Prev
Next

Euthanasia clinic: A publicity stunt that muddies debate

Duncan McFetridge

by Duncan McFetridge

30 Mar 01:00pm

Must Reads

Protecting the Barrier Reef is the Fin end of the wedge - this is a caption

Protecting the Barrier Reef is the Fin end of the wedge

38

ICB: Is white bread the worst thing since sliced bread? - this is a caption

ICB: Is white bread the worst thing since sliced bread?

92

Sometimes, you’ve just got to stick it to the bloody ref - this is a caption

Sometimes, you’ve just got to stick it to the bloody ref

71

Filed under: Euthanasia, Legislation, Parliament, Philip Nitschke

90 comments

Dr Phillip Nitschke’s pre-emptive move to set up a euthanasia clinic in Adelaide shows he has missed the purpose of the legislation before the Parliament.

Should expect an avalanche of opposition. Photo: Brett Hartwig.

The Criminal Law Consolidation (Medical Defences – End of Life Arrangements) Bill 2011 is purely aimed at giving a family doctor who has a long history with their patient the ability to use this legislation as a defence against a criminal charge should the medication given to their patient at the request of the patient result in the patient’s death.

The legislation does not legalise voluntary euthanasia.  The legislation does not legalise assisted suicide.

Dr Nitschke’s move is merely a publicity move to continue to promote his aim to legalise voluntary euthanasia.

While I share Doctor Nitschke’s passion about individuals being given the right to choose when they die and to die with dignity this legislation is quite different from former and current attempts to legalise VE.

I am worried that what is a simple, sensible move to protect doctors is now being perceived by the public as another VE Bill. I would have liked Dr Nitschke to have spoken to Steph or me before his public moves particularly in my electorate of Morphett at Glenelg.

As a co-sponsor of this Bill I am now very concerned that there will be an avalanche of opposition created by the perceptions that Dr Nitschke’s move has driven.

That is that the perception that this Bill legalises VE or assisted suicide. It does neither. I am however still very optimistic that the Bill will pass and give family doctors the protection they deserve when caring for their patients.

I just appeal to my colleagues to canvas the collective conscience of their electorates and vote accordingly not as an individual but as their electorate representative. 

In politics perceptions are reality.

Dr Nitschke has in my opinion unfortunately created the perception that this important legislation legalises VE and attempted suicide. It does neither and is a sensible move to protect the rights of doctors and their patients.

Dr Nitschke is a very prominent campaigner for VE and so he must be careful that he does not cause this Bill to fail by stirring up very strong sentiment on a false premise.

People should be aware that the intent of the Bill is to give family doctors treating terminally ill patients, patients of sound mind, who the doctor has a history of being the treating doctor, the ability to accede to the wishes of their patient to increase medication that in some circumstances may result in the death of their terminally ill patient.

If the patient dies then this Bill gives the doctor a legal defence against criminal charges if any charges are laid.

People and their representatives should also be aware of the overwhelming public support for the right to make choices about your treatment if you are terminally ill.

People who are opposed to this right being given to their fellow humans should accept the fact that we live in a secular multicultural society where the right to make choices about personal issues is fundamental to the democracy we live in.

If this Bill is blocked or fails the I firmly believe similar legislation will continue to appear on the notice paper in Parliament and the debate will continue.

I do not believe we can please all the people all the time but we live in a modern democracy. The fight for the right to choose and have a dignified death will continue.

Most commented

427Australia, you have nothing to fear but fear itself
375There's no one Thomson won't burn to save his skin
313Thomson didn't answer the question everyone is asking
304Animal experiments won't cure me from cancer
262Who murdered the Arts degree?
246A big day for Thomson, who thus far is guilty of nothing...
231South Australia. It's the middle bottom bit.
231Craig Thomson speaks. Meanwhile, in Australia...

90 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • DC says:

      12:21pm | 30/03/11

      As a young person (hopefully some years away from having to consider my exit from this world) I hope that my elected Representatives get their A into G and pass a VE Law.

      I had to experience my own Grandmother, take her life, alone, purely because she knew that if we where nearby (i.e. in town) the police would have to interview us as undersuspicion.

      So in the end, she had to die alone and we never got to say Goodbye.

      Bring on V.E.

