Euthanasia bill defeated in Tasmania.

This message is from Paul Russell, the leader of HOPE Australia and the Vice Chair of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition - International.

Paul Russell

By Paul Russell, the leader of HOPE Australia.

The debate in the Tasmanian House of Assembly has just concluded. A torrid few days resulted in the Tasmanian euthanasia bill being defeated 13 to 11.

It is with a very deep sense of relief that I confirm that the Voluntary Assisted Dying Bill 2013 has been defeated!

The vote was extremely close: 13:11 and negatived by one vote.

Tasmania would have become the first Australian state to allow assisted suicide had the bill passed its two houses.

The other side ran a strong campaign and stayed on message throughout - even in the face of mounting evidence to the contrary.

For now, we can share some relief and perhaps even celebration. But please spare a thought for those who supported the bill because of difficult personal circumstances who will now, no doubt, be disappointed and dejected. Our opposition are people too and they deserve the dignity and respect that we seek and demand for the vulnerable and for all in our society.

We can be glad, we should be happy at this outcome, but we should not gloat nor ridicule. Personally, I feel deeply for their loss on this occasion as I know some supporters personally and I have no doubt that they will be deeply disappointed at this time.

REALdignitytas was an essential part of the successful campaign. REALdignitytas is a group of academics and leaders in Tasmania who effectively lobbied politicians.

There have been some great lessons in this debate that need to be digested.

Paul Russell will be speaking at the Euthanasia Symposium 2013 on November 8/9 in Toronto.

Link to other similar articles:
Nitschke's frank admission on Tasmanian radio.
Tasmanian euthanasia bill: "A Recipe for Abuse".
Disability rights group opposes Tasmania euthanasia bill.

Academic Paper critical of euthanasia released in Tasmania.

Paul Russell with
Alex Schadenberg

The following article was written by Paul Russell, the leader of HOPE Australia and published today on their blog.

By Paul Russell

Academic Paper (link): “Voluntary Euthanasia and ‘Assisted Dying’ in Tasmania: A Response to Giddings and McKim” 

In February this year, the Tasmanian Premier, Lara Giddings and Nick McKim MP released a discussion paper on euthanasia seeking submissions and input from the community on a draft proposal for legislation they referred to as 'Voluntary Assisted Dying (VAD)'. Their intention to work towards this legislative change had been originally announced in mid-2010.

Any debate on voluntary assisted dying is going to be difficult, but as elected representatives we believe it is our responsibility to take on the challenging questions of reform to ensure that our laws in this area are contemporary, transparent and in-line with community expectations. (from the VAD paper's introduction)

We understand that there were in excess of 900 responses to the ‘discussion paper’. The closing date for submissions was March 15. One canny observer wondered if it was simply a coincidence that the consultation ended on the ‘Ides of March’ – I’ll leave readers to ponder that for themselves.

Giddings and McKim gave no undertaking in the paper that they would produce a summary report of findings and, to date and with the bill to be debated in a week, there is no sign that the authors intend to share the results for the benefit of the discussion and transparency.

At the time of the paper’s launch, RealDignityTasmania spokesman, Dr. Paul Dunne made the following observation:

The paper employs selective and deficient research, much of which is funded by known pro-euthanasia advocates, designed to paint a picture of flawless implementation of legalised euthanasia and assisted suicide systems around the world. The main authorities cited by Giddings and McKim are the result of known pro-euthanasia initiatives. Key evidence has been ignored in this paper.

Also aware of this bias, the HOPE submission argued for a broader public discussion:

Given that this presentation provides the VAD paper with an ‘advanced status of authority’ we believe that it is inappropriate for the VAD paper to stand in the public square without the same opportunity being advanced to the contrary argument.  (HOPE submission page 23)

This all adds to the conclusion that this whole affair is essentially an exercise in gnostic paternalism. All of us, for reasons unknown, should trust that Giddings and McKim have done all the hard work of study for us, so we needn’t worry ourselves over the detail but simply accept that they know what’s best for Tasmanians!

The HOPE submission concluded with this warning:

Without a conscious attempt by the authors of the VAD paper to provide public access to the contrary argument on a par with that afforded the VAD; Tasmanians will have been denied the opportunity to exercise rational judgement – choice. The authors, in advancing their agenda, need also to observe the precautionary principle, with the highest standards of proof, lest, without such appropriate scrutiny, Tasmanian citizens are put at risk of their lives by such legislation.

