Meet Chantal Sebire.

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/news/world/court-rejects-disfigured-frenchwomans-plea-to-die/2008/03/18/1205602424048.html

A malignant tumour in her nasal cavity has made her blind.
Her sense of smell and taste are gone.
She is horribly disfigured.
She is in immense pain.

The french woman has made a request for voluntary euthanasia, arguing that not even an animal would be subject to this kind of pain without being put down.

She wishes to depart peacefully, rather than enduring more pain before her death.

I know it's an emotional story and it's probably difficult to explain why people are opposed - but if people are indeed opposed to voluntary euthanasia, I would like to know why they believe this woman should be forced to suffer.

Aside from emotional reasons, I don't see the practicality of forcing a sane person to remain alive.

Update: In the last 24 hours since I posted this thread, Ms Sebire has been found dead in her apartment.

At the end of the trial, she said with resignation, that she would find another way to end her life.

What an incredibly sad story. I don't see how anyone could justify denying Chantal access to euthanasia if that was her heartfelt request and it's hard to see that it wouldn't have been.

The clearly emotional cases like Chantal's, and I know there are many of them, do make the case for euthanasia at first glance a compelling one. I accept this and would never argue against its compassionate use in these cases.

Having said that, I can't shake the niggling unease I have regarding the slippery slope argument as it is applied to this debate. My concern with euthanasia is the long-term consequences and I'm talking twenty, thirty and more years down the track. By then, on current trajectories, the proportion of older people in the community will be much higher than it is now. Far fewer of them will have sufficient superannuation to live comfortably than is now the case. And the health system, again on present indications, will be stretched to absolute breaking point.

There is a very real danger in my mind that there will be increasing pressure, both subtle and not so subtle, on older people to take the euthanasia option whether or not they wish to do so. With hospital beds and nursing home places in short supply, which they undoubtedly will be by then, except for those with the means to pay the high prices that will be needed to secure them, the pressure not to be a burden and take up precious space will I think become quite difficult to counter, especially for those without the means and the family support.

I just can't help feeling that if euthanasia is an accepted part of our healthcare options and its practice does become routine, that it will place an added burden onto older people and one that until that time hasn't been an issue for most of them.

Chantal Sebire is a very sad case.

But I agree with Bronwyn. I too have a feeling of unease about accepting euthanasia.

The concept of helping someone else shorten their life carries with it such potential for abuse that there has to be legislation both as a deterrent and as a proper sanction when it is abused.

I don't believe that trusting to the courts' discretion is an 'entirely satisfactory' way of dealing with euthanasia, should the community approve of the concept.

And could legislation be drawn up with enough administrative safeguards to prevent abuse?

At the moment our representatives don't hear pro-euthanasia crowds beating down the gates and so they do nothing.

What would embolden the MPs to action would be the support of the Australian Medical Association. That support is also important because of the role doctors would inevitably have to play if active euthanasia became accepted. However the AMA's position to date has been, "for a doctor to help someone kill himself - goes against what we're all about!"

"The basic duty of a doctor is to preserve life, not end it.
If the patient was terminally ill, the doctor should and could only make them comfortable."

However doctors sometimes turn off life-support systems of irreversably and terminally ill patients. This already happens.

If it came right down to it I prefer another definition of the doctor's duty - one which, incidentally, would be compatible with euthanasia.

I see a doctor's role - "is more to preserve dignity than to preserve life." As for euthanasia - "In the end it's the patient's right to choose."

Doctors can not be held or put in that situation and to do so would fight against all that they stand for. So that rules that one out. The government cant change the laws cause it wants you all to know, that we don't want our hands with blood on it and fear of repercussions from the people that disagree with the whole matter and not to mention, christians beliefs and family objections. So what is the answer?
Well, there is no legal way of doing it, but that doesn't mean you cant. It will just have to fall under the laws of suicide and that as they say, is that.

All I can say is, if you know you are going to die without a doubt, and there is no chance of you serviving the disease, make sure you can still walk, before the bitter end.

For those who cant move or are unconscious, bad luck! But please don't involve anyone else. That's murder! or man slaughter.

Personly, nothing on this earth will stop me if it ever happened, and there is no way I am going to rot in pain for no-one.

P/S ITS MY LIFE! and not yours

Foxy. Your logic is outstanding as usual. And to all the rest of you. All the best.

Evolution.

Thank you for this topic, TRTL and for the wonderful sensitivity and compassion the three of you have shown.
I feel for that poor woman!

Euthanasia has been very much in my head lately.
As some of you might know, I’m from a country (The Netherlands) where active euthanasia has been legal for some time.
Today, I received the news that my terminally ill aunt was granted permission on her application for euthanasia.

