Euthanasia and Elder Abuse

The following article was published by HOPE Australia on January 9, 2018

Helen Polley

One of the greatest dangers that we face as Australians, now that euthanasia is legalised in Victoria, is making the elderly feel as if they are a burden on society. There is an obsession in our culture with being young, and the older generations can tend to be neglected. The propagation of euthanasia further demeans the value of the lives of elderly Australians. As Senator for Tasmania, Helen Polley stated:

Voluntary euthanasia cannot promote the dignity or humanity of vulnerable older Australians in an environment in which our elderly feel undervalued, ignored and forgotten. Instead, it further will entrench ageist views, desensitise us to euthanasia and ultimately lead to a devaluation of life and premature death.

Elder abuse is a major concern, with a report last year from the Australian Law Reform Commission recommending detailed study into the prevalence of elder abuse in this country. If an individual is unable to take care of themselves, has reduced decision-making capabilities and/or financial management issues, their vulnerability to be pressured into euthanasia by family members or others responsible for their care increases.

Given that there is currently no robust system that has effectively prevented elder abuse, there is no reason to believe that adequate safeguards can be put in place for euthanasia.

Australia has an aging population; by 2050, more than one in four Australians will be 65 or older, and we need to be making good decisions about how we will treat them in their later years.

We say it often, but the truth remains, Australia needs better palliative care. To quote Polley:

If we want to change the culture of dying we should be looking at our end-of-life care system because it’s brimming with untapped potential but significantly underfunded. People should be able to rest assured knowing the end-of-life care and support they deserve will be there for them. We must not let voluntary euthanasia take the attention and resources away from this.

Under no circumstances should an individual feel the need to opt for euthanasia because they don’t have confidence that they will receive adequate end-of-life care.

Euthanasia and assisted suicide continue to be defeated.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director - Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Many media outlets are promoting the message that euthanasia and assisted suicide are being legalized everywhere and yet the reality proves that the opposite is true.

On Tuesday May 23 the Maine House defeated assisted suicide bill L.D. 347 in a bipartisan 85-61 vote and on Wednesday May 24 the Tasmanian parliament defeated euthanasia bill (Voluntary Assisted Dying Bill) by a vote of 16-8.

The Maine Press Herald reported that:

Maine legislature

The bipartisan 85-61 vote against the bill followed lengthy and oftentimes emotional debate among lawmakers sharing personal stories of watching loved ones battle terminal diseases. The so-called “death with dignity” bill had passed the Maine Senate by a single vote last week but faced a potential veto from Gov. Paul LePage even if it had passed the House. 

“My conscience tells me that this is the wrong direction for a variety of reasons,” said Rep. Gay Grant, D-Gardiner. “This is not a partisan issue. It is a human issue.”

Paul Russell, the Director of Hope Australia reported that:

Tasmanian legislature

In debate, Michael Ferguson MP criticised the euphemistic language of the bill, arguing that such a grave matter demands clarity: 

“We all agree it is a matter of life and death and if we cannot strip away the euphemistic language and discuss the reality of the matter then it will not be an honest debate and the public interest would not be served. 

“I ask those promoting this bill to be truly frank and honest in their descriptions, and for those listening to the debate today, if or when you hear those euphemisms, you need to remind yourself that the real words, however distasteful they are, are mercy killing and assisted suicide by a doctor.”

Many people will say, but Alex, that is only two jurisdictions. The fact is that in 2017 assisted suicide bills have been stopped or defeated in Hawaii, Utah, New Mexico, Nebraska, Minnesota, and Maryland while in several other states, assisted suicide bills were introduced but lacked support to even be debated.

This is an issue that is literally about life and death.

Legalizing euthanasia or assisted suicide gives physicians the right in law to kill their patients. 

Do suicides increase where euthanasia is legal?

This article was published by Mercatornet on May 22.

The euthanasia debate is on the front-burner in Australia, especially in the states of Victoria and Tasmania. In one of the latest salvos, ethicist Professor Margaret Somerville claimed that suicide rates rise in jurisdictions where euthanasia and assisted suicide are legal. This prompted a blast from Neil Francis, a former President of the World Federation of Right To Die Societies and a leading campaigner for euthanasia in Australia. This is Professor Somerville’s response.

