Angelika – you claim that potential problems with the misuse of medically assisted suicide “could be easily solved and managed”. Hmmm.

In your article you make several references to the “seriously and terminally ill” and in doing so you seem to imply that you want to see access to euthanasia limited to these groups.

But clearly that is not what Exit wants, as you cite the mission statement of Exit as being, “every rational adult should have the right to a dignified, peaceful and reliable death at a time and place of one’s choosing.” No requirement there for a person to be ‘seriously or terminally ill’.

Indeed, you refer to euthanasia as an “elementary right” and a “human right”. If you believe that then you must regard euthanasia as a right that every human being must have access to regardless of their state of health.

After all what did the founder of Exit, Philip Nitschke, state explicitly, in writing, when asked by journalist Katherine Lopez “Who qualifies? Who decides if a life is worth living?”

Nitschke: “So all people qualify . . . including the depressed, the elderly bereaved, the troubled teen. If we are to remain consistent and we believe the individual has the right to dispose of their life, we should not erect artificial barriers in the way of any sub-groups who don’t meet our criteria. This would mean that the so-called “peaceful pill” should be available in the supermarket so that those old enough to understand death could obtain death peacefully at the time of their choosing.” National Review Online, June 5, 2001

With a leader like that Angelika, how are you going to easily manage any abuse of euthanasia? Or don’t you think Nitschke’s comments are problematic?

Nitschke himself has since accepted he went too far with the "troubled teen" comment, and now believes that a certain "life experience" is needed to make a sound judgment on terminating one's own life. His workshops are typically restricted to those over 55.

My preference would be that assisted suicide should be available to anyone who has been diagnosed by at least 2 separate doctors as being inflicted with a terminal disease that will cause discomfort for the remainder of their life. For those under 18, parental consent would be necessary. This would at least make legal what doctors do already when they grant very high doses of painkillers in the knowledge that it will bring about death (but on the subtext that it will reduce discomfort).

Angelika,
I like your optimism. You say 'It is absolutely necessary that considerations and precautions are made to protect society from the misuse of voluntary euthanasia. However these are technicalities which could be easily solved and managed'. Does it not dawn on you that if that were really the case, it would have been done lomg ago? Do you know that every published report of the parliamentary inquiries into the consequences of legalising euthanasia around the world have ALL, repeat ALL, found that safe euthanasia law is impossible? Read one and find out why. I hope you don't find that banal.

bjp:

One of the most common objections to legalising euthanasia is that doing so is likely to lead to cases of individuals dying when they could possibly have gone on to live healthy, productive lives. While I agree that such an outcome is possible, perhaps inevitable, on its own, it is not a strong argument against legalising euthanasia.

As it is, a percentage of murderers are known to re-offend after being released from prison on parole. Should therefore all murderers be put away for life with no parole, no exceptions, because of the small possibility of deaths by re-offenders?

Further, people die all the time due to current existing legislation: legislation that makes it legal for people to drive, to work on construction sites, to operate mines etc. etc. If the main point of government legislation was to prevent deaths at any cost we would all be wrapped up in cotton-balls and never achieve anything. Any change to government legislation that is intended to improve society in general, and the lives of most of us, carries with it the risk of unintended negative side-effects. Euthanasia laws are no different, and like most things in life, it's a question of balancing out the benefits against the risks. I would suggest that the current system that puts such a weight on extending the lives of terminally ill patients as long as possible takes up valuable resources from our medical system, that could instead be used treating patients that are not terminally ill, but are currently being neglected (potentially to the point of death) because of an overstretched health system. It cuts both ways.

Angelika - a great very well-written opinion. I thought it presented the pro-VE argument well.

A few comments that I'd like to add.....

- the legislation that you refer to is about criminalising the TRANSMITTING OF information to an Australian via internet, email, telephone and fax. This is via The Criminal Code Amendment (Suicide Related Material Offences) Law 2005.

- I can also say that the right to life does NOT equate to the "duty to suffer".

- to Angelika & bjp, there are studies that show that there is NO SLIPPERY SLOPE in the places where VE is legal. Just google it and you'll see these reputable sites mentioning the most recent of the studies.....

