We’ll let people starve to death but not go painlessly

Rationalist says:

06:56am | 08/09/09

Euthanasia is all well and good for those judged to be an extreme case, ie. terminally ill (very terminally ill).

Dianne says:

07:22am | 08/09/09

hear hear, being Dutch and living in Australia, this is one of the few things I would move back to The Netherlands for. My mum died last year relatively peacefully. She had the option of euthanasia and felt at ease with the idea that she had the option. She didn’t make use of it but it was a big relief to know for her and us that it was available. The process i actually a lengthy one, you cannot decide a few days before you die that this is an option, it involves several visits of your gp or other primary health carer and at least one other medical professional. It involves lots of paper work etc. Contrary to critics’ belief, euthanasia is not considered lightly by the medical profession.

For people that are interested in more details, apart from the horrific design of the website the content is decent. http://www.euthanasia.cc/dutch.html

Steve S says:

08:27am | 08/09/09

It is extremely painful watching someone close to you die a slow death and you do wish that you could end their pain, and perhaps selfishly, yours.  Each day the medical profession carry out their own form of euthanasia by not resuscitating, should that be the patients wishes, administer an overdose to put the patient out of their misery.  I find it somewhat ironic that as a society, we’re so prepared to embrace abortion as a lazy person’s form of contraception lest the foetus curtail the aspiring millionaire’s ambitions yet we appear so reticent to embrace euthanasia.  Maybe one needs to experience witnessing a terminally ill person suffering horrendously from diseases such as Motor Neurone or terminal cancer before embracing the concept of euthanasia.

SD says:

08:33am | 08/09/09

I agree - it’s an abhorrent situation that must be fixed.

It wouldn’t be difficult to create provision for those that are terminally ill - just have it okayed by 2/3 GPs.

What is the delay?

I read a horrible article a couple of months ago about a girl who was dying from bowel cancer or similar - her requests to end her life were denied - so she spent her last hours in incredible pain, vomiting shit whilst her brother wiped it from her chin. 

This must change.

Peter J says:

08:41am | 08/09/09

The word dignity means “worthiness” or “proper, fitting” . It appears that when it comes to the topic of euthanasia the central argument is dignity, Yet dignity is an attitude that one holds and has nothing to do with the question, ‘dose someone have the right to chose the time of their death?’ This is an ethical and moral question that has nothing to dowith dignity. In fact some of the people I admire had the courage to face life on life terms and confront aginging and dying with amazing dignity and they did not sell out to the fear of finishing life unpleasantly. The quality of life is not about what one has and can do but about one attitude moment by moment.

Peter says:

08:46am | 08/09/09

... and just wait for all those greedy relatives to start pressuring their elderly mothers to ‘do the right thing for the family’ and off themselves.

Perhpas not so blatently, but the them will be the same: “You can let go.  You can let us get on with our lives.  We love you, but not enough to care for you”.

The problem is not the ethical majority, it is abuse of the system by an unethical minority.

Voxpop says:

08:56am | 08/09/09

I vote yes for euthanasia and I vote yes for abortion - the individuals right to choose should be paramount.
Australia is a secular society - statistics gathered through sensus shows that there is only 20% of the population that practice Christianity and a number of them support individual choice.  So sick of the minority religious right holding the rest of the population to their beliefs and rules.  Take away their tax free status and they won’t have so much wealth to lobby against what the public want.

Liz says:

09:04am | 08/09/09

People must be able to choose to die with dignity when they decide.Human right.What happens now is inhumane.

drmick says:

09:18am | 08/09/09

Peter therein lies the problem. The one percenters who abuse everything. They even undermine dignity in death, and because each governemnt thinks there are a few votes in it, they legislate against the majority. I work in an endcare facility, gods waiting room, and I hope that I get the right carer when my time comes. Someone who understands the difference between living and existing; between alive and being alive.

David says:

09:22am | 08/09/09

Euthanasia is great as long as you are not involved in the process .
Euthanasia means being allowed to die with dignity . The process should not be killing someone with drugs , it should be the intelligent use of the drugs to enable nature to take it’s course with the absence of suffering . The proper timing should be the key .

anon says:

09:26am | 08/09/09

“...they did not sell out to the fear of finishing life unpleasantly.”

