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!