Deathly debate
WHATEVER you choose to call it, this new debate is not going to be easy and will be just as pejoratively polarising as the debate over same sex marriage.
Premier Daniel Andrews has announced his government will start the process rolling on dying with dignity legislation.
The choice of the term dying with dignity is interesting in itself, because just on its own it is making a statement.
It says “we are aware that terms such as voluntary euthanasia are old hat and have unfortunate connotations”.
Good thought, but not wishing to beat around the bush, expressions such as state sponsored killing, unnatural legalised dying, aged care cost reduction and crimes against the Lord will all become the lingua
franca in this conversation. Daniel Andrews formally accepted the independently authored report outlining the parameters for an assisted dying scheme that will form the backbone of the legislation.
It outlines a scheme that is, “open to the sound of mind and those suffering an incurable disease that is likely to kill them within 12 months”.
The Premier described the scheme as the most conservative voluntary euthanasia program in the world, and would give Victorians support at the end of their lives.
I have always wavered a little on this topic of euthanasia, not because I think it has no merit but my concerns have always been over the effectiveness of the safeguards.
Yes, I’m concerned it can be abused by doctors, relatives for many reasons, spouses and even the state, so I was particularly interested in his comments that “I know there are many views and there are legitimate concerns about how this will work, that’s why we’ve included very personal and ethical safeguards. This will be without a doubt the safest scheme in the world with the most rigorous checks and balances”.
Reassuring words at face value and initially the sort of safeguards I would have expected.
The report by former AMA president Brian Owler makes these recommendations: Patients would be required to submit three requests to die, with a wait of at least 10 days between submitting the first and third requests, except in extenuating circumstances where they are likely to die within the 10 days.
And: It has explicitly restricted access to patients with dementia, on the basis that there is a possibility they are not of sound mind at the time when they choose to take the lethal medication.
Patients with mental illness or a disability cannot apply for access based on those conditions alone.
Already we have Philip Nitschke (pictured), founder of Exit, saying it doesn’t go far enough and address an ageing population experiencing a cluster of ailments, which are debilitating but not necessarily terminal.
Contrast this with Victoria’s biggest palliative care provider St Vincent’s Health Australia who said the plan was a “cheap economic way out” of caring for elderly and
terminal patients, and warned vulnerable patients would be put at risk if euthanasia was regulated. Just wait until the loony left, loony right, Catholics and Evangelicals get going and we’ll hear everything from it’s state murder to why should nine-year-olds with terminal diseases be excluded. The facts from countries where euthanasia has been legalised suggest the rates of uptake are still relatively small, well down in the 2-3 per cent range, so we wouldn’t be seeing any mass community euthanasia events anytime soon. But like bracket creep within the tax system, other countries have expanded their initial parameters and safeguards. Belgium introduced assisted dying in 2002 and in 2014 extended it to include children. I’ll be honest I can’t really cope with this one. A report in Current Oncology in 2011 summarised euthanasia in the Netherlands by saying in 30 years it “has moved from euthanasia of people who are terminally ill, to euthanasia of those who are chronically ill; from euthanasia for physical illness, to euthanasia for mental illness; from euthanasia for mental illness, to euthanasia for psychological distress of mental suffering,” and now to those over 70 who are simply “tired of living.” Yes, it is a lot to think about but I’m in favour of it, I think?