So you think that people who choose to not spend an extra few days lying in bed, possibly in agony, maybe comatose (if they’re lucky), waiting for their organs pack up, are “selling out”?

That’s the biggest fucking insult I’ve ever heard.  I don’t know what your experience of the terminally ill is, but to be talking in high-flown terms about “dignity” and then bring up the old chestnut about “pressuring” and elderly relative to die suggests you have zero experience at all, beyond what a few braindead skygod worshippers have brainwashed you into thinking.

Dignity doesn’t matter when you are dying.  Nothing matters.  All that matters is getting relief from your pain and suffering on your own terms, if you choose to.

SD says:

09:51am | 08/09/09

Peter J @ 8:41:

I refer you to my anecdote above. Your suggestion that dignity is an attitude is grossly false.

With regard to rights - do you know what a right is?

I’m curious - who are the people you admire that have had the courage “face life on terms and controm aginging and they did not sell out to the fear of finishing life unpleasantly.”

What does that even mean?

How does one confront aging?

What medical conditions did they people you refer to have?

How did they die?

Where they close friends of yours?

Are you religious?

Has anyone in your immediate family died a slow painful death?

papachango says:

10:03am | 08/09/09

Quite frankly Dr Nitschke gives me the creeps, he’s a little obsessed with death and dying.

That said, this issue to me is clear cut. It is a fundamental tenet of a free society that an individual has absolute ownership over his or her life, including choosing to end it if they so wish.

Arguments about ‘bumping off granny’ are merely scaremongering, but there shoul;d be some controls to ensure that vuluntary euthansasia is truly voluntary.

pete says:

10:05am | 08/09/09

there is no such thing as a “dignified” death.  I was an ambo for 12 years and I never saw one.  However, there is such a thing as having the right to choose when and how you will die, dependant on your prognosis.  I still recoil with horror on remembering terminally ill patient that I trasansported to hospital the final time and some of the circumstances we would find them in.  a woman under professional care in her own home to weak to go to the toilet and the care letting faeces dry where it came out Or the number of times we came to a honme where someone with lung cancer had died coughing up great chunks of lung tissue all over themselves the walls and bedding.  imagine the horror these people and fear had to endure in their final moments.

The author stated in her article that the laws are out of touch with community feelings on the subject.  They are not, it’s the lawmakers that are out of touch, because of these loopy religious types, who no doubt if placed in the same circumstances would beg for a quick end as well.

Barbara Flowers says:

10:51am | 08/09/09

I want to have a choice, but I think it is unfair to expect my doctor to finish me off This would seem a painful request for her to fulfil.  Frankly I’ve always found it hard getting my animals euthanased, so how would a doctor to feel having to kill a patient?  From memory even Dr Nitschke found this difficult under the NT legislation, and he was an advocate.

S says:

11:01am | 08/09/09

Can we stop using the word dignity in these moral arguments? It’s virtually meaningless. How about Autonomy - “the idea that, because all humans have the same minimum capacity to suffer, prosper, reason, and choose, no human has the right to impinge on the life, body, or freedom of another.”

Taken from this excellent article by Steven PInker - http://pinker.wjh.harvard.edu/articles/media/The Stupidity of Dignity.htm

DG says:

11:33am | 08/09/09

@rationalist (06:56am | 08/09/09): “ie. terminally ill (very terminally ill)” -  as opposed to the mildly terminally ill?

@Pete (10:05am | 08/09/09) : I agree. In the immortal words of House MD (from the TV series of the same name) “Our bodies break down, sometimes when we’re 90, sometimes before we’re even born, but it always happens and there’s never any dignity in it. I don’t care if you can walk, see, wipe your own ass. It’s always ugly. Always. You can live with dignity, we can’t die with it”.

I would argue that the null hypothesis in respect of the prohibition of euthanasia should be permissive - and, without a bloody good reason for rejecting a person the right to die, person should be entitled to take medical advice on ending their own life.