      Reply

    • Liz says:

      12:37pm | 30/03/11

      What was your grandmother suffering from? Why didn’t she have any loving, caring pain management options available to her?

    • True Believer says:

      12:38pm | 30/03/11

      @Elphaba

      I acknowledge your view on this, however, legislation when made, applies to all citizens, not just those who subscribe to the “no God” fallacy.  That is why it is considered dangerous along with the abuse of it to enforce involuntary killing where it has been legalised.  All voices need to be heard, not just the atheistic minority.

    • True Believer says:

      12:38pm | 30/03/11

      @Elphaba

      I acknowledge your view on this, however, legislation when made, applies to all citizens, not just those who subscribe to the “no God” fallacy.  That is why it is considered dangerous along with the abuse of it to enforce involuntary killing where it has been legalised.  All voices need to be heard, not just the atheistic minority.

    • Elphaba says:

      12:57pm | 30/03/11

      @True Believer, I’m not saying that your views are not to be considered.

      If we stopped doing anything because it might be abused, the human race wouldn’t have advanced anywhere.  I ask again - why do we protect the right for people to live their life however they want, but not protect the right to die however they want?

      There are plenty of laws that are made that not everyone agrees with.  We don’t stop making them though.  If you don’t want euthanasia, for yourself, don’t choose it.  But you don’t get to decide how someone should die.  That’s up to the individual in question.  This Bill is about allowing an individual to have more control over their death - a right that should be afforded to everyone.

    • Liz says:

      01:11pm | 30/03/11

      @Elphaba, The Netherlands experience of Euthanasia shows that there are many are Euthanaised who do not have any choice in the matter. The minister who introduced the bill now regrets what she did.

      It is not as simple as what you or I want bu what actually happens in our hospitals when nobody is there to speak up for the defenseless people that are suffering.

    • Elphaba says:

      01:18pm | 30/03/11

      @Liz, if you could provide a link about that I would appreciate it.

      In the meantime, just because one country does one thing one way, does not mean that the same would happen here.  Can we not use the benefit of hindsight to make a program that best suits the wishes of the patient?

      I doubt it would evolve into offing people just because they become inconvenient.  Of course it’s a hazard to be considered, but just because it may happen somewhere else does not mean it would happen here.

    • michael j says:

      01:45pm | 30/03/11

      @liz what type of pain relief would you suggest for a man who passes his stomach out of his backside like a huge pile only to have it shoved back inside again,i know the nurses did not like doing this because they said to me ‘we don’t understand this he should have died weeks ago’‘

      @true believer
      would you do to protect your family from pain anything/nothing ?
      If requested by the lawful government would/could you take up a rifle in defence of your country ?

    • True Believer says:

      01:49pm | 30/03/11

      @Elphaba

      It is a matter of perception I guess. For me human life is very precious, even to the last breath. When man meddles with something he often as not messes it up.  Doctors are trained to heal, not kill. I understand in times centuries ago when “euthanasia” was accepted there were actually people who’s job was dealing in death, they did not ask doctors to do it. It was done by people who had the job of killing. I cannot remember the reference for that, but I am sure it is on the net somewhere. 

      I know from my own State there are many doctors who are horrified at the thought of being expected to kill - they have made their position clear publicly.  It is not a fair ask.

      The suffering argument comes mainly from family who faced a loved one’s struggle with death.  I guess one can ask, in that case is it about the one struggling or the one’s watching.

      I have been a long time carer for a person who was quadraplegic, blind, doubly incontinent.  Stricken down at a young age with MS. Then on top of that got breast cancer. 

      She endured much pain, lack of dignity, suffering and at times anguish. She knew, as I did, that our Lord did not impose this on her, a common mistake made by unbelievers.  She knew He walked with her in the dark valleys just as He did on the mountain tops.  He gave me strength too to be a carer.

      Life can be cruel, but it is not ours to give, nor I believe, is it ours to take.

      Jesus said, “you have not because you ask not” - we asked and He answered.

      She too though knew her Lord and together we prayed for a gentle death and that is exactly what she had.

      She died peacefully, without human intervention, knowing she was going Home to Jesus. I sometimes wonder if more prayer and less rush to legislation may help those who suffer.  I respect the fact that you do not share that faith, but it is worth of consideration isn’t it?