With a week until the resumption of the parliament, two Tasmanian academics have released their own report on the discussion paper. Jeremy Pritchard holds a PhD in law and is a Researcher and Lecturer at the University of Tasmania (UTAS) in the field of Criminology. Hannah Graham is an Associate Lecturer in Sociology and Criminology and a Research Assistant in the Faculty of Law at UTAS.

Their 34 page analysis entitled: “Voluntary Euthanasia and ‘Assisted Dying’ in Tasmania: A Response to Giddings and McKim” is critical of the approach taken by the Giddings/McKim paper, summarizing that:

“…the paper produced by Giddings and McKim does not constitute a compelling evidence-based case for changing the law. The risks of proceeding with the model that they propose are not justified.”

They observe that:

"A number of the claims that they make inappropriately imply concrete facts"(i.e. sentiments along the lines of “the evidence has spoken” and “our research shows…”) without acknowledging the depth of international contention on certain topics." 

“…significant amounts of empirical evidence and alternative academic and professional perspectives have been understated or omitted in their paper.” 

”We look at what is being proposed and what is missing. In particular, we analyse what is missing from Giddings and McKim’s portrayal of the legalisation of voluntary euthanasia and assisted dying in jurisdictions, including the Netherlands, Belgium and Oregon.”

The author’s media statement today provides a good summary: 

“We felt that a response in the form of a research paper was necessary because Lara Giddings and Nick McKim’s paper, to our view, understates the complexity of international evidence and debate on the topic of euthanasia. Our paper disagrees with a number of their claims and incorporates literature which was not included in their document. We reference over 180 sources, mainly academic publications and government reports.”

Giddings and McKim’s paper relied substantially upon certain select academic papers cited without due regard for known criticisms. Furthermore, and perhaps more importantly, they cited the Royal Society of Canada report, the UK Commission on Assisted Dying and the recent report from the think-tank, Australia 21 which all adopted a similar line of argument, likewise omitting or dismissing references to studies and analyses that put the counter argument. 

One could observe that such circular and almost exclusive referencing (each report building upon the others) was a potential ‘perfect storm’ in the making. Nor is it a stretch to observe that, whether deliberate or not, the absence of serious critique of the ‘vulnerable persons’ question could leave the authors of these papers open to a claim that this could, itself, constitute abuse by neglect.

Graham and Pritchard deal with the issues of Elder Abuse, Disability, Feminist perspectives, the Slippery Slope arguments as well as a thorough review of the literature pertaining to Belgium, The Netherlands, Oregon and the Fleming Court case in Ireland.

They conclude:

“Based on the evidence and experiences presented in this paper, we conclude that there are unjustifiable risks in proceeding with the euthanasia law reform proposed by Giddings and McKim.”

The same might also be said for the debates current in Quebec, France, England and Scotland.

We eagerly await a reply from the Premier and Mr McKim.

The book Exposing Vulnerable People to Euthanasia & Assisted Suicide by Alex Schadenberg analyses the studies that confirm that the risk to vulnerable people is real, that vulnerable people in places such as The Netherlands and Belgium are at risk.

The book retails for $20.00. For more information and to purchase your copy. Link. 

Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott said: "I don't support euthanasia"

Prime Minister Tony Abbott

Australia's Prime Minister, Tony Abbott, commented on the euthanasia bill that was introduced in the Tasmanian legislature by stating:

"I don't support euthanasia."

An article in the Sydney Morning Herald examines both sides of the euthanasia debate.

In response to the recent euthanasia bill introduced by the Tasmanian legislature Abbott said:

Tasmania, unlike a Commonwealth territory, was entitled to do what it thought best. 

"I don't support euthanasia." 

"The problem with changing the law here is that it will lead to people who aren't in imminent danger of death being assisted to die." 

He agreed that doctors quite possibly now applied pain relief with the intention of speeding death. 

"I think the situation that we've got at the moment is a perfectly acceptable one," he said.

Paul Russell, the leader of HOPE Australia will be working with REALdignityTas to defeat the euthanasia bill in Tasmania.

If the bill passes, it is expected that Philip Nitschke will set-up a euthanasia clinic in Tasmania.

Links to similar articles:
Tasmania introduces euthanasia bill.
Tasmania euthanasia bill will likely die.
Tasmania euthanasia bill. Broad medicalized killing.

Tasmania introduces euthanasia bill.

This article was written by Paul Russell, the leader of HOPE Australia and published on September 26, 2013 on his blog.

