Australia 1996 euthanasia debate, arguments opposing euthanasia remain intact.

This is an exerpt of a longer article published by Paul Russell on the Hope Australia website on August 5. 

Paul Russell

Paul Russell states that the arguements made twenty years ago to support The Euthanasia Laws Act 1997 and oppose euthansia, remain intact today.

The Euthanasia Laws Act 1997 was passed by both houses on the 25 March 1997. It became the first and only legislative measure anywhere in the world to completely overturn existing euthanasia and assisted suicide legislation. 

The following objections were argued by MPs who supported Kevin Andrew's initiative, perhaps the best speech was by the Member for the seat of Melbourne, The Hon Lindsay Tanner MP.

Tanner came to politics through university student movements and into the Australian Labor Party's Victorian faction known as the Socialist Left or simply 'SL'. That Tanner, a self-identified and career-long progressive-thinking politician should oppose euthanasia and assisted suicide once again highlights the reality that opposition to legislative change is not characterised by a 'left-right' divide any more than it can be said to be a division along religious lines, as Tanner himself notes.

The following excerpts are from his speech supporting the 'Andrews' Bill' given in the House of Representatives on the 28 October 1996 (headings have been added):

Hon. Lindsay Tanner

On the question of autonomy:

"But there is a very different question at stake here; that is, not whether in some individual circumstances there is something morally wrong, but whether the state should legalise and indeed can safely legalise such practices. This debate should not be about one or two individual experiences, not about our own experiences, but about the broader social question. Just as the question of capital punishment cannot be determined by one or two murders, by one or two gross and appalling examples of killing, neither should our view on euthanasia be determined by our own experiences of one or two personal tragedies. We must look beyond those experiences to the broader view of the interests of society at large and the interests of the individuals who make up society."

On Church v State:

"It has been argued that this bill put forward by the member for Menzies (Mr Andrews) is about the separation between church and state. I would disagree with that analysis. I think it is also worth noting that just because the churches take a particular view does not therefore make it wrong. Most of us would probably agree with the churches on a few fundamental issues like murder, rape, assault and so forth. So whether the churches take a position is really neither here nor there. 

"To me this is an issue about the relationship between state and citizen—not between church and state."

On the lack of safety:

"I am troubled by euthanasia because I think it is virtually impossible to draw safe boundaries, because I think it is virtually impossible to prevent abuses and mistakes and because I think it is virtually impossible to justify offering the option of assisted suicide to one category of people when you deny it to others. That is a necessary implication of the Northern Territory legislation."

Euthanasia as a misuse of power:

"I regard individual freedom in our society as essentially very fragile, as very vulnerable to misuse of state and bureaucratic power. Intrinsically, the state assuming the right to sanction killing of a citizen, for whatever reason, troubles me a great deal. Even with apparent consent, it worries me. I refer those in my part of the political spectrum, most of whom have a different point of view from me, to debates that have occurred on issues like the Australia Card (1), where the same sorts of concerns about fears of misuse—obviously not on the same life or death scale, but fundamentally the same framework—occurred. Others laughed and said, `You are paranoid, it is excessive,' and the like, but many on the Left had the same sorts of concerns there."

Pope Francis statement on euthanasia.

The following is part of the statement by Pope Francis to the General Assembly of the Pontifical Academy for Life (February 19, 2014)

Pope Francis speaks to
Alex Schadenberg &
Dr Kevin Fitzpatrick
on February 19, 2014

...It is a topic that is extremely relevant to our own day, and something likewise always very close to the Church’s heart. Indeed, in our society one encounters the tyrannical dominion forced upon us by a logic of economics that discounts, excludes and at times evens kills our elderly––and today so many fall victim to this. “We have created a ‘throw away’ culture which is now spreading. It is no longer simply about exploitation and oppression, but something new. Exclusion ultimately has to do with what it means to be a part of the society in which we live; those excluded are no longer society’s underside or its fringes or its disenfranchised––they are no longer even a part of it. The excluded are not the ‘exploited’ but the outcast, the ‘leftovers’ (EG, 53).” The social-demographic predicament of the aged is a stark reminder of this exclusion of the elderly person, and especially when he or she is ill, disabled or for any other reason rendered vulnerable. One easily forgets that the relations among human beings are always relations of reciprocal dependence, which manifest themselves according to different degrees throughout the life of a person and become indispensable in situations of old age, illness, disability and indeed suffering in general. This requires of all of us our offers of necessary help through interpersonal as well as community relationships, in an attempt to answer the present need of these persons in their respective situations.

At the root of any discrimination and exclusion there is, however, an anthropological question: how much is man worth and upon what does one base this value of his? Health is certainly an important value, yet it does not determine a person’s value. Furthermore, health is not in and of itself a guarantee of happiness––this is verified even in the event of unstable health. The fullness toward which all human life is oriented is not in contradiction with any condition of illness and suffering. Hence, the lack of health or the fact of one’s disability are never valid reasons for exclusion or, and what is worse, the elimination of persons. The gravest deprivation experienced by the aged is not the weakening of one’s physical body, nor the disability that may result from this. Rather, it is the abandonment, exclusion and deprivation of love.