B

Margaret Somerville

y Margaret Somerville

Neil Francis is correct in criticizing me for a loose statement that "the general suicide rate has increased in every jurisdiction that has legalized assisted suicide." 

Although I believe that my statement will prove to be correct, at this point in time I should have left out the word "every." 

One problem in obtaining the required evidence, is that it’s difficult if not impossible to know how often physician-assisted suicide or euthanasia (PAS-E) is being used in countries where those interventions are legal to commit what we should view as “ordinary suicide”–if one can ever regard suicide as “ordinary”, but for want of a better term. 

“Suicide by police”–a suicidal person engages in conduct with the intention that the police will respond by shooting them - is a recognized phenomenon. Now we can consider “suicide by physician”. 

Two features of legalized PAS-E make “suicide by physician” seem likely: The percentage of deaths occurring from PAS-E, for instance, in The Netherlands and Belgium, is rising by approximately 10 per cent each year and is now around 4 percent of all deaths. And the conditions for access to PAS-E are expanding in both jurisdictions. If one is not terminally or physically ill, neither of which is a legal requirement in either country, is euthanasia “ordinary suicide”? And what about if a person wants PAS-E because they are just “tired of life” or feel they have a completed life as the Netherlands is now contemplating allowing or, as an elderly couple proposed on ABC’s Q&A, simply want to avoid going into a nursing home, should these be classified as “ordinary suicide” cases? 

Cases in which using PAS-E as a substitute means of suicide seems very likely have made headlines around the world. They include the deaf Belgian twins who were going blind; the young gender-dysphoric woman with the botched sex-change operation; the anorexic woman in her 20s; the depressed 34 year old Eva, whose death by euthanasia is focused on in real time in the documentary film, “End Credits”, made by Dutch pro-euthanasia advocates; the convicted rapist and murderer in the Belgium prison. 

Dutch Professor Dr. Theo Boer, a former member of one of Holland’s five Euthanasia Regional Review Committees (2005-2014) has undertaken a study which will be published shortly which, in his words, shows 

Theo Boer

the assumption that euthanasia will lead to lower suicide rates finds no support in the numbers. The percentage of euthanasia deaths of the total mortality rate tripled from 1.3% in 2002 to 4.08% in 2016. During that same period, the suicide numbers did not go down: From being 1,567 in 2002, they went up to 1,871 in 2015, a rise of 19.4%. The suicide rates reached a relative low of 1,353 in 2007, compared to which the 2015 numbers constitute a rise of 38.3%. This is even more significant given the fact that from 2007 on euthanasia started becoming available to people with chronic diseases–psychiatric diseases, dementia, and others. In terms of the percentage of the overall mortality of suicide deaths, the numbers went up from 1.01% in 2007 to 1.27% in 2015.  

…For the sake of comparison, I have looked at the suicide rates of some countries which are close to the Netherlands in terms of ethnicity, age, religion, and language but which, with the exception of Belgium, lack the option of euthanasia. If the suicide numbers in the Netherlands have gone up, one would expect, at least a similar increase in the suicide numbers would occur in countries without the option of euthanasia. However,…the Netherlands of all countries show the biggest increase in the suicide numbers.” 

Mr. Francis dismisses researchers David Jones' and David Paton’s report on suicide data in Oregon on which I relied to show a rise in the state’s suicide rates on the basis that it was “published in a minor journal”, the Southern Medical Journal. This claim is specious, even if it were a “minor journal”. For the record, it is a peer-reviewed medical journal indexed and abstracted in Index Medicus, Current Contents, Science Citation Index, and EMBASE which has published over 45,000 articles. I leave it to others to decide its status. 

Moreover, if Mr. Francis’ claim as to its status were correct and if Jones’ and Paton’s article were, as Mr. Francis describes it, “a wobbly econometric modelling study”, it stands to reason that the journal would be more accessible in terms of publishing rebuttals or questions about the article. To date, to my knowledge, no one has done so, not there, not anywhere. 