It takes two doctors who have been involved with the patient to agree that there is no positive outlook for the patient. My aunt has been treated for advanced bowel cancer for about 18 months; she's had 4 operations, chemotherapy and radiation, but the cancer has spread and has become untreatable.

My uncle, her husband, is extremely sad but fully supports her decision. They have a very happy and strong marriage and he loves his wife too much to deny her a painless, peaceful and quick death.

After Easter she will return home from the hospital and she will choose a time and date for her to be euthanised, which will happen in a week or so, before her body will be affected by dehydration.

She will see all of her friends and extended family for the last time during the days before her death. She wants to talk to me on the phone as well as we’ve stayed in regular contact since I emigrated.
Then, she will pass away softly, in her own bed, and with her husband and their 4 sons around her.

Continued

Foxy and Bronwyn, you have raised great questions.

I have a link somewhere of an English version on the euthanasia laws in the Netherlands and if any of you is interested in reading that booklet I will try to find that link for you. I’ve used that link in a previous euthanasia discussion but it’s quite some time ago and I can’t find it atm.

I did find the following info that may address one of your concerns:

"Doctors have two distinct duties to their patients. The first is to relieve suffering and the second is to preserve life. Because honouring a request for euthanasia conflicts with this second duty, doctors are allowed to refuse. Nurses may also refuse to assist in performing euthanasia or preparing for it. Neither doctors nor nurses can ever be censured for failing to comply with requests for euthanasia. The new Act is intended to ensure that doctors and nurses will never have to compromise their personal principles. Doctors are under no obligation to perform euthanasia,
and patients have no right to it. If a doctor refuses to perform euthanasia, however, he must refer the patient to another doctor who may be willing to grant the request."

Evolution

you want doctors to be elevated above euthanasia, yet they are already involved. Unfortunately it is under a veil of secrecy and thus the issue lacks clarity and honesty that it deserves. You are right in saying that we do not have a legal way of defining this issue, but surely the attempt is important.

An autopsy used to be an unthinkable and ghastly act and perpetrators executed. I am not comparing the two apart from to say that society can change and form a consensus even on something like this.

Foxy

you are right, this is something that society has to be carful with. Are we though, too afraid of death.
Is the idea that we force people to live agonising days, months and years; something that we should fear, as much as someone that quits a little too easy.

There is no right or wrong. But evolution, considering your hopes and wishes. If you are ever unfortunate enough to be stuck in pain and unable to move. Don't you hope that someone loves you enough to try to help you live and die on your terms, not someone elses.

thank you for your thoughts everyone and good luck

Thank you to TRTL for starting this thread.

Also thank you to Brownyn and Foxy for your reliably thoughtful and well reasoned posts.

Celivia, I am grateful that your aunt has the opportunity to choose how she wishes to be treated. This is something we have tried to achieve in this country but have yet to do so, hence the plight of people like Chantal in France, our own country and other countries which dictates to people how they should live their lives.

AT the time the Howard government banned Philip Nitschke’s book “The Peaceful Pill”, my mother’s health seriously declined. Somehow she managed to recover, although she is now on oxygen most of the time, she is still able to live independently. My family and I know she is on borrowed time, could be months; we hope for years. However, we have talked at length and my mother has been very clear that should she go into cardiac arrest, she is not to be put on any life support. She is adamant that she does not want to spend the reminder of her life dependent and restricted to a bed.

Despite the ban, I bought a copy of Nitschke’s book and it seems that unless I can afford to go to Mexico where Nembutal can be purchased, the options for a peaceful death here in Australia are limited to asphyxiation and other crude methods, where the family are unable to be present if they don’t want to be convicted of either murder or aiding suicide.

This is disgraceful,an appalling way to treat people who have contributed to this country and only want a peaceful end to their lives!

The one thing we can be sure of is that we will all die – why is death the one thing that others seem to want to control?

Getting v/emotional here. Have had a gutful on OLO lately. Time for me to take a break!

Ah, no Fractelle! You often provide a ray of sanity and occasionally amusement, two things which these boards could use more of.

I agree with most of what's been posted here so far. Yes, there are risks and it is indeed a slippery slope. I wouldn't want euthanasia to ever become a casual consideration or for there to be pressure, though the cynical side of me wonders what's going to happen when the pressure mounts on the number of aged people and whether we can avoid the risks that have been spoken of.

What I mean to say is, that perhaps if we're not careful, our stressed system won't be able to care for everyone anyway - but you're right in that it's something we need to be vigilant against.

That being said - as Celivia pointed out, there are countries which manage it properly and I think we're quite a way off seeing people pressured into these situations. Could you imagine the adverse publicity if even one person spoke out saying they'd been pressure to be euthanased? The outcry would be horrendous... I hope.