Elder abuse - society's hushed secret

The following article was written by Jerry Davich and publishe.d in the Chicago Post-Tribune on February 7, 2013 under the title: Jerry Davich: Elder abuse - society's hushed secret.

I have reprinted this article because the story and the elder abuse statistics in this article create significant problems when assisted suicide is legal. Assisted suicide opens new paths to elder abuse in a society where the scourge of elder abuse is already a significant problem.

We need to protect and care for people. Removing assisted suicide laws, eliminate protections that exist in society for dependent elders and vulnerable people with disabilities. 

We need to Eliminate the abuse, not the elder.

Jerry Davich: Elder abuse - society's hushed secret.

Jerry Davich, Chicago Post-Tribune, February 7, 2013

The frail 65-year-old woman cowered in a corner of a bedroom. Her lips quivered. Her eyes welled with tears.

When Portage police arrived at her home last Sunday night, she was noticeably frightened and intimidated by the other person in the bedroom. It wasn’t a thief. It wasn’t a rapist. It wasn’t even a stranger.

It was her 38-year-old daughter, Lisa Arend, who angrily paced back and forth near her mother when police arrived, according to an incredibly detailed and eye-opening police report.

“As I attempted to speak with Ms. Arend about what was going on, she began yelling various profanities and immediately displayed an uncooperative and aggressive attitude,” wrote the responding police officer in a lengthy narrative.

Arend, who was unmoved by police presence, allegedly blocked the doorway with her legs to prevent her mother from talking alone with an officer in another room of the Portage home. Another officer tried to talk with Arend, but she would have none of it, the report states.

Police were called by a friend of Arend’s who was temporarily staying at the home, along with her husband and the couple’s two children, a 7-year-old and a 7-month-old. While the couple prepared to leave the home during an altercation between Arend and her mother, Arend allegedly told them, “Once you’re gone, I’m gonna kill her ... she’s dead.”

The mother, who I’m not naming to protect her identity, told police her daughter had just returned from a Lake Station bar and that she wanted more money from her. The mother and Arend’s friend told police that Arend was drunk and also high, possibly on prescription meds. A recently used crack pipe was later found in the bathroom, police say.

Arend’s friend told police she witnessed Arend punching her own mother with a closed fist, and Arend attempted to strangle her with a twisted sweatshirt. Arend also used her mother’s metal “reaching aid” to spear her in the upper chest, police said.

Arend also gave police a fight during her arrest. Backups were called. They warned her of being shot by a stun gun. It didn’t stop her, so police used the stun gun to apply handcuffs on her wrists and legs. She still resisted and later spit on them in the squad car, the report states.

Back inside the house, her mother was still fearful for obvious reasons.

“She expressed tearful concern with Ms. Arend’s inevitable release from jail and her returning to the residence,” the officer wrote.

Arend was charged with multiple offenses, including battery, intimidation, battery to household member with a child present, disorderly conduct, and battery to law enforcement.

Three 10-day protection orders were issued against Arend by police to help protect her mother. But, as we all know, there are long odds this volatile mother-daughter reunion will be stopped as time goes on.

America ages, abuse rises

I relay this local incident to shine a light on a subject that most of us would rather conveniently ignore — elder abuse. Roughly two-thirds of abuse to people age 65 and older comes at the hands of their families, research shows, similar to this case.

Worse yet, it’s a problem that quietly mirrors our rising population of Americans 65 and older, which is projected to nearly double by 2030. The number of people age 85 and older is rising at an even faster clip.

Many elder abuse victims are frail, vulnerable and totally dependent on others for their most basic human needs. Others are confused, gullible or simply flimflammed by financial fraud, the most common abuse. And some are prisoners in their own homes.

According to data from the National Elder Abuse Incidence Study, only 16 percent of the abuse situations are referred for help. The rest, 84 percent, remain hidden from society, from cops, even from fellow loved ones.

The Senate Special Committee on Aging estimates there are more than 5 million victims every year, the vast majority invisible due to fear, threats and intimidation.

Worse yet, the most common reason for closing an elder abuse case is the death of a victim — not a guilty verdict. Too many victims refuse to press charges out of fear, retribution, shame or guilt. Or they become enablers to their bully-children.

Adult Protective Services is the principal public agency responsible for investigating reported cases of elder abuse. But, as I said, many victims are too afraid to speak up.

If they have the courage to complain, they typically won’t press charges, similar to wives who won’t press charges against their abusive husbands. Plus, some victims with dementia or mental disabilities simply make bad witnesses, or the threat of loneliness is too much to bear.

The adult child or grandchild, no matter how cruel or irresponsible, could be the only family left after a spouse dies. As I was told years ago by a local social worker, “A lot of widows are preyed on before their husbands are even buried.”

The only upside is this: Elder abuse is preventable and maybe this column will prompt someone to take a stand, file a report and call the authorities.

