Popular will denied

Slippery slope

CRITICS of Tasmanian politicians for not supporting a euthanasia — or assisted suicide — Bill could be tempted to think that an assisted suicide law once passed is cast in stone, never to be changed. That impression may have been enhanced by the presenters of the Bill, Lara Giddings and Cassy O’Connor, who dismissed the slippery slope argument as irrelevant. Recent events in Belgium make that argument relevant. Not only has the law been subject to continual reinterpretation where euthanasia for psychological reasons has taken place. The parliament has debated and passed an amendment to the 2002 law just three years ago that removed the lower age limit to now include children. Further change is now in the pipeline. The words of the law may stand, the interpretation never ceases. While lines in the law can be drawn at a certain place, medical issues are rarely that neat and what may be a clear line in theory may well be somewhat blurred in practice. Add to that the possible pressure on doctors, on the family, on the persons themselves and even the ideal of informed consent will seem less important. For Tasmanian politicians to construct a law that can defy all these pressures is simply not possible.

Doctors’ preference

NIALL Stewart (Letters, May 28) pours disdain on “alternative methods” yet a recent poll of doctors in the US showed that over 80 per cent suffering serious cancer would not use established medication such as chemotherapy and radi- A new way to have your say themercury.com.au readers have a new way to have their say. It’s free to use, just register and have your say. For more details and to register, visit the website. THOSE arguing against euthanasia say that people are pressured into taking their life in countries and US states where it is legal. There is no scientifically gathered evidence to support this scare tactic and those countries and states that have euthanasia monitor this behaviour and find that by and large it does not exist. Further, it is illegal to encourage someone to kill themselves and the checks and balances that lead up to euthanasia make sure that patients have not been pressured to act, a psychologist’s or psychiatrist’s report being required before a person can proceed. Thus the ultra-right and ultra-religious have once again imposed their beliefs on the public and ensured that terminally ill patients must suffer at that hands of dignity-robbing illnesses in the most disgraceful condition until their last laboured breath rather than making their exit at a time of their choosing when still able to cheerfully farewell their family.

Absence noted

CONGRATULATIONS to the Mercury, March 30. No pictures of the Corby circus. Well done.

Decision needed

THE Glenorchy and Huon councils are still up in the air waiting on their future to be decided. Peter Gutwein is doing nothing to bring these decisions to a conclusion.

Religious bias

ONCE again, members with strong religious beliefs have overruled common sense and sympathy for people with an incurable disease and suffering agonising pain when voting on voluntary euthanasia legislation took place in State Parliament. Disgraceful.