Mr. Francis’, at best, woolly statements about what Jones’ and Paton’s study found need clarifying. They write: 

[W]e found that legalizing PAS was associated with a 6.3% (95% confidence interval 2.70%–9.9%) increase in total suicides (including assisted suicides). This effect was larger in the individuals older than 65 years (14.5%, CI 6.4%–22.7%). Introduction of PAS was neither associated with a reduction in nonassisted suicide rates nor with an increase in the mean age of nonassisted suicide. (Emphasis added)  

Conclusions: Legalizing PAS has been associated with an increased rate of total suicides relative to other states and no decrease in nonassisted suicides. 

As Jones and Patton recall, pundits claimed at the time of the public debate in Oregon about legalizing physician-assisted suicide that having access to assisted suicide would reduce “nonassisted” or “ordinary suicide”, which it clearly did not. This is something Australian legislators should note. 

I will just mention California, which has very recently legalized physician-assisted suicide. There was concern that people who were involuntarily hospitalized because they were mentally ill and “dangerous to themselves (they were suicidal) or others” could not have access to physician-assisted suicide. This has now been “remedied” and a special process established to allow them to apply to have physician assistance in killing themselves. 

Nitschke roadshow - it's a business after all

This article was published on the Hope Australia website on June 5, 2016

Paul Russell

By Paul Russell 

The director of Hope Australia & Vice Chair of EPC - International

It seems that it isn't enough to provide people with information on how to get an illegal euthanasia drug sent to people from overseas; now Philip Nitschke and Exit want to provide tests so that people will know that what came in the mail will 'do the job'.

News reports about Exit's meeting in Canberra, Australia seem to suggest that this is something new. I suppose there has to be a hook here; a reason for the article. The reality is that Nitschke has been doing this now for sometime. If there's a twist it is that the article talks about learning to test the drug at home whereas previously Nitschke had testing apparatus in the back of a small van.

That van was also a delivery vehicle for 'Max Dog' nitrogen cylinders - another of Nitschke's semi-do-it-yourself suicide methods. He's also been working in Switzerland on a new mechanised death-delivery system he calls 'The Destiny Machine' which was also 'demonstrated' at his comedy shows in Edinburgh and most recently in Melbourne.

Suicide is clearly big business! I have always thought it odd that the media paints Nitschke as a 'euthanasia activist' when, in reality, his business model is built on selling suicide or 'self-deliverance' while legal euthanasia would likely curtail his sales figures somewhat by getting doctors and pharmacy involved. But somehow, when there's a sick or disabled person involved, or even someone who expects to become sick or disabled, it is suddenly not about suicide.

Craig Wallace

Craig Wallace, convenor of Lives Worth Living re-established the suicide connection in the media yesterday:

"We shouldn't be testing Nembutal, we should be testing suicide prevention for people with a disability." 

"We have many concerns about euthanasia, and that people with disability might be levered into taking their own lives because of a lack of disability support," he said pointing to the reality that our wolrd is far from perfect, intentions and motivations are not always honourable and we are a long way from valuing every person equally.

The report on this latest 'testing' initiative says that the program is modelled on drug testing at rave parties, music festivals and the like. Hardly an appropriate comparison given that the motivation for testing of hallucinogenic drugs is to save lives while Nitshcke's is to make sure you're dead.

Yet the media cannot help but swallow the line as he moves around Australia - this time with his European Exit counterpart, Tom Curran. Curran's wife, Marie Fleming passed away in Ireland in December 2013 from complications arising from Multiple Sclerosis. She campaigned long and hard - but ultimately unsuccessfully - through the Irish Courts to change the laws on assisting is suicide to protect Curran from prosecution should she chose to go to Dignitas in Switzerland to end her life.

Curran has since become one of the central figures in recent times pushing for euthanasia in Ireland. Like Nitschke, he has something of a conflict of interest inasmuch as he supports (and Curran has had a hand in designing) a limited regime (a bill) for the sake of the parliament but markets through Exit an 'anyone, anytime' type of philosophy that no legislature would ever pass into law.

This re-inforces the fact that, for many in the pro-euthanasia lobby, that very first piece of legislation that they want to see passed into law is, in reality, a beach head. Crafting the bill is more about finding a way to quiet the known criticisms so as to gain the all-important 'fifty percent plus one' majority. This becomes strikingly obvious in jurisdictions where repeated unsuccessful attempts begin to stack up like newspapers on garbage day. You can see the progression in thought from one bill to another with more backflips that Nadia Comaneci and empty assurances about 'robust safeguards' falling flat under scrutiny.