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/09/070926191348.htm
Doctor-aided Suicide: No Slippery Slope, Study Finds

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-09/uou-dsn092507.php
Doctor-aided suicide: no slippery slope

http://unews.utah.edu/p/?r=092507-2
DOCTOR-AIDED SUICIDE: NO SLIPPERY SLOPE

http://www.6minutes.com.au/dirplus/images/6minutes/newsletter/26_09_2007.pdf
this is an Australian doctor's site

- another study actually found that in those countries where VE is legal people lived longer - because of the peace of mind knowing that they had a control over their future. Against any unbearable suffering that may be laying ahead. It stops a lot of people from taking their own steps.

- in Australia 3 elderly people commit suicide each week using their own methods. I'm sure many of them would be avoided if they had peace of mind.

Angelika - I'm only sorry that it's an issue that people don't really want to "confront" until they are in that position, because a lot of the supporters are those that are "elderly, seriously or terminally ill" as you've said. Not many have internet access, not many have the good health to go stage protests like other protest groups. No, unfortunately except for a brave few who have come forward for the Peanut Project, to attend workshops or for TV documentaries many supporters are silent.

And this is the main reason why it is a "silent" issue. Despite having wide support - over 80% of Australians agree with it's legalisation - there aren't many visible, active supporters. And this is a great pity.

What does everyone think?

Here we go again with that old cliche "how are [we] going to easily manage any abuse of euthanasia?" What is abuse? It seems emanate from the standards of bluenoses who think they have the right to determine what someone else can do. Seems like I hear that cliche often from people of certain religious beliefs who think their standards should be imposed on others. They don't of course put it that baldly but rely on "abuse" "slippery slope" and related excuses so that THEIR standards are imposed on others.

They have been terribly successful in getting pollies to force their beliefs onto the community. Examples abound: the banning of THE PEACEFUL PILL HANDBOOK, draconian legislation that forbids me(and everyone else) from having euthanasia information on my computer's hard disk or discussing same over the telephone, and the now thankfully departed Herr Ruddler's election stunt to try to get EXIT workshops raided by the police.(One of the items that was huffed and puffed about was a film that apparently cannot be shown as the pen pusherocracy hasn't classified (read: banned) it. Well its available on YOUTUBE, so there is little the petty bureaucrats and their wowser supporters can do about this.Tough luck chaps, you can't ban everything you don't approve of.)

As an adult I have the right to obtain information about euthanasia and to make my own decision. To those whose beliefs are that a painful death is morally ennobling, that is your choice. But do not presume to impose such on me with disingenuous arguments about "abuse" and "slippery slope".

Thank You Angelika for your article -
I am approaching old age and have seen first hand the results of the current INVOLUNTARY euthanasia that I believe is entrenched practice in Australian aged care homes. In my case I was forced to witness a prolongued, cruel, undignified, badly managed and, in fact, "botched" euthanasia by degrees - all because of the lack of choice and inability of doctors to provide a more kind, compassionate and VOLUNTARY ending.

Our government denies us free speech in seeking better alternatives and denies us the presence and confort of our loved ones in our final moments should we find a way to circumvent archaic laws.

I admit this is a sensitive area of discussion and there are issues regarding possible abuse of "choice" laws that need to be addressed; however I am personally terrified of being forced to endure what my dear Father suffered. I desperately want the comfort of knowing that should I become terminally ill, or reach a pitiable state where life has become unbearable, then I do not need to fear that I will have an undignified, prolongued miserable or painful death forced on me.

Thank you, thank you Angelika and thank you also to Phillip Nitschke for your efforts, and for enduring unfair criticism so stoically, on behalf of those who want more compassionate laws.

Carrie_K

Angelika,

Here is a perspective you fail to take into account.

This year I was seriously ill with cancer and my chances of survival were low. Very low. At the outset of treatment I was determined to 'beat' my affliction and thankfully today it seems quite likely I have. My cancer hasn't returned and it is nearly 8 months since my operation and two months since chemo ended. Every day is a celebration and as time passes I am told there is less and less chance cancer will return.

Now during my treatment my greatest problem was dealing with depression. On many occassions I simply sat and wept over the silliest things and suicide often entered my mind. I was sick but quite sane and apparently rational. I encountered many fellow sufferers who were in various stages of depression with the very worst suffers just simply discontinuing with their treatments. It was a real battle to attend the weekly day care appointments for the chemo.