    • michael j says:

      02:02pm | 30/03/11

      @true believer
      you are certainly worthy of respect,but having been there and done that
      i know enough that when my time comes ,IT will be mine to choose,,,

    • Elphaba says:

      02:05pm | 30/03/11

      @TB, I don’t believe in God/Jesus etc.  I don’t believe that there is any life-shattering event that could make me change my mind.  I do not look for the meaning of life, or the spiritual, nor do I care.  If prayer helps you through your daily life, good on you.  Go for it. But prayer does not work for everyone.  People cannot force themselves to believe in a God.  Faith is a choice.

      You proved my point though.  Your reasons do not convince me because you are quoting the supposed view of an entity I believe to be fictional.  I cannot relate to your reasoning.

      And how is life not our right to give?  What is proceation?  Two human beings deciding to create life.  The baby might not have a say over its birth, but its parents sure do.  Pretty sure I knocked that one over in high school biology…

    • True Believer says:

      02:26pm | 30/03/11

      @Elphaba

      Thanks for you reply.  I guess that is the dilemna.  Your fiction against what you believe to my fiction. :0)

      Biology does not mention the human spirit (soul).  That is what continues to live when the body is finished. 

      I hope one day, you will, as I did (and it took a long time of denial) , come to know there is much, much more.  Take care.

    • acotrel says:

      02:43pm | 30/03/11

      I would never deign to tell someone in palliative care what they should do with their remaing time.  However a euthanasia clinic could come in handy if you were feeling depressed? A drug overdose could be easier.

    • Elphaba says:

      03:00pm | 30/03/11

      @TB, well, if I do, I’m sure I will let you know.

    • Bern says:

      04:32pm | 30/03/11

      When you feel depressed at the time of death, you need good care. My mother was first depressed when she found out she inoperable bowel cancer and secondaries in the liver. Yet with the right treatment and loving care from a pallative care doctor, she had a peaceful, dignified death.

      It takes time to accept death something we are all going to face one day.

    • Elphaba says:

      05:27pm | 30/03/11

      @Liz, thank you for the article, it is an interesting read, and a sad situation, if it is true.  I do still stand by what I say though - there is no reason to suggest that what happens there, will happen here.

      As for things that are unexplained being attributed to God, you do what you like.  Personally, I don’t feel that it is the default answer for everything remotely unexplainable.  Maybe some things are just unexplained because they are.  No rhyme, no reason, no divine intervention.

      But hey - it’s just an opinion.

    • True Believer says:

      05:37pm | 30/03/11

      @Elphaba

      I look forward to sharing your joy when you do. :0)

    • True Believer says:

      05:48pm | 30/03/11

      @Liz

      I believe the Belgium experience is much the same with a high percentage of involuntary killings. I heard from a Swiss girl that there the elderly are terrified of going to nursing homes because of the involuntary killings Why should it be any different here?

      MichaelJ

      I am not looking for respect, but thank you for your comment. My friend suffered very much, but she never lost her faith in Jesus.  To Him be the thanks and glory for how her life and death reflected Him.  Many were touched by her love of Him and of life, despite the pain and suffering.

      I have made my choice too, I will do it God’s way.  We all have that choice and the gift of prayer for a gentle death.

    • Baal says:

      07:34pm | 30/03/11

      @TB.
      Here is a question for you.
      I was born a christian. Became an aetheist then was born again in the divine light of my creator. My faith informs everything I do yet I am still able to remain secular becuase my divine creator is not bound by the books of your desert god. I also believe that we were given our intelligence to create a better world. To be more like God. I believe humanity is not fallen but rising up too God.
      So the question is simple. Why should the worshipers of old book bound have any say in matters of humanity when thier faith believes humanity to be fallen and that only death shall bring oneness with the divine. Why should such an inherently negative beleif systen not be activily excluded.
      I pray that one day you come to know my God. The one true God

    • True Believer says:

      05:52am | 31/03/11

      @baal

      You say you were “born a Christian” - well you do not understand what it is to be a Christian I am afraid. Unlike religions, one cannot be “born a Christian” - one may have been born into a Christian family, or a denominational family, but one is not “born a Christian.”  Just as if one is born in a biscuit factory, one is not born a biscuit.

      One becomes a Christian by making a personal choice to repent and accept Jesus as Lord and Saviour.  Then one is born-again and the spirit is united with the Living God - that is a Christian. One who