Curran recently spoke at a meeting in Tasmania where another euthanasia bill is expected to be introduced shortly. In February this year former Labor Leader and supporter of euthanasia, Lara Giddings MP, said that this new push “That of course (it) won’t satisfy every person who supports voluntary euthanasia." So, one could hardly expect that the pro-euthanasia lobby groups will, thereafter, wind up their operations, pat each other on the back and move on. No, they will bide their time and look for later opportunities to expand that law using the same 'hard cases' strategy as before.

Ultimately, as we have seen in Belgium and, to a similar extent in The Netherlands, either by changes to the law or by changes to interpretation of the existing law, there will be an inexorable creep towards the Nitschke/Exit philosophical position that is based squarely upon personal autonomy and nothing else.

If anything in this article causes you to think about suicide contact a crisis line near you.

New Euthanasia Push in Tasmania

This article was published on the HOPE Australia website on August 25, 2015

Paul Russell and
Alex Schadenberg outside
Tasmanian Parliament.

By Paul Russell, Director of Hope Australia

News today that the Tasmanian State Conference of the Australian Labor Party endorsed a motion in support of a push for euthanasia has reignited the issue in the island state.

Euthanasia was last debated in Tasmania on the 17th of October 2013 when the Voluntary Assisted Dying Bill was defeated 13 votes to 11 in the State's Lower House. Since that time, the State Election has changed the make up of the chamber offering, perhaps, the mover of the last bill, Lara Giddings MP, some hope that this time the outcome might be different.

The ALP motion - now part of the party's Tasmanian platform - is subject to the normal provision of a conscience vote and is, we understand, not binding upon State ALP Members of Parliament.

However, as noted in The Examiner, the three new members on the government benches for the Liberal Party are holding their cards close and claiming, at this time, to be 'openminded' on the subject.

Readers should note that, in 2013, Lara Giddings was Premier which provided her with additional control over the debate process. This time around she is a Shadow Minister on the opposition benches.

Time will tell. The Examiner reports that Lara Giddings will be looking to introduce her bill later this year.

• New euthanasia bill in Tasmania.
• Tasmania euthanasia bill defeated.

New Euthanasia Bill in Tasmania

This article was published on the HOPE Australia website on March 20.

Paul Russell and
Alex Schadenberg
in Tasmania.

By Paul Russell, the director of HOPE Australia.

The Tasmanian MPs who tabled and pushed the last Euthanasia bill defeated in 2013, have said that they will try again later this year.

The then Premier, Lara Giddings MP and her then deputy, Nick McKim MP, now on the opposition benches made the announcement in The Examiner Newspaper on the 14th of March.

But bringing the issue to a vote in this new bill will not be as easy as it was when the then Premier and her Deputy were in control of the parliamentary debate from the treasury benches.

Moreover, whereas the vote in 2013 was resolved by 13 votes to 11, a cursory look at the chamber post the 2014 election suggests that the numbers are at least at that level if not more strongly against.

When Giddings and McKim had the privilege of office behind them, a faux discussion paper arising out of the Premier's Office and full control of the timing of the debate, they still could not find a majority on the chamber.

It is always possible that votes change and we must ever be vigilant, but I cannot help but observe that this seems more like grandstanding than it does about anything else.

• Euthanasia bill defeated in Tasmania.
• Nitschke: Frank admissions on Tasmanian radio.

Euthanasia: Hard cases make bad laws.

This article was originally published by MercatorNet on April 3, 2014.

Paul Russell

By Paul Russell - Executive Director of HOPE: preventing euthanasia & assisted suicide and Vice Chair of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition International.

The pro-euthanasia lobby often promotes media reports of people facing difficult prognoses who wish to end their lives rather than face inevitable deterioration. Such persons often become, for a short while, celebrities for a macabre cause. The media attention can even become addictive and provide, a distraction from their suffering or a raison d’etre.

But are these stories really a substantive reason for changing the law? I would argue, no.