I could quite simply have given up and if 'legal, voluntary euthanasia' was easily available I wonder now how much easier it could have been to simply give up. I have watched others die of cancer with great courage and dignity. In the depths of my depression I don't think I could have possibly thought I could have endured with quite such strength.

Now having had such an experience I have come to an understanding of the stages and states of the will to live. It varies greatly from time to time during illness.

With euthanasia there is no chance for a change of mind.

bjp, banality is not what concerns me on your comment, rather your naivety in believing in parliamentary inquiries into the consequences of legalising euthanasia, without questioning
the intention and the outcome of such inquiries. It looks like you gave a “blank cheque”to those who were in power. Reasonableness and naivety are often the mask worn by conservatives to further their own political cause/agenda. Keeping the Status Quo or an a priori dismissal is not an acceptable solution for this issue.
Taking a bold initiative and ensuring you address any challenges and concerns is a progressive approach to the issue of voluntary euthanasia. This is exactly what was done in Australia. Marshall Perron’s proposal to legalise voluntary euthanasia was successful and the Northern Territory passed the legislation that allowed a sick person to ask a doctor to help them die. It took 13 months of considerations, precautions and regulations to control the law. The Rights of the Terminally Ill Act 1995 in Australia was the world’s first case of medically-assisted voluntary euthanasia, followed by Holland, Belgium, Switzerland and the State of Oregon (America).
The ROTI Act had stringent stipulations and very strong safeguards. Here are some of them:
A person to qualify had to be over 18 years of age. A person had to be terminally ill and experiencing unacceptable pain and suffering . Three medical professionals (beside their own doctor) had to be consulted and verify that this was the case. A psychiatrist had to certify that the person was not suffering from a treatable clinical depression. A 48-hour cooling-off period was compulsory (after consultation and completion of paperwork). As a further safeguard it had to be proven that no palliative care options were/are available to the person to alleviate their unacceptable pain and suffering.
In short, to qualify for medically- assisted voluntary euthanasia, you needed to be almost dead.
I suggest you read the ROTI –Act 1995 for further details, before you jump to the conclusion that a safe euthanasia law is impossible

GP As you know, it is a common tool in journalism to quote from interviews out of context. Often it is purposefully used to sensationalise and to make headlines.
Kathryn Jean Lopez, from the right-wing American magazine The National Review is no exception. Before you “nail down” Philip Nitschke on his statement in this interview in 2001 you might want to read his whole response (in order to get a fair and objective picture).
He went on to say:
“….. The final question that needs to be answered though is “Whom do I want to help?”
While acknowledging that all have the ‘right’ to receive assistance without fear of legal consequence, I do not personally want to involve myself in helping those who can manage the act themselves…….My guidelines for those whom I am prepared to assist are of course arbitrary. In this country, without protective legislation, I could do what I liked, or rather,
what I could get away with.
However, I choose to restrict myself to that group identified in the overturned legislation.
I involve myself with terminally ill adults who are articulate, lucid, and not suffering from
clinically treatable depression.” (Killing Me Softly, by Dr Philip Nitschke & Dr Fiona Stewart,
pp 313, Penguin , 2005).
I think this puts Philip Nitschke’s answer in context in which the supermarket shelf’ comment was given.

Angelika,

If as you say the requirements were so strident that one needed to be 'almost dead' then why the rush?

Such laws are only ever the thin edge of the wedge and without doubt they would be tested to the limit and that limit over time would be shifted.

'Safe euthanasia' surely represents the ultimate in oxy-morons.

Do you know about the conspiracy theory behind youthanasia? Think about this! While you are dieing, the system is making lots of money off the terminally ill, with the cost of keeping the patient alive. Entire life saving are being drained, so the leeches ( THE GOVERNMENT HEALTH SYSTEM) can keep its self alive.
This money should be left for the families, and not for pointless guinea pig stile, no hope, medications thats costs a fortune.
To die in pain, is not human! Being greedy is!

Keith,
You have provided informative and valuable input. As a result of your experiences, insights such as yours should be carefully considered when framing “choice” legislation.

However, choice there should be.