Report elder abuse

To report elder abuse, call Indiana Adult Protective Services at (800) 992-6978, or call 911.

What is elder abuse?

Abuse: Any touching (battery) of a person in a rude and insolent manner. Verbally abusing an individual is also a punishable offense.

Neglect: The intentional withholding of essential care or service. Abandonment of an individual is also considered neglect.

Exploitation: The intentional misuse of a person’s property, person or services for financial gain.

Warning signs

* Sudden social isolation.

* Bruises, marks, excuses, alibis, and silence regarding possible abuse.

* Unusual or large withdrawals or transfers from bank accounts, or large credit card charges that the older person can’t explain.

* Checks that are missing or include suspicious signatures.

* An individual who suddenly forms a close relationship with the older person, getting easy access to his or her home, money, and other property.

* Untreated physical or mental problems, including a dramatic change in mood or disposition, or other evidence of substandard care.

Source: Indiana Adult Protective Services

UK judge decides not to dehydrate woman to death

Royal Court of Justice

Yesterday, Mr. Justice Baker refused to grant the application by the family of “M” to have her intentionally dehydrated to death. Justice Baker determined that "M" continued to have "quality of life".

In the UK the Bland decision (February 1993) decided that a person who was unconscious and determined to be in a Persistent Vegetative State (PVS) could have their hydration and nutrition withdrawn with the intention of causing death. The Bland case concerned Tony Bland who experienced a profound cognitive injury in the Hillsborough disaster on April 15, 1989.

Since the Bland decision, many people in the UK who were deemed to be in a “PVS” state have been dehydrated to death, with the permission of the court.

The “M case” is a different because “M” is conscious even though the court was told that her responses are minimal and unreliable.

Justice Baker stated:

"I accept the evidence of the carers, who have far greater experience of living with M in recent years than do members of her family whose visits have become less frequent as time has gone by."

"M does have positive experiences and …although her life is extremely restricted, it is not without pleasures, albeit small ones."

Therefore “M” will not die by dehydration because it was determined that she had a “quality of life.”

All forms of euthanasia reduce the value of certain human beings and deny equality and dignity to every human being.

To withdraw fluids and food from a person who is not otherwise dying, even if that person has a significant cognitive disability, is euthanasia because death is directly and intentionally caused by the withdrawal of basic care, that being fluids and food. Whether fluids and food are provided by a fork, a spoon or a tube, they represent a basic necessary of life that should be provided unless the person cannot assimilate or is actually nearing death.

For someone who is not otherwise dying, death by dehydration results in a painful death.

Whether “M” had a certain level of quality of life or not, the issue should be whether or not the decision of the court would have caused her death, rather than allow her to live until she dies a natural death.

The Bland decision was wrong because it did not differentiate between the definitions of treatment and care. If the Bland decision had determined that only medical treatment could be withdrawn, but not basic care, meaning the provision of the basic necessaries of life, then a line would have been drawn that it is not acceptable for society to cause a persons death, which is different than allowing a person to die. The result of the language contortion is that people are being dehydrated to death because they are living with a cognitive disability.

We applaud the decision by Justice Baker, while recognizing that until the Bland decision is redefined, that other cognitively disabled people, such as “M” will intentionally die by dehydration, even though they would not be otherwise dying.

Elderly patients dying of thirst.

A recent report from the NHS in the UK is suggesting that the neglect of the elderly has become so widespread that some physicians are prescribing water for their patients in order to ensure that they receive basic care.

In an article in the Mail Online on Friday, May 27, it was reported that:

The snapshot study, triggered by a Mail campaign, found staff routinely ignored patients’ calls for help and forgot to check that they had had enough to eat and drink.

Dehydration contributes to the death of more than 800 hospital patients every year.

Another 300 die malnourished. The latest report – by the Care Quality Commission – found patients frequently complained they were spoken to in a ‘condescending and dismissive’ manner.

The watchdog said three of 12 NHS trusts visited in the past three months were failing to meet the most basic standards required by law.

The findings follow a joint campaign by the Mail and the Patients Association last year which exposed shocking examples of substandard care.

Similar failings were highlighted earlier this year by the Health Service Ombudsman who cited cases of patients left to become so thirsty they could not cry for help.

Before you suggest, isn't it terrible in the UK, you need to remember a series of articles in the Toronto Star in 2003 that exposed similar problems in Canada. Link to one of the articles.

Did we fix the problem in Canada? If you read more recent articles concerning the neglect of seniors you will notice that many of the same problems continue to exist. Link to one of many articles.

The polling by the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition proves that many people fear living in undignified conditions and they suggest that euthanasia may be an alternative. When asked whether we should legalize euthanasia or improve care, the majority, by far, state that we should improve care.

Until we can provide quality care for most Canadians, legalizing euthanasia or assisted suicide will only create new paths for abuse and neglect for the elderly and the vulnerable Canadians who have become dependent on care.

Link to the Dignity and Nutrition for older people report.