In a debate in Launceston, Tasmania, a few years back a delightful woman on the other side of the debate told the story of her husband who had motor neurone disease and took his own life rather than face the trajectory of deterioration. She described the understood trajectory of MND in some detail. I imagine that she was describing a worst-case scenario.

One could easily understand the anguish of what her late husband was facing: he was a fascinating person with great achievements. When I met his wife and son I got the sense that he would have been a wonderful person to have met. I imagine the audience that night must have felt the same.

Yet, at the close of the evening when the audience had a chance to speak, a woman rose from the back of the auditorium and said that her husband had recently passed away after suffering with MND. She told the audience that his death was, “nothing like that”, referring, clearly to the earlier description.

More recently I received an email from a gentleman questioning how I could hold my opposition to euthanasia and describing the recent loss of his own mother. He said that she had been bereft of consciousness for the better part of seven years and that her passing was not dignified.

My mother-in-law had been similarly lacking consciousness for much longer than that, as I relayed by return email. Yet Mum had a very dignified passing. My conclusion was simply that his unfortunate experience was not, therefore, an argument for euthanasia at all.

Readers will recall the celebrated pleas of Englishman Tony Nicklinson a few years back which were played out in the British Courts over his wish to die. Nicklinson had locked-in syndrome. Yet at the same time a young man with the same condition told the media that while his life had significant limitations, he had a good life. He wanted to let people know that not all locked-in syndrome sufferers were like Nicklinson.

One can easily understand what might have been the young man’s concerns. If people think that all locked-in sufferers are desperate to die, then perhaps he won’t get the kind of care he would need to live if there were ever a medical emergency. Perhaps he simply wanted people to know that he wasn’t down in the dumps about his accident.

His motivation for speaking out was unclear but nonetheless poignant and timely. I doubt that people like Nicklinson would have considered the effect that their public cause would have on others with the same condition. Their focus is essentially on themselves. Understandable given the circumstances; but nevertheless, not the complete picture.

It is not the illness or the prognosis that is the driver for euthanasia in any of these cases. It has more to do with the person themselves and how they decide to cope with their pending or existing situation. It really is about their choices.

A few months back, another MND sufferer, Paul Chamberlain, became a cause celebre for the assisted suicide campaign in the UK. He was interviewed repeatedly on British media including a joint interview with Dr Kevin Fitzpatrick from the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition – Europe. Once again we find the counter position put by other MND sufferers including former Springbok Rugby player, Joost van der Westhuizen.

“It's been a rollercoaster from day one and I know I'm on a deathbed from now on. I've had my highs and I have had my lows, but no more... It's only when you go through what I am going through that you understand that life is generous.”

Then there’s the story of Alistair Banks. Throughout his MND and up unto his death he wrote inspiring messages of hope. He said:

“Everyone I know with MND is trying to do positive things, otherwise they would sink into despair. It's a coping mechanism. Doing things means that you can pull in friends and family to share something both fun and rewarding.”

I have no doubt that some people die better than others, just as people deal with the dying and death of a loved one in many different ways. But these are not arguments for euthanasia. Rather, they suggest that we need to continue to learn better ways of caring and to make sure that quality care is universally available.

Autonomy is a good thing, but should we burden society with a euthanasia or assisted suicide law because some people – probably only a handful in any disease cohort – wish to choose another path? We may have decriminalised suicide, but we should never endorse it. All of humanity is diminished by a law that tells us that some people’s lives are less worthy of life than others. No man is an island.

The heart-wrenching stories of a few are compelling. But as arguments they are false.

Disability - a fate worse than death?

Thank you to Paul Russell and HOPE Australia for the link.

The day after the Tasmanian Euthanasia & Assisted Suicide bill was defeated, disability activist, author and editor of the ABC's Ramp Up website on disability, Stella Young shared her concerns about the Tasmanian euthanasia bill and euthanasia in general.

As Lives Worth Living made similar observations in their submission to the Tasmanian Parliament. They also noted that not every person living with disability would agree. This does not diminish the argument - it only enhances it in as much as it is a voice that needs to be heard.

Here's the opening few paragraphs of the story. I have provided a link at the bottom to the story on the Ramp Up site because I want to encourage readers to also read the comments left by others.