I suspect that my view is substantially influenced by watching a couple of relatives die from cancer - one of which didn’t suffer at all (in fact, he died within a week of being diagnosed). I can see no good reason to deny someone the right to choose to die - especially when neither suicide, nor an attempt to commit suicide, is a criminal offence.

I suspect that this is one of those things that people don’t believe in maintaining the prohibition on euthanasia, but they don’t care enough to lobby for change. Even with my life experience I’ve done nothing to lobby my local member to legalise euthanasia.

I don’t know that we can blame the religious right, nor the lawmakers - they are retaining the status quo until enough people actively lobby for change. I would suggest that’s a sensible policy - when we, the electorate, care enough to lobby for change, we will and then they can consider acting on it.

papachango says:

12:00pm | 08/09/09

@DG - I think the reason governments of any flavour are so scared of voluntary euthanasia is that it reinforces the idea of individuals owning their own lives, therefore is a threat to government’s power to control our lives. For that reason the nanny statists, left or right wing, hate it.

Mr Subramanian says:

01:36pm | 08/09/09

For mine, the real issue here is adequate palliative care and pain relief. It’s certainly more expensive than the euthanisia option, but it’s a cost I’m willing to pay.

Otherwise, Peter @8:40 has summarised my thoughts perfectly. And my story is that my mother in law died in April this year after the breast cancer she had a mastectomy and 12 months of chemo for came back 6 months after chemo had stopped and got into her lungs. The doctors and nurses we had were wonderful, and in her last days they helped her come back to my sister in law’s place. They helped organise the bed, the toiletry facilities, the pain relief, and she got there on Thursday. My wife and her sisters were prepared to look after her for however long she had left; my wife stayed overnight on the Thursday. We thought it might be a week or two. The palliative care specialist visited on Friday and told us that even though she hadn’t seen my mother in law before, her experience led us to think that she didn’t have a week left, but days. Our kids and my niece and nephews spent Friday with Nanna drawing, watching a bit of telly, one on one time. Our GP made a house call. Her closest friends came down.

She died on Saturday morning, while my wife and her sisters held her hand and talked her through it, with her other closest and dearest friends there. The kids were outside the room, although I held our two year old and I sang. The White Lady funeral people were awesome, and treated Nanna’s remains with that dignity you speak of. Our GP came around again to complete the death certificate.

We recognise and are enormously thankful that this was our experience and not the painful, horrible one other folk here have shared. But the experience IS possible without euthanasia, and I think that’s what we should be striving for.

Peter J says:

01:40pm | 08/09/09

SD @ 09:51:

“grossly false” on what basis? The growing body of research and evidence from emotional intelligence, psycho neuro immunology, brain science and trauma is revealing the incredible power of the human capacity to self soothe by choosing an attitude.

From my work with Palliative Care it is clear that people (religious and non religious) irrespective of their illness choose the attitude that they hold while facing death. Some do this with dignity and peace and others with distress.

And yes I have had family members die through illness and trauma!

You miss the point – ethics and morality are not about emotions but higher principles which set us apart from the rest of the animal kingdom and are an intrinsic aspect of democracy.

Scott M Peck says that all people are religious and by your strong reaction you are probably not aware of your own religious beliefs and appear to be driven by emotionality.

Venise Alstergren says:

01:48pm | 08/09/09

thank you Tracey for a first rate article. Clear, concise, sympathetic and from the heart.
Also some v good comments: Voxpop, especially the ‘tax-free status’ bit.
Dianne: “Contrary to critic’s belief, euthanasia is not considered lightly by the medical profession”. Papachango: It reinforces the idea of individuals owning their own lives”. But it isn’t Governments. It is the holy roman catholic church who are the villans of the piece.
I am always being attacked for my anti-catholic views. In fact there is nothing wrong with my views-not to most Australians. But as long as the Catholic church is supported by tax payers money, as long there exist people who are prepared to be dominated by the views of religionistas who believe that something written three thousand years ago is germane to the issues in the year two thousand and nine AD.
To impose an agonizing death sentence on another human being is an act of barbarism. But because this crime is committed in the name of the Roman Catholic religion, large segments of the population are prepared to wear it. Unfortunately there are large numbers of Catholics in all three major political parties.
Anyone in doubt can google the conscience vote last year in the Victorian State parliament. The nay-sayers had fine Irish names.