When death is inevitable and imminent (which is vastly different to a low chance of survival, vis-a-vis yourself), no-one should have the right to tell me that I have no choice but to endure the horrors of an awful drawn-out death over some 3-4 weeks or longer, simply because our society does not care enough to explore more satisfactory alternatives.

Surely I should have the right to slip away calmly and peacefully in a manner of my own choosing.

Genuine contributions from well informed people such as can be seen on this forum are necessary to ensure that we can achieve good outcomes, with adequate safeguards – but please be kind and grant compassion where it is truly needed.

That's a good point Carrie:

Keith - what if there had been no chance of recovery at all? What if there was no chance that painful time would end, and you were destined for a painful death regardless?

Would you still say voluntary euthanasia shouldn't be an option?

Turnrightthenleft.

Maybe I wasn't all that clear. In the depths of the depression I felt and actually believed there was no chance of recovery. At those times I wasn't insane nor irrationl. I think I could have just given up the battle and died. I didn't and as time passed I healed.

Carrie K.

I believe there is a choice at those times. I watched both my parents die. They both seemed to go when they were ready. Although my Dad was suffering greatly he died peacefully ... during a morphine induced sleep. I recall clearly he saying to me in one of our last moments 'There's nothing left to say.' We also had a laugh or two as well.
But what you and others want is to legislate for people to chose to die early even though drugs are available that can manage the plight and many of the horrors of the terminally ill. The very great danger is that the point at which 'compassion' applies is in constant danger of being moved and could eventually become not a matter of individual choice but of collective choice.
One only has to look at where the point of compassion now lies in abortion. Today the argument is over the necessity for third trimester abortions. It passed the stage of economic reasons for abortion years ago. Similar will occur with euthanasia.

I'd consider legal euthanasia if a guarantee could be given on containing any movement of that point of compassion. That won't happen.

In my opinion, the political power of a minority -- the ultra right -- is the principal roadblock to legislation for VE. The majority of people endorse it. I believe nebutal should be an option offered to the terminally ill. I'm sure the doctors and lawyers can quickly work out their side of it! Thank you, Angelika for expressing the case so well.

In my opinion, the political power of a minority -- the ultra left -- is the principal push for legislation for VE. The majority of people don't care. I believe the status quo should be the option offered to the terminally ill.

I'm sure we should leave lawyers right out of this equation. Look at how messy they've made divorce.

I have watched my parents and partner slowly die. I support access to Voluntary Euthanasia.

Ahhh Keith …(sigh) …we don’t seem to be reaching 100% agreement here.

I envy your father his peaceful dignified exit. I envy you your faith in the efficiency and efficacy that our medical system and your certainty that it will ensure an equally swift smooth closure for you and I.

Fingers crossed that neither of us finds out one way or the other for at least another 100 years! I’m working on it!!

However, lacking similar confidence, knowing first hand how horribly wrong things can go, I’m too scared to rely on the present style of collective decision making by carers and medicos about how, when (and how slowly) to deliver euthanasia. I much prefer to make my own “collective’ decisions, all by my little self.

Sadly, under the present legal system, that means I will have to check out well before I’m really ready, just to ensure that I act before I am no longer capable of acting alone and unaided.

My life will be longer if I know that when I am ready I can obtain the assistance I need, which is why I am hoping for some legislative changes.

I promise not to try to make it compulsory for everyone; and I promise not to hand out “the good stuff” to teenagers on street corners. I promise to support your decision to see it through yourself right to the very end, no matter what.

I just wish I had the same freedom of decision making with regard to my own life.

But hey, I must leave now as there are matters of more immediate importance than life and death - like Xmas shopping and parties and xmas cards to write and even the odd bit of sleep.

With any luck, we can still be arguing about these things at the turn of the next century.