Alex Schadenberg with
Paul Russell in Tasmania

By Paul Russell

Today the Tasmanian Premier, Lara Giddings MP and her deputy, Nick McKim MP jointly tabled the euphemistically entitled Voluntary Assisted Dying Bill 2013. The bill will not begin to be debated until after parliament resumes in October; but given the recent history of parliamentary debates in the Apple Isle and given the sponsorship by the two leaders, we can expect as much time as is deemed necessary to be given over to the debate.

News websites have unerringly cited the bill as being about euthanasia, however, the proposed law allows both for euthanasia and assisted suicide. Again, supporters have been quoted as saying that the bill makes provision for those with a terminal illness - but the clauses allow for a broader application.

"Tasmanians are compassionate and caring people, and polls have consistently shown that this reform is supported by the overwhelming majority of the community," Mr McKim said in The Mercury newspaper report. This is gilding the lily. Even if we can accept the problematic polls as a true indication that Tasmanians' support law reform, that does not necessarily translate to support for this particular model. Mr McKim will need to do much better than that to secure the requisite 50 percent plus one vote in each of the state houses of parliament.

This bill has been a long time coming. Floated originally a few years ago, the proposal for 'Voluntary Assisted Dying' was canvassed some months ago in a discussion paper circulated by the Premier and responded to, so we are told, in hundreds of submissions. To date, the report from that exercise has not been made public.

The bill is essentially an attempt to genetically modify euthanasia & assisted suicide into something that appears palatable and reasonable. But beneath the veneer, the DNA remains the same and the risks to vulnerable people exist in more-or-less the same way as with every other cloned bill.

The bill does not even refer to euthanasia by name and only passingly refers to assisted suicide in a clause that effectively says that this is not assisted suicide.

Tasmanians are passionate about the tourist appeal of their island home - as well they might. It's a truly beautiful land with much on offer. But try as Giddings and McKim might, they have failed in their attempt to squash the inevitable criticism about the possibility of death-tourism; something that no Tasmanian wants to hear. Putting aside the possibility that restricting access to residents only might be rendered as unconstitutional, the faux residency provisions are a joke meaning that anyone who wants to travel to Tasmania to die need only find a residence for about four weeks before making the necessary appointments.

All of this may be a boon to the travelling Exit International roadshow. When first the possibility of a bill was raised, Dr Nitschke gave media interviews saying that he would set up a clinic on the island to work within the bill. This was played down by Premier Giddings at the time. The reality is that the bill does not and cannot stop this from happening. All a patient would need to do is to sign a document making Dr Nitschke his 'primary medical practitioner' and the process could get under way.

But more than that, there's also an opportunity here for an entrepreneurial type to set up a Bed and Breakfast (B&B) guest house (so popular with holiday makers) to aid with getting around the residency requirements. You could even call it something poignant, like 'The wait-a-while B&B' and market it under the slogan: A short stay to die for!

The opposition have commented to the effect that this bill is akin to the Roman adage about Bread and Circuses given the parlous state of the local economy and other pressing problems. As one comment online to the Mercury article observed:

I support euthanasia totally. I am just a little surprised, possibly cynical, that a Labour/Greens alliance has wheeled this out now. An unholy coalition that has sat in Government for a number of years over a state that has been reduced to beggar status and beyond with the following achievements .. ..50 % of adults unable to read and write properly. ..The lowest income per person. ..The highest unemployment and continuing rate of job destruction. ..The worst hospital and medical care system and on and on... Could this be an attempted PR diversion because they are incapable of performing the fundamentals of normal sound government for all their people? They seem intent on establishing an island walking park for Bob Brown and his mates.

Political point scoring aside, the writer does have a point; a point that will, we hope, resonate with Tasmanians - especially their parliamentarians.

Links to similar articles:
Tasmanian euthanasia bill will likely die.
Speaking tour of Australia and New Zealand Part 2.
Euthanasia debate heating up in Tasmania.

Euthanasia bill soundly defeated in New South Wales Australia

Australia

A bill to legalize euthanasia in New South Wales Australia was defeated yesterday in the NSW Upper House by a resounding vote of 23 to 13.

Congratulations to Paul Russell, the leader of HOPE Australia, and its coalition partners for coordinating the massive defeat of this dangerous bill.

The bill titled: The Rights of the Terminally Ill, was introduced by Greens MLC Kate Faehrmann.

ABC News Australia reported that:

The bill was defeated 23 votes to 13. 

After an emotional debate, there was an outburst from the public gallery as it became apparent MPs were about to vote down the bill. 

All sides were given a conscience vote on the issue, but no Coalition MP voted in favour of the bill, although some abstained.