Bob says:

01:52pm | 08/09/09

I dont see how this is an issue about peoples right to die. As far as I know (and please correct me if wrong) suicide is no longer illegal in this country, therefore if someone attempts it, or of course suceed, there is no punishment. So you are actually free to choose when you die. But that is not what Euthanasia is. It is allowing, with your consent, someone else to end your life, and there being no consequences for the life ender. This, of course, would have to government regulated. On this issue I am still on the fence. Which is where Tracey brings up a good point, that we need this debate, for people like me to hear all angles.

There is however one issue I would like to bring up.
For anyone who says that this is an issue about a universal human right to choose to end your own life, you must agree that people with intense emotional suffering also have to right to be voluntarily Euthenised.

Mr Pastry says:

02:18pm | 08/09/09

It is the individuals right, terminally ill or not to decide to leave - no big deal.  If you are against it, fine, don’t do it.  Leave everyone to decide for themselves - what wrong with decentralisation.

SD says:

06:30pm | 08/09/09

@ Peter J 01:40pm.
You said
““grossly false” on what basis? The growing body of research and evidence from emotional intelligence, psycho neuro immunology, brain science and trauma is revealing the incredible power of the human capacity to self soothe by choosing an attitude.”

I’ll say it again: “dignity”, when used in the sense of dying with dignity, is not related to the attitude of the individual. How is this so? As an example, I previously cited the case of a young woman who died in pain, dribbling faeces from her mouth. No attitude can change that fact that this is so evidently an undignified position to be in. More broadly, dignity is rooted in standards of respect and autonomy. You might argue on the side of Epicurus; that if someone is quite happy to die with in pain with shit on their chin, there is indeed a mitigating attitude at work. Nevertheless, I challenge you to show me an individual that is happy with their lack of autonomy in this situation.

“You miss the point – ethics and morality are not about emotions but higher principles which set us apart from the rest of the animal kingdom and are an intrinsic aspect of democracy. “

No Peter, if anyone is missing the point, it is you.

It appears that you are confusing justice with ethics. Not such a difficult mistake to make really; there certainly are links between equity and some ethical systems. Take for example, utilitarianism. However, even in the case of utilitarianism, it should be asked: which factors must be assessed in order to make an ethical decision involving one or many individuals? Sentience and suffering - these are the basis of morality. In this regard, animals certainly are to be morally considered; however, the question of whether animals have rights is more contentious.

Which brings me to another of my questions you didn’t answer: do you know what a right is?

If you can’t answer that, then at least please quote me the section or sections of my two contributions which lead you to believe that I was attempting to ground morality in emotion.

“Scott M Peck says that all people are religious and by your strong reaction you are probably not aware of your own religious beliefs and appear to be driven by emotionality. “

I’ll just assume you mean “emotion” not “emotionality” and continue. Given that a belief is most intelligibly construed as a set of circumstances or state of affairs which an individual holds to be true or false, how can someone hold a belief that they are not aware of? In terms of strong reactions, perhaps you missed the comment from another poster, stating that you had offered them “the biggest fucking insult [they had] ever heard”. That’s quite an insult. If I were you, I would consider apologising to this reader.

I hope the above was helpful to you. All the best.

Voxpop says:

08:40am | 09/09/09

“Is there smoke in the room? If it is slight, I remain.
If it is grievous, I quit it.
For you must remember this and hold it fast,
that the door stands open.”
Epictetus
•  Epictetus was a Greek philosopher (AD 55 - ca. 135).  He spent his whole career teaching philosophy and promoting a daily regime of rigorous self-examination.  Epictetus argued that fear of death is irrational among other things. In the verse above he supports the choice of suicide if continuing to live would only prolong one’s suffering.  He tries to silence those who unjustifiably gripe about how miserable life is, he reminds them that if their lives are truly that bad they can simply exit life, however if it is only moderately bad and there’s a chance that things may improve then suicide would not be justified.