Slippery slope of euthanasia
VICTORIANS have spent months discussing same-sex marriage before casting a vote on proposed changes to the Marriage Act. But when it came to life-and-death euthanasia legislation, there was little in the way of public debate and certainly no opportunity to vote.
Instead, parliamentarians spent half a week in marathon sessions, one lasting over 24 hours, before a conscience vote saw the Voluntary Assisted Dying Bill pass the Lower House, 47 votes to 37.
If, as expected, the legislation passes the Upper House, Victoria will become the first state to allow voluntary euthanasia.
Premier Dan Andrews didn’t campaign for euthanasia before the last election, and opponents are rightly questioning whether there is a mandate for the introduction of such groundbreaking laws, which are opposed by 107 of 109 national medical associations worldwide.
Euthanasia is an issue that cuts across party lines; among the most outspoken critics of the Bill have been ideological opponents Tony Abbott and Paul Keating.
Deputy Premier James Merlino is also vehemently opposed to what he called a “pro-suicide Bill”.
The concept of voluntary euthaof nasia for those with a terminal illness and in chronic pain has long enjoyed widespread support in the electorate.
However, it’s a far more complex issue than a simple belief in self-determination.
Though most of us believe that adults of sound mind, who are in terrible pain with no hope of recovery, should be able to determine how and when they leave this Earth, the reality of euthanasia in countries such as Belgium, Luxembourg and the Netherlands is a sobering reminder of such laws’ unintended consequences.
I began questioning my own support of euthanasia in 2013 after learning of Belgium’s use of the laws to kill those who were neither terminally ill nor in great physical pain.
One case, in particular, brought home just how far assisted dying laws can be stretched to justify the killing a confused and depressed person in need of psychological support rather than a lethal injection.
The case of 44-year-old transgender man Nathan Verhelst, who opted to die after a “botched” sex-change operation left him depressed and fearing he looked like a “monster”, is a tragic illustration of the “slippery slope” argument dismissed by euthanasia supporters.
Verhelst’s case is not unique. In Belgium, emotional pain and suffering can be grounds for euthanasia. Between 2014 and 2015, more than 120 people diagnosed with “mental and behavioural disorder” were killed – representing 3.1 per cent of euthanasia cases for that year.
The devaluing of human life was one aspect of the legislation that former PM Keating argued against passionately, writing: “What matters is that under Victorian law, there will be people whose lives we honour and those we believe are better off dead.
“The advocates support a Bill to authorise termination of life in the name of compassion, while at the same time claiming they can guarantee protection of the vulnerable, the depressed and the poor. No law and no process can achieve that objective.
“This is the point. If there are doctors prepared to bend the rules now, there will be doctors prepared to bend the rules under the new system. Beyond that, once termination of life is authorised, the threshold is crossed.”
I heard the other side of the argument from another former Labor powerbroker and cancer sufferer, Graham Richardson, who gave a powerful account of his circumstances and explained that he wanted the comfort of that “choice”.
“I can’t do any of the things I used to be able to do. I need to be helped to get in and out of a car, somebody has to put my socks and shoes on, because I can’t do it myself. So I am a burden and I’m going to become an increasing burden over time, not less.”
Though Richo’s family never make him feel like a burden, he sees euthanasia as a decision he’ll eventually have to make.
There are no easy answers. Can we, on the one hand, treat the incidence of suicide as a national tragedy and, on the other, support state-sponsored killing?
A prosperous country with firstrate medical care should be able to provide patients with an assurance they won’t suffer in their final months. Increased focus on palliative care and pain relief are better options than allowing people who may feel like burdens to opt for a premature death.