In the meantime, Merry Xmas to you and all the other nice people who have been contributing to this chat,
Cheers
Carrie-

Keith
You stated:

“I believe there is a choice at those times”

The choice for the terminally ill, as you are constantly pointing out, is ‘ hang in there, suffer, die slowly at a pace’
as I (Keith) suggest, because I (Keith) and your father did so. In other words, it is your choice only that you offer the terminally ill. To put it kindly, this is not a choice, this is Keith's Rules.
To put it straight, this is dictatorship, disguised as a caring and concerned citizen.
Well, unfortunately this sounds all too familiar.
Imposing your experience ,thinking and will upon those who feel and think differently is, what I call, intolerant, patronizing, bullying and unacceptable.
Indeed, you fall into the category of people, who seems to be a priori against voluntary euthanasia. No matter what .
Your comment:

“ I'd consider legal euthanasia if a guarantee could be given on containing any movement of that point of compassion. That won't happen”

suggest, that you have already made up your mind (that won’t happen, ergo it shouldn’t happen. Really, this is not very helpful for those who want a serious discourse and an honest debate on the issue of voluntary euthanasia. Your comments are self centered,
absolute righteous, and far from being constructive.
Keith, why are you hiding behind the so-called majority, who, according to you, don’t care? 80% of Australians support voluntary euthanasia. Do you consider them all a
“left minority” ? By the way, where do you get your statistics from?
After reading your last comment:

“ I believe the status quo should be the option offered to the terminally ill”.

I came to the conclusion , it is really you, Keith, who doesn’t care , not the majority of people.

Tommy

Tommy

What a lovely bullying attitude. If you think the majotity of Australians support Voluntary Euthanasia, well mobilise them and get the existing laws changed. Many have tried and all so far failled.

If you want to argue the morallity of the issue, do so but sinking to the level you have isn't debate it's merely a low form of propaganda. It simply reveals you haven't morality on side.

Can you guarantee the point where VE is invoked won't change? Let's see you start by debating that simple point in a serious and honest manner.

Hi Carrie,

well said and summed up. There is more to life than try to convince someone
(Keith) who has already made up his mind. No matter what.
It is nearly impossible to break through a wall of ignorance.

I’ve read your comments with interest and agree totally with you.
Thanks to all who are making the effort to fight for the
re-instatement of the Rights for the terminally ill.
Indeed, a cause worthwhile to fight for as Angelika pointed it
out so rightly.

I fully support the views of Angelika Minner. Why do christian religious leaders, the Right to life groups and polititians believe they have a mandate to dictate to others who might belong to another religious group or may not even believe in any sort of god.
The real problem is not with religions but it is with the practioners of religion. In the name of religion, countless millions of people have been murdered throughout the centuries because they were or were not christians. the first crusade was launched by Pope Uban at the council of Clermont in 1095 where he urged christians to clean Muslims out of Jeruselem. There was at least another 10 crusades over almost 200 years and countless men, women and children were murdered in the name of Christianity.
In recent times, the attack on Iraq was engineered by George Bush ( without United Nations agreement ) because he believed that being a christian, he must be right. As a result of attacking Iraq, 600,000 ordinary Iraq people died and over 4,000 American soldiers have been killed.
Also other recent events include the millions of dollars paid out by the Catholic church in America for sexual assaults by their priests and problems have also appeared in Australia.
I would have expected that religious leaders would have cleaned up their own backyard to get more credibility before trying to believe they had the right to consider themselves to be the arbiter of moral and ethical standards.
What right do politicians have to impose their personal beliefs on the rest of the population when in the case of the Howard government they did not have a mandate to push the Prime ministers beliefs and in particular upon the Northern Territory. The conscience vote is meaningless as I believe that most of them find it more convenient to vote as the Prime Minister does.
Democracy has suffered in Australia as a result of religious intolerance and arrogance.
Bobbd

Hey guys'ngals - Steven, Bobbd, turnrightthenleft, Ellis, Billie, Evolution, Dnicholson, Wizofaus, Bullagal, Thebigkoala - kindred spirits all:

probably we've all had some personal experiences that have shocked us into realising that our own demise could quite possibly be extremely unpleasant and protracted. We've seen it happen and don't subscribe to the "it won't happen to me" theory.

most people don't contemplate their own death with any particularity. becuase of the dubious benefit of our experiences (in my case) or innate intelligence that prompts a careful "thinking through" of the possibilities (some other people), we do think about it in some detail and don't fancy taking our chances. we would like to see something in place to help us if we need it.

Let's do as Keith suggests and keep working at improving our own chances by whatever reasonable means we can find, especially trying to get some "kindness" laws so the doctors and institutional carers don't have to kill us by inches (as they do now under currently entrenched "unofficial" euthanasia practices).

I'm selfish, I'd like to circumvent death altogether, but failing that I want a good happy ending for myself. And I'm caring enough to wish the same for you.