Disability - a fate worse than death?

Stella Young Ramp Up 18 Oct 2013

Relieved at the defeat of the Voluntary Assisted Dying Bill yesterday, ABC Ramp Up Editor Stella Young remains opposed to legalising assisted death in any form. Here she explains why.

Two and a half months ago, my grandfather died. He was 84. He was not unwell in any specific way. He had no cancer and had only spent short periods of time in hospital. He was just old, worn out and over it.

During his last week or so, he expressed a wish to die many times. He once asked his doctor, with no small amount of distress, how it was possible for a person's body to be dying but not their mind. He had reached a point where dying was what he wanted, and we wanted that for him too.

None of us, including his doctor, could do anything to assist him with his wishes because neither euthanasia nor assisted suicide are legal in Australia. With the Voluntary Assisted Dying Bill voted down by Tasmanian parliament this week, it doesn't look like that will change any time soon.

For many years now, I have been opposed to legalising assisted death in any form. My recent experience with my dear Pa Jack has not changed my mind.

The bracket creep of euthanasia in Belgium

The case against euthanasia.

This article appeared in the October 16 issue of The Mercury, the main newspaper in Hobart, Tasmania. This article was a companion piece to an article in favour of legalisation of euthanasia by Emeritus Professor Colin Wendell-Smith, convenor of Doctors for Dying with Dignity.

By Michael Cook, The Mercury - October 16, 2013

LET'S take a look at Belgium.

As Tasmanian MPs ponder legalising voluntary euthanasia as a remedy for unbearable suffering, they should take a close look at the situation in Belgium, where it has been legal since 2002.

For starters, their colleagues in Brussels are currently pondering whether to legalise euthanasia for children. Are Belgian five-year-olds really capable of voluntarily choosing to die?

The Belgian MPs are also studying whether to authorise euthanasia for patients with dementia who have written advance directives, even if they appear to be cheerful and content with their impaired life.

Is that really voluntary?

The history of euthanasia in Belgium is one of unremitting bracket creep.

What began with euthanasia only for constant, unbearable, untreatable suffering and only for consenting adults keeps expanding and expanding with consequences that no one could envisage.

Here are a few of them.

Tasmania euthanasia bill defeated.

The following article was written by Andrew Smith and published on October 17 by LifeSiteNews.

By Andrew Smith, Oct. 17 2013 

The Tasmanian euthanasia and assisted suicide bill was narrowly defeated in Tasmania by a margin of 13:11 votes in a parliamentary marathon that came right down to the wire. The bill was co-sponsored by Labor Premier Lara Giddings and Greens leader Nick McKim.

Paul Russell,
Director of HOPE Australia

Paul Russell, Director of HOPE Australia said he was more relieved than joyful.  

“The tension in the chamber was palpable over both evenings that the bill was debated.  Counting down the numbers, it did not become obvious to anyone which way the vote would go until about the second to last speech.” 

“Both sides inescapably find these debates draining and, as was evidenced tonight, both sides are passionate about their position,” he said.

The “no” position was strengthened at the eleventh hour yesterday by an eleven-page letter from the Tasmanian Law Society criticising 19 aspects of the bill.  The law society does not take a moral or ethical position – only a legal position.  But in their judgement the bill was unworkable.

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.

Nitschke's frank admissions on Tasmanian radio.

This article was written by Paul Russell, the leader of HOPE Australia and published on October 17, 2013 on the HOPE Australia blog. This article concerns the euthanasia bill that was being debated in the Tasmanian parliament.

Paul Russell

By Paul Russell

Philip Nitschke, head of Exit International, is in Hobart to coincide with the debate on Premier Giddings and Nick McKim MP's euthanasia and assisted suicide bill. he is also on a national speaking tour promoting his new biography.

Dr Nitschke gave an interview on local ABC Radio this morning. He was asked at one point by the presenter a question about the possibility of people being pressured into asking for euthanasia. Candid, as he often is, Dr Nitschke after saying the question was 'hard to answer' admitted: 'Can it happen? Of course'.