The ABC News article stated in its conclusion that:

Ms Faehrmann says the campaign for voluntary euthanasia will continue and the bill will be introduced to the lower house by her Greens colleague Jamie Parker and two Independent MPs.

The annual bill to legalize euthanasia in South Australia is expected to be voted-on soon and a bill to legalize euthanasia in Tasmania is expected to be introduced soon, even though the Tasmanian legislature is believed to be split 12 to 12 on the issue of euthanasia.

The group REALdignitytas is effectively opposing euthanasia in Tasmania.

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition supports the work of HOPE Australia as it organizes on a National and State basis to protect Australians from euthanasia.

Tasmanian Euthanasia bill will likely die.

A recent article that was written by David Killick and published on March 16, 2013 in the Tasmanian newspaper - The Mercury under the title: Euthansia bid looks terminal. 

The article states:

THE chances euthanasia could be legal in Tasmania by December appear slim, with the numbers in State Parliament likely to be against the fresh push for right-to-die laws.

Premier Lara Giddings and Greens leader Nick McKim claim widespread public support for their joint private members Bill on the issue -- but there is strong opposition from the medical profession and the Catholic Church.

And with at least two Government Lower House MPs expected to vote against legalising euthanasia, the push is expected to fall at the first hurdle.

The Mercury understands Michael Polley and Brian Wightman will not to support the Bill, pointing to a 12-12 vote in the Lower House and defeat before the proposal can be considered by the Legislative Council.

Submissions on the state's proposed Voluntary Assisted Dying legislation closed yesterday and more than 150 responses were received -- mostly in favour -- a Government spokesman said. ...

A state parliament committee considered voluntary euthanasia in 1998 but concluded that sufficient safeguards could not be guaranteed.

Mr McKim tabled a Dying with Dignity Bill in 2009, but after being considered by a committee, the Bill was defeated 15 votes to seven.

Under the Giddings-McKim model, a terminally ill person wishing to end their own life must be mentally competent and make the request of their own volition.

The discussion paper on the legislation proposes that there must be no reasonable alternative to improve the patient's condition and relieve their suffering. It proposes that "voluntary assisted dying" be available only to people aged over 18 who are residents of Tasmania.

A patient would need to make a request of their doctor and complete a formal written request which would be signed by by two independent witnesses and two doctors.

There would be a 14-day "cooling off period" and the opportunity to rescind their request at any time before the lethal dose of medication could be prescribed and administered by the patient or by their doctor.

Dying with Dignity Tasmania has strongly supported the proposed Bill, saying experience overseas showed voluntary assisted dying could be implemented with due regard for the rights of patients.

"There has now been intense scrutiny of experience of legislation elsewhere for many years and that has resulted in overwhelming evidence that doctors are implementing the legislation carefully and responsibly," the group's submission says.

"There is every reason to assume that Tasmanian doctors will behave as responsibly and compassionately."

But Dr John Davis from the Australian Medical Association said the proposal was "completely unacceptable" and opposed by the AMA.

"What euthanasia does is fundamentally change the relationship between the doctor and the patient. Doctors care for patients, doctors do not kill patients," Dr Davis said.

Dr Paul Dunne is a palliative care physician who has cared for more than 5000 people over his career, and is a spokesman for REALdignitytas. He too opposes the proposal.

"I do not agree that we need to enact legislation to allow doctors to be involved in killing their patients," Dr Dunne said.

"I would agree that society and medicine is in transition and there are issues where patients have pain and distress not adequately managed by their doctors. But I believe the answer lies not in facilitating death, but in increasing communication about end-of-life issues and fostering better education and skills of our medical practitioners."

Civil Liberties Australia's Tasmanian spokesman Richard Griggs said his group had written to every state MP urging their support for the Giddings-McKim Bill.

"No government should force a person of sound mind but frail body to live in prolonged suffering against their wishes," Mr Griggs said.

TasCOSS has also backed the Bill.

Premier Giddings said she was looking forward to the debate on the Bill.

"I have been particularly touched by the personal stories of those who have watched loved ones suffer from terminal illness, as well as the fierce independence articulated by those who want to see a change in the law that will allow them to choose the timing of their death when faced with terminal illness," she said.

Mr McKim said he was confident that the Bill had a realistic chance of success.

"This lobbying has scared politicians in the past, but I am confident that then we can be successful in securing a safe and regulated system," he said.

The Bill is expected to come before Parliament in its spring session.

Link to the website for the group REALdignitytas.

Link to the website for the group HOPE Australia.