Cheers and all the best,
Carrie

Thanks Bobbd for your input.
In particular for putting the finger back on the pulse of the issue.
Despite the fact that the ROTI ACT 1995 was a very strict and stringent law, with not much room for misuse/abuse it was officially overturned in March 1997.
Indeed through a very strategic and planned manoeuvre from the conservative federal Liberal backbencher Kevin Andrews. Undoubtedly strongly supported by the Right to Life Movement and the Church. I’ve have already expressed my view on this in my article.
Despite the fact that the majority of Australians are in support of Voluntary Euthanasia,
politicians are reluctant to push the agenda further, because they fear the backlash
of the Church and the Right to Life Movement. We know there is support amongst
politicians but unfortunately it ends there where the power of religion starts.
What we need are politicians who are bold enough to take the initiative
on the issue of VE.
The scenario or stage for the fight to re-instate the ROTI ACT 1995 will be
the political scene. I am confident that eventually ROTI will be re-instated.
Unfortunately this won’t happen in the near future.
I am counting particular on the baby boomers who hopefully will pressure
politicians on this issue.
Following quote from a letter to the editor in the Sydney Morning Herald,
a day after the overturn of ROTI, represents fairly accurately my
feelings and those of many others concerned:
“I don’t understand why these evangelists of their own belief systems have
the right to take away another individual’s right to end his or her own suffering.
This is the worst kind of politicking, far worse than acting out at Question Time,
making errors with expenses or jetting around on fact-finding missions.
I don’t care what “God” a politician chooses to follow, but when his belief
affects others I consider he has overstepped his already poor standing in the
community.
My heart goes out to those who are suffering and those wanting to help
within the law.” (quoted in: Killing me softly, by Dr. Philip Nitschke & Dr Fiona
Stuart, pp51).

bullagal,
thanks for your comments and interesting information on VE.
I am grateful for pointing out that in those countries where voluntary euthanasia is legal, people live longer , because they are knowing that they had a control over their future. This is indeed a very important study. Unfortunately not often quoted. The findings in this study confirm my own experience with members of Exit International

To all those who have an opposite view to me.

Merry Christmas. I'm going sailing. Won't be contemplating anything other than the odd 'Bushmills' and Guinness.

As a parting comment: How many of you support legalising suicide? At what point does suicide, assisted or otherwise, become euthanasia? I'd love to see all your individual answers. But beware as we all start to die on the day of our birth, and life and death as we all know contains their own agonies.

Keith,
you should know - suicide is not illegal, ie: it is already perfectly legal to suicide.

what we want are the means to achieve it humanely - meaning legal access to the means, assistance if we are physically unable to prepare ourselves, and the ability to have doctors, loved ones or friends or others present immediately prior, during or after without incurring a lengthy prison sentence.

this is voluntary assisted euthanasia, which is currently what we want.

Both voluntary (suicide) and involuntary (murder/manslaughter?)euthanasia are currently unofficially entrenched and for many (not all -your father was "fortunate' in that) result in an extremely cruel, protracted and undignified ending. Legal permission would allow more humane methods to be used for voluntary euthanasia.

happy sailing
Carrie

Thankyou Carrie,
I'm not sure of the legalities of suicide. But I do know physician assisted (psa) suicide is illegal.
My dad was fortunate but the morphine he received was intended to relieve his pain. That it also sent him into a final sleep was indeed a result that saved a great deal of suffering. I think you will find, and no doubt you already have, it is a widely accepted proceedure among the medical profession.

But if you look to studies in parts of the world where PAS has legal status, notably Holland, I think you'll find many pas are now involuntary. The laws were introduced in 1993 and 'loosened' in 2003. Up to 25% of cases (reported, many cases of PAS are now unreported) are showen to be involuntary and another 20% odd could have received alternative treatments.

In Australia, do you recall that woman VE campaigner in Brisbane who because of her terminal and painful case of collorectal cancer, requested and received drugs through the internet, invited her friends and family to her farewell party, took the drugs, with a small drink, had a final smoke said goodbye and slept.

Her autopsy revealed an absence of any cancer.

There will always be cases of one off tragedies or complete ignorance's for whom ever is at fault, and some will slip through the cracks.( suicide)