their own life ending. Languishing in a nursing home for 18 years after suffering a stroke, may not be acceptable to many people. The person in question did not have any legal papers in place.

The area is still cloudy, Respecting Patient Choices, and Advance Directives, still do not have legality, but at least gives some directions to medical staff.

Next week there will be the third “Steve Guest Day” rally on Parliament House steps. I am unable to attend owing to my personal disability, so I am adding my voice on behalf of the many hundreds also unable to be vocal, or take part in any serious meaningful debate.

The bill that was presented last year, may have had some flaws that made it possible to be defeated at the last presentation, but it will return again.

Yours Sincerely

JR

In the Age, Green Guide for November 23rd, The Critic’s View, Mr Gordon Farrer provides an independent overview of the documentary.   I appreciate his review  and thank him for his considered opinions.   Fair and balanced.Really strange to have one’s actions judged by someone who has no idea about my strengths and weakness of which they’re many and varied……When I talk about individual choice for living and dying, from my POV there is nothing “odd” about not wanting to live with pain – been there, done that…..don’t want to be there again…..

Like taking holidays to different destinations, I didn’t enjoy the hospitality of the first experience, so I don’t catch the same train…..I want a different route, a different journey, a different experience.

Steve Guest and Judy Bayliss were the living proof of  capacity for tolerating pain than I could never envisioned for myself.   Dr Nicholas Tonti-Fillipini spoke strongly against voluntary euthanasia but then that is the choice he makes for himself while enduring his own degree of genuine pain.

My views are entirely my own.  Based on chronic and terminally illnesses……

That Dr Tonti-Fillipini “needs life in order to feel free”, begs the response that for some of us, “we need death to feel free”…..

Your body, your choice Dr Tonti-Fillipini…..

My Body, my choice leads to different choices for the individual depending on their definition of the word freedom……. Freedom from intolerable pain sounds wonderful to me….for others they believe they need to walk the entire path of life, regardless of pain, in order to feel fulfilled in their reason for existing.   I don’t share that view.  

I am a Humanist – I believe I am responsible for me

Media Release
Minister supports dying with dignity
Dr Francis Macnab today supported Dying With Dignity Victoria in its efforts to legalise physician assisted dying.
Dr Macnab, executive minister of St Michael’s Church, Collins Street, said governments and churches should honour the wishes of people to die when terminally ill.

He said: “As a psychotherapist, I have sat with many people who have spoken of the way they wish to die but, when the time came, their wishes were denied.  Some were left in prolonged suffering and without dignity.

“When churches and governments reject the right of a person to choose how they should live or die, they impose their views regardless of the person’s right in this matter.”
Dr Macnab will make his views known at the third Steve Guest Day rally on the steps of Parliament House, Melbourne, on Tuesday.
The rally will also hear from Melbourne ethicist Leslie Cannold, Victorian State Secretary of the Australian Nursing Federation, Lisa Fitzpatrick, and former Senator, now president of Dying With Dignity Victoria, Lyn Allison.
Steve Guest was a journalist who had cancer of the oesophagus and on the 774 ABC Jon Faine program publicly aired his intention to take his own life.
He railed against those who would deny him the right to die his way and so condemn him to die an agonisingly slow and painful death.
He ended his life by using Nembutal, a powerful but banned barbiturate drug.  Dr Rodney Syme, Vice-President of Dying With Dignity Victoria, told police that he provided Steve Guest with medication. Dr Syme will also speak at the rally making further comment on his own involvement.
Independent polls consistently show that 80 per cent of Australians want reform and more doctors now support this right than oppose it.
More information: www.dwdv.org.au or phone (03) 9877 7677 (Victorian number)
________________________________________

Submission to the Human Rights Consultation Panel April 12, 2009

I wish to make a submission, mainly on the right of the individual to choose the manner of their death when chronically or terminally ill. The subject should be treated as a “Human Right” if only to equalize humanity’s rights, to that of our animals.