He then went on to say that he thought the Giddings/McKim legislation was 'very safe' and 'conservative', as it needs to be.' This is something that I would dispute, strongly, but it is, after all, his opinion. He then went on to say, in reference to the legislation, that, 'It might change in the future as people become comfortable with the change.'

Paul Rusell &
Alex Schadenberg
in Tasmania (2012)

Think what you may of Dr Nitschke, he is often refreshingly honest in his commentary. Again, we can take this as opinion, but it does point directly to what the Opposition Leader, Will Hodgeman MP said in his speech yesterday about 'slippery slopes, bracket creep and incremental extension.' MPs know full well that once a bill has been passed, regardless of their intent in supporting it as expressed in the debate, it can progress through amendment bills to places well beyond the original intent. That's just how it is.

The issue of 'Death Tourism' played out in a number of comments during debate yesterday and, as one might expect, Dr Nitschke was mentioned. I think it was Jacquie Petrusma MP who mentioned the possibility of a 'Bed and Breakfast' facility.

Ms Giddings has played down the possibility but the possibility remains. Dr Nitschke confirmed this in his interview adding that he expected some of his patients to move to Tasmania if the bill passes.

Tasmania euthanasia bill: "A Recipe for Abuse."

Originally posted on October 15, 2013 on the HOPE Australia blog

Media Release: Tasmania Euthanasia Bill: "A Recipe for Abuse."

Paul Russell, Director of HOPE: preventing euthanasia & assisted suicide calls upon the Tasmanian Parliament to reject the Voluntary Assisted Dying Bill 2013 due to be debated soon in the Tasmanian House of Assembly.

“Despite assurances to the contrary, this bill is a recipe for abuse that would effectively abandon the support and protection of vulnerable Tasmanians in some circumstances,” said Mr Russell.

This risk of abuse is in the DNA of all euthanasia & assisted suicide legislation, he said. “The designers of this bill have genetically modified euthanasia and assisted suicide to the point where these terms are not even mentioned[1]; but the reality remains that no legislation can provide the kind of protection from abuse that a just and equitable society demands.”

The modern-day phenomenon that is Elder Abuse should provide a warning. “Tasmania has a significant and growing problem with the abuse of elderly citizens by relatives and carers – usually for financial gain. The cold reality that such abuse and coercion is difficult to detect should tell us that this legislation is a recipe for the ultimate in Elder Abuse.”

The Tasmanian Bill is framed in similar terms to the Belgian Act. “The recent Belgian euthanasia death of the person who experienced a botched sex-change operation and that, earlier this year, of the twins who were going blind could technically be possible under the Tasmanian bill. “The outrage at these incidents even on the part of sections of the Belgian media and medical profession and even though these deaths were within the law should tell us that, even though legislators and the public might think of euthanasia only in terms of the ‘last days’ of a terminal illness, the practice and interpretation of the law is a genie that can’t be put back in the bottle.”

HOPE: preventing euthanasia & assisted suicide Inc. is a national network of people and organisations who work to oppose euthanasia & assisted suicide legislation.

HOPE is a member of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition International based in Canada. Paul Russell is vice chair of the international body.

Disability rights group opposes Tasmania euthanasia bill.

The following letter was published in the Tasmanian Times.com on October 14, 2013.

Members of the House of Assembly

Parliament of Tasmania

Dear Members

Re: Voluntary Assisted Dying Bill 2013

We are writing regarding this Bill which is currently before the Parliament. 

Craig Wallace from Lives Worth Living (LWL)

Lives Worth Living (LWL) is a network of senior disability rights advocates who have concerns about euthanasia and eugenics. We are not a religious group or a pro-life lobby group. Our views on the Bill emerge from a secular rights basis.

We are all people with disabilities. Some of our disabilities are life long and well advanced and would be included in the Bill.

We acknowledge that the disability community does not have a single view on euthanasia. There are some members who are concerned about legalised suicide for people with disabilities given the potential for abuse and perverse outcomes and others who do not have a view or support a right to choice and believe in the right to make end of life decisions for people with an illness like inoperable Cancer. 

However there is a widely held view that legislation must have safeguards and closely attend to the UN Convention on the Rights of People with Disabilities which has been ratified by Australia.