Fractelle, I wish you’d stay, too!
I was shocked when the previous govt banned The Peaceful Pill!
On Insight some time ago, when Christopher Pyne debated euthanasia, I thought he came across as a cold, closed-minded man, able to think in black-and-white only and showing no compassion for the plight of the terminally ill.

Christopher Pyne should have carefully listened to these ill people, he should have investigated how euthanasia in other countries has benefited patients, even if they never take advantage of their permission.
He showed no interest, perhaps partly because he is Catholic and therefore was in a compromised position.
So many terminally ill patients are being forced to die a horrible death because of someone else’s faith.

A fact is that only one-third of the patients who have requested euthanasia are accepted; for the remaining two-thirds other ways of relieving their suffering are recommended or doctors have some hope that the illness may improve.
Of the people who have been granted permission only about 30% go through with euthanasia because for the vast majority it is an extremely relieving feeling that they don’t HAVE to keep suffering day-in day out without knowing how torturous their last moments will be and how long it will last.

Once they have the permission, which allows them to choose their moment of death that can be arranged on short notice, a huge weight comes off their shoulders and they seem to regain some renewed energy.
Life is easier when they’ve lost their fear of dying an excruciating death, of perhaps having to choke to death and of dying all alone. They now can die a humane and soft death whenever they want.

Australia’s first step should be to openly discuss euthanasia. In the previous govt, as far as I know, Amanda VanStone was the only one who wanted to re-open the euthanasia debate.
Do any of you have any expectations of the Rudd govt in this regard?

Here’s that link I was looking for. When you’re on the site click the link at the bottom for the euthanasia pdf brochure.
http://www.minvws.nl/en/folders/ibe/euthanasia_the_netherlands_new_rules.as

Sorry I cut off that link, this one should work:

http://www.minvws.nl/en/folders/ibe/euthanasia_the_netherlands_new_rules.asp

I believe it was Kevin Andrews who torpedoed the Northern Territory's euthanasia laws.
Chris Pyne's always been locked in step with Andrews, along with Minchin, Abbott and the rest of the hardcore staunch conservatives of the old guard.

Having sat with my father through his last awful days last year, I realised that what I'd suspected is actually true - the way that hospitals manage the death of terminally ill patients is a form of drawn-out euthanasia. The problem is that it takes so long that the patient is progressively stripped of all dignity and autonomy, then left to hover in a semi-conscious state until they finally succumb to an overdose of anaesthetic.

It took me a couple of days to work out the unwritten rules of how this awful game is played out - you can speed up the process by saying that the patient is in pain or discomfort, and demanding that the attending nurses increase the amount of 'pain relief' in the drip. I think I saved my old man a few days of needless suffering by hanging at his bedside and constantly requesting that his anaesthetic was increased, until he finally overdosed and died.

I recall thinking to myself how needlessly cruel the process was, and how fortunate I was to be able to be there to help speed the process up. What happens to people who die alone in hospital?

We already have a form of euthanasia, but it's typically in the hands of nursing staff, who decided how much anaesthetic to administer and when to administer it. Ironically, once a patient is no longer lucid, they play no part in the decision-making process and may hover in a state of unconsciousness for quite some time before they finally expire.

I think that's wrong.

CJ

No-one, not you, your father or anyone should have to go through an ordeal like that ever. We do better with our pets than we do with ourselves.

TRTL

Thank you for your kind words, I apologise for the being a bit sooky, I am not all that well ATM and I had put in a lot of effort in trying to reach some level of communication with HRS on the "give women a fair go" thread. As a result my head got very sore. I should've known better. Any way I am feeling better today.

I was very disappointed that both Abbott and Pyne got their seats back after the Fed Election - two self-righteous gits who get all their morals from primitive superstition. Control freaks both. The sooner the Liberal Party divests itself of its extreme right-wing the sooner we can work towards a more humane and egalitarian Australia.

Yeah, I wasn't at all happy to see Andrews, Abbott and Pyne return to the fray, but I was rather bemused that Pyne seemed to think he had the potential to be a deputy leader, and was promptly disabused of this notion.

It's not likely the pompous git with the quavering voice will get the spot, though good luck to him - if he gets anywhere near the leadership, the Libs can kiss any hopes at re-election goodbye.

For my two bob, Andrews has always been the more objectionable of the lot. Between his personal crusade to remove the NT euthanasia laws, and the fact that he managed to make Vanstone look like a compassionate immigration minister by comparison... not to mention the whole 'Sudan' and 'Haneef' fiascos, heck, it was one ignorant cockup after another.

I was rather amused to see he didn't even get a token ministry spot. As blatant snubs go, it was quite eloquent.

But I digress...

CJ, you make a good point there - without any euthanasia laws, it seems quite likely to me that it just means that unsanctioned euthanasia will still take place, via other means, which begs the question whether we're just encouraging it to occur without proper checks and balances.

"There is a very real danger in my mind that there will be increasing pressure, both subtle and not so subtle, on older people to take the euthanasia option whether or not they wish to do so. With hospital beds and nursing home places in short supply, which they undoubtedly will be by then, except for those with the means to pay the high prices that will be needed to secure them, the pressure not to be a burden and take up precious space will I think become quite difficult to counter, especially for those without the means and the family support."
Posted by Bronwyn, Thursday, 20 March 2008 3:01:58 PM

I think this comment is outstanding. It was something I had given little thought to, but it HAS to be acknowledged.

Having said that; this IS something that MUST be recognized. Because of the 'civilized' nature of the Homo Sapien; we allow suffering far beyond compassion and clearly into cruelty.

When they run out of band-aids for me, I have absolutely no intention of enduring increasing suffering and frailty. It won't happen. I have no fear of death, but DO fear extreme pain, and frankly old age itself!

I'll be literally damned if any silly constriction placed upon me by our dumb politicians/Gummint will deter me from a dignified exit.

Celivia; may gentleness and tranquility be with your Aunt.

Great posts, I too fear dying in pain without dignity more than being forced into "voluntary euthanasia". I see no virtue in suffering and think we should implement laws like those in the Netherlands if only to protect the actions of medical staff.

Australia's hodge podge methods of dealing with the terminally ill leave medical staff vulnerable to litigation. Terminally ill patients are advised to check the religious affiliation of their doctor and their hospital to predict the hospitals response to their impending death.

Thank you, Ginx, that’s very nicely said.
And yes, it’s the slippery slope arguments that do need some attention but these are –in my view- no reason for euthanasia to remain illegal and all the more reason to have clear laws in place that will protect both medical staff and patients.
Overdoses of morphine are already administered with the “intention” to relieve pain and indeed this does put medical staff at risk as Billie said.

When euthanasia is legal, the lethal drugs that doctors will have available to administer to their patients are far superior to morphine; they’re kinder and softer. But since their purpose is to cause death and not to relief pain, they’re not available to doctors here.
There is a small range of euthanatica available and sometimes the patients can have a choice.

Some mmore info on this case:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1204070853

Euthanasia in general:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1171778149
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1197935939/2#2

Thank you for those links, freediver. I haven’t read all of the material but the discussion on that ozpolitic forum is very interesting. Wherever I read discussions on the euthanasia topic, the vast majority of posters are in favour of legal voluntary euthanasia.

I haven't been able to find any results of a large-scale Australian poll. It would be interesting to find out what proportion of Australians support euthanasia. I know in the Netherlands it was around 85% and since euthanasia was legalised the rate of supporters is has increased to 90% +.
I have the feeling that numbers could well be similar in Australia.
Makes me wonder how little the government have been representing the general population on this.

One thing that keeps coming up in euthanasia debates is the question why people can’t just take an overdose of their medication.
While quite a few patients might do so in desperation,this is hardly a kind and soft way of ending one’s life.
People should not have to resort to this!
This method is just too unreliable and scary because it's not guaranteed to be kind at all- the overdose may, if it fails to kill the patient, even cause more health problems.
There may be vomiting involved which is guaranteed to be a scare for patients who are experiencing trouble of breathing or of swallowing. There is nothing scarier than having to choke to death.

Suicide is also a lonely way of dieing, as patients naturally don’t want others to be involved for legal reasons.

Compare that with, for example, the preparation for my aunt’s death. She’s recently had the final talk with her doctor about her choice of euthanatica and knows exactly how her body is going to react to it, knowing that she will be watched by the doctor all the way through so that she can be guaranteed a painless and very peaceful death.
She now is at home and in the process of saying goodbye to all of her close friends and family before she will die in the company of her husband and children.

Celivia

I am sure that I speak for many when I say that your Aunt and your family are very much in our thoughts. I am moved to think that your Aunt has the choice for a humane death in the company of her friends and family.

I believe the time has come for a referendum on euthanasia, like Celivia, I believe the majority of Australians support a humane approach to terminal illness. I want to make it clear that this does not lead down a slippery slope simply because a moderate position is taken, then it inevitably leads to extremes.

This doesn’t happen in many areas of our society, overall we remain civil to each other – it is only the minority who react with extreme behaviour. We govern for the majority not the extremists.

I can’t think of anything worse than dying alone and in pain, yet that is what our current legislation entails. We have a new regime in Canberra, but nothing will change unless we speak out about it. Time to write to our politicians – make them accountable – would they see their loved ones die in agony? I very much doubt that.