Recently Victorians had before Parliament in the Upper House, the Medical Treatment (Physician Assisted Dying) Bill 2008 which failed to eventuate because both Liberal and Labor combined to curtail any procedural motions or amendments which would have enabled the Bill to progress beyond its initial presentation. This was a great disappointment because the perceived flaws in the Bill identified in the debate could have been explored and amendments devised to satisfy the majority of MPs. It is the sad indictment of Victoria today, but where to from there?

There can be no justification for denying an individual, within guidelines, the ultimate right to decide their own end of life choices, devoid of any religious connotations other than that of the patient.

The argument that achieving a good death is a “complex issue” is not a valid excuse for not addressing it. I do not feel it is appropriate for Parliament to concern itself with the spiritual aspects of the debate. That should be for the individual to decide in the same way drinking alcohol or smoking is a choice. The choice of methods in achieving a hastened death is declining with each medical breakthrough which while keeps the body breathing, does little to the quality of one’s life at end stage.

Obviously to achieve 80% support which Physician Assisted Dying has achieved within the Australian community, many religiously inclined voters must be included. Parliament, through a Human Rights Charter, should operate for all peoples regardless of nationalities, professions, religious beliefs and ethical and political views. End of life choice should be left to the individual assuming such demands do not result in harm to society, other than the sadness of death.

Parliament, who will consider the adoption of a National Human Rights Charter, should be, according to Abraham Lincoln “of the people, by the people, for the people.” By definition that means to prevent further suffering when all alternatives are spent.

Sometimes, the best ‘care’ fails to relieve intolerable suffering. The Human Rights Charter should acknowledge this point and make provision for choice and dignity in dying.

Dr Rodney Syme, a well known advocate for the vulnerable for some 34 years, last year wrote the book “A Good Death”, which I thoroughly recommend as a clear and concise case in support of physician assisted dying. A necessary and compassionate explanation of the need for choice!

This reminds me of a related issue, and the further need for change in the law in Victoria; other States already differ in responsibility for respecting a patient’s choice for end of life decisions. It is the legality of a person’s Living Will, Advance Directives or Respecting Patient Choices. None of these documents made in good faith by the general public are legally binding on the health care professionals, and until they are legislated for, the very ill, have a false sense of security in the event of a terminal illness.

Many Victorians would like to see the Medical Treatment Act referred to the Law Reform Commission for consideration of including recommendations for advance directives and physician assisted dying. These issues are similar in their challenges to those of abortion law reform, which was handled exceptionally well by the LRC.

The preamble to the Victorian Medical Treatment Act, 1988, reads “The Parliament recognizes that it is desirable to ensure that dying patients receive maximum relief from pain and suffering”. Retired High Court Judge Michael Kirby, (QC) as the then Chairman of the Australian Law Reform Commission said “Although terminal patients do not desire death, they are forced to confront it. Accordingly, they should be free to choose between a slow debilitating, painful death and a quick painless one for which they must look to others to assist them” It is better to relieve pain than continue it, but the Law as it stands in Australia today, allows good people to suffer for no worthwhile reason.

With a rapidly ageing population Australia needs to cultivate a more compassionate attitude towards those who suffer without hope, and who desperately wish for an earlier release from pain. It should be a basic human right that with modern technology keeping bodies alive that may rather be dead, that we Australians are granted the compliment of knowing what is best for ourselves when end of life choices may be optional. A Human Rights Charter could provide that possibility for us.

Preventing suicide methods only makes the suffering harder and longer, but ultimately death will come to us all regardless. No longer can we use high buildings (closed off to general public), gas (non toxic), railway lines (impediment sensitive), fast cars (airbags) medication (strictly monitored), electricity and water (trip switch off), guns (not readily available) knives (messy!). Our one hope is medically assisted dying with self help or another as needs must. Safety precautions are quite simple for Parliament to implement immediately the words mercy and compassion become familiar to them.