In view of the above, the current Bill concerns us on a number of levels:

• The Bill does not mention the UN Convention on the Rights of People with Disabilities which has been ratified by Australia. Article 10 of the Bill, which people with disabilities strongly lobbied for, provides that States Parties reaffirm that every human being has the inherent right to life and shall take all necessary measures to ensure its effective enjoyment by persons with disabilities on an equal basis with others. It is of concern that the opening sections of the Bill do not mention the Convention at all and stress equality of outcome for people with disability.

• This Bill is not confined to terminal illness and we believe opens the door to the euthanasia of people with disabilities. In section 11 there is deep blurring between medical conditions and disability which is made more obtuse rather than clarified within the Bill:

● The Bill says that eligibility includes persons with a: “progressive medical condition that is causing persistent and not relievable suffering, for a person diagnosed with the medical condition,that is intolerable for the person –and that is in the advanced stages with no reasonable prospect of a permanent improvement in the person’s medical condition.”

● In section 2 the Bill seeks to qualify this by saying that: “For the avoidance of doubt, a person does not have an eligible medical condition solely because of the age of the person, any disability of the person or any psychological illness of the person”.

● Rather than avoiding doubt, this clouds matters - (a) Most disabilities are permanent and not able to be cured. (b) Many disabilities are progressive or have stages. (c) Many people who acquire disabilities believe them to be intolerable only to change our minds over time.

● This appears to effectively open the door to the Bill encompassing some disabilities which could be unacceptable to a person at a point in time but then become bearable at a later point in time given the right supports. Many disabilities such as a high level spinal injury, multiple sclerosis, muscular dystrophy or motor neurone disease might fall into this category. In the absence of supports for people with these disabilities this Bill is open to perverse outcomes and exploitation of vulnerable people.

• LWL is concerned that the bill creates a double standard in the treatment and interventions around ending one’s life based on disability. Euthanasia is assisted suicide and as we read it the Bill fails to mandate suicide prevention and other counselling which may identify other issues in people’s lives which weigh in their decisions. Where counselling is addressed it is an option for the primary practitioner, not mandated. 

• The act does not invite the person to indicate whether a lack of disability or other supports might be impacting on their decision, LWL believes that the current broke and broken disability support system around Australia, including in Tasmania, may create a raft of pressures in people’s lives which may impact on decisions. Arguably, it would enable a similar outcome to the deaths of the two twins in Belgium who took their own lives on the basis that becoming deaf/blind could be unendurable.

• LWL has experience of many people with dual disability, including long term vulnerable people whose supports have broken down. The Bill deals with depression but does not mention other forms of psychosocial disability which may impact on a person’s decision making. The way in which cognitive, intellectual or dual disability would interact with consent is unclear. 

• We have some concerns about arrangements for consent under the Bill, especially for people with communication barriers. It is possible to imagine a situation where a person with a disability has no say at all or where a family member who is familiar with that person’s way of communicating is seen as the primary source of consent. 

LWL supports the National Disability Insurance Scheme and the difference it will make to the lives of people with disability. We believe the proper support, not suicide, is the decent path to better lives with dignity for people with disability. The NDIS hasn’t been fully introduced. In the absence of these supports, we believe that people with disability may be subjected to a raft of subtle emotional, financial and personal pressures to end our lives.

Disability is high in Tasmania and it troubles us that Tasmanians with disability may be at higher risk of these perverse outcomes from a euthanasia bill which goes broader than terminal illness. Just under one in four Tasmanians (23%) reported a disability in 2009. This was higher than the national average of 19 per cent.

LWL also believes that there is a need for more considered national work on a range of issues at the health/disability interface and to harmonise these to avoid the risk of different human rights outcomes based on where people live. 

This work should include the adoption of a National Position on Eugenics and Biotechnology by all Australian First Ministers covering issues which act on Article 10 of the UN Convention including: Assisted Suicide on the grounds of disability, Genetic Screening, Involuntary sterilisation and certain surgical procedures. 

LWL believes that the Bill as it stands raises serious issues and risks for people with disability and we hope it is defeated in the Parliament of Tasmania. We are also releasing this letter publicly to contribute to community debate. 

Signed,

Joan Hume OAM

John Moxon

Craig Wallace

Lives Worth Living

14 October 2013