A good death should be more than “hoped for”, it should be legislated for those who want it as a choice for themselves. The right to choose the manner of our death, given the chance, should be a natural human right.

Further I believe consideration should be given in any Charter to the following topics which no doubt will be of more concern to others based on their individual circumstances.

2 The right to make a life time commitment of same sex couples. It seems to me that heterosexual couples are not necessarily any more successful at living together in peace and harmony that same sex couples. It discriminates against same sex couples that the law does not give them the same legal privileges of a conventional conservative union.

3 I believe in the rights of parents to protect their children from pedophiles. This follows then that the publication of pedophiles names and addresses should be published to enable parents to make informed choices about where they wish to live in relation to such people. Convicted pedophiles should be kept in restrictive confinement and removed from general society as much as possible.

4 I believe that it is fundamental against human rights to have a criminal conviction recorded against a person, based on a magistrate’s personal assessment on the day. Eg walking a dog off leash in which the Council chooses to make an example of an activist, fined $40 and a conviction, and then next time $200 fine and no conviction. It is a crazy world where a criminal record which reflects on a person’s ability for gainful employment can be attributed to a rapist and at the same time, nonpayment of a Council’s By Law fine. The ‘crime’ should be treated proportionally for the damage it does to the general community. Nonpayment of a fine should not be treated as ‘criminal’!

5 I believe it is a human right, that an individual should have all but the most heinous of crimes deleted from their records after a period of time. I specifically exclude pedophiles from this belief because they are notoriously hard to rehabilitate and their victims remain scared

6 I would not like to see Privacy Laws introduced that ensure the general public are kept ignorant of Government wrongdoings. I believe “whistleblowers” should have the protection of the law without needing to alert the very people they are seeking to expose. There should be an independent system in place that ensures that ‘whistleblowers’ are treated like the courageous people they are in putting the public’s welfare in front of their own job security. Parliamentarians, Public Servants and Police in particular need to be seen to be free of intimidation in the workplace. We’ve all witnessed in the media how ‘whistle blowing’ is treated as a threat to the ‘boys’ club’.

“Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere”.

I believe the benefits of a National Charter would provide Governments with a cohesive method of ensuring continuity of Human Rights for all Australians regardless of which State they live at any one time. It would benefit the nation financially to have the one set of rules and guidelines by which the spirit of the Charter could be administered. We are one, and we are many, and we are Australian.

In conclusion, I am grateful for the opportunity to present this submission to you for your consideration. One is hopeful that any successful inclusion for choice together with dignity in dying in the National Human Rights Charter is based on the understanding that we are talking about Voluntary Euthanasia, meaning a good death, the most basic of human rights.

Thank you,

Mary Walsh

Below is a copy of my letter sent this week to all 128 Victorian State Politicians. (The Legislative Assembly  consisting of 23 Liberals, 9 National, 1 Independent and 55 Labor Members and the Legislative Council (56th Parliment) including Liberal, 15, National, 2, Greens, 3, DLP, 1  and of course, Labor with 19 seats.)

I addressed each letter individually and posted the letters to their Electoral Office.  By the time I had finished I thought my wrist would drop off, it ached so much.  I wanted to demonstrate to each politician the commitment I felt to the cause.  It would have been so much easier to ‘email’ and much less expensive in terms of printing, effort and stamps, but it wouldn’t have been ‘the same’….funny creatures that we are, I belong to the genre that thinks if I make a very special effort , somehow this will translate itself to the politician the importance of the message……

I’ve even begun to realize there is a very real possibility that I could one day lose the ability to write at all, if my burgeoning disability continues at a rate of knots….To even consider the life I would lead without the use of my writing hand is too horrible to comtemplate and yet I feel quite challenged by the possibilities that confront me in the next year or two…..

I think about the youth, the mobility of our average politician, and know that one day, these health issues will also be faced by the majority of them,  unless they get hit by the proverbial bus!

I think, where I tread today, they too will follow in my footstep.  I want them to empathise with us and make changes now, which will be in place in time to help them, if not us!…….

Reference:  Referring the “Physician Assisted Dying” PAD process to the Law Reform Commission could be the ideal solution to a vexed issue for some -  I implore you to enable this to happen.

Recently Victorians had before Parliament in the Upper House, the Medical Treatment (Physician Assisted Dying) Bill 2008 which failed to eventuate because both Liberal and Labor combined to curtail any procedural motions or amendments which would have enabled the Bill to progress beyond its initial presentation.  This was a great disappointment because the perceived flaws in the Bill identified in the debate could have been explored and amendments devised to satisfy the majority of MPs.

On that day, I wept for the 80% of Victorians who have indicated through numerous surveys, that they support some method by which terminally ill people need not endure a prolonged dying process.  There can be no justification for denying an individual the ultimate right to decide their own end of life choices.

Dying with Dignity Victoria, worked long, hard hours to prepare documentation that would be acceptable to Members of Parliament encouraging their sympathetic consideration of the Bill, but without any success.   The argument that achieving a good death is a “complex issue” is not a valid excuse for not addressing it.

 I do not feel it is appropriate for Parliament to concern itself with the spiritual aspects of the debate.   That should be for the individual to decide in the same way drinking alcohol or smoking is a choice.    Obviously to achieve 80% support, many religiously inclined voters must be included.  Parliament should operate for all peoples regardless of nationalities, professions, religious beliefs and ethical and political views, end of life choice should be left to the individual assuming such demands do not result in harm to society, other than the sadness of death.

You’ve heard the arguments for and against put by your fellow Politicians – but I feel that you may have failed to hear the voice of the people.    The many ordinary people of Victoria living their ‘every day lives’ in pain, who see no reason to continue to suffer hopelessly. Some want a choice for a hastened end to terminal pain.  Sometimes, the best ‘care’ fails to relieve intolerable suffering.

Dr Rodney Syme, a well known advocate for the vulnerable for some 34 years, wrote the book “A Good Death” last year, which I thoroughly recommend as a clear and concise case in support of physician assisted dying.   A necessary and compassionate explanation of the need for choice!

This reminds me of a related issue, and the further need for change in the law in Victoria.   It is the legality of a person’s Living Will, Advance Directives or Respecting Patient Choices.   None of these documents made in good faith by the general public are legally binding on the health care professionals, and until they are legislated for, the very ill, have a false sense of security in the event of a terminal illness.

On April 21, 10 am – supporters of PAD (physician assisted dying) will convene on the steps of Parliament.  We would like to see the Medical Treatment Act referred to the Law Reform Commission for consideration of including recommendations for advance directives and physician assisted dying.  These issues are similar in their challenges to those of abortion law reform, which was handled exceptionally well by the LRC.   Please take the opportunity to approach any person present and seek out their reasons first hand.

The preamble to the Victorian Medical Treatment Act, 1988, reads “The Parliament recognizes that it is desirable to ensure that dying patients receive maximum relief from pain and suffering” (already “dying” is the operative important word that needs reminding of)

Please consider Parliamentarians, that you could be Australia’s pioneers, by following the lead set by a number of other countries.  Countries which acknowledge that while health intervention has been good to mankind, the end of life is inevitable, and a good death is the ultimate gift of choice we can offer our fellow human beings, both patient and relatives!

Please consider also Parliamentarians that with a rapidly ageing population Australia needs to cultivate a more compassionate attitude towards those who suffer without hope, and who desperately wish for an earlier release from pain.

I understand your time is very precious and I do appreciate your thought and consideration to the points I’ve raised.   It shouldn’t need to take a personal situation to demonstrate empathy for the suffering, but with so many diseases being maintained, governments do need to meet individual’s definitions of a final solution in the end.  Preventing suicide methods only makes the suffering harder and longer, but ultimately death will come to us all regardless.

 A good death should be more than “hoped for”, it should be legislated for those who want it as a choice for themselves. 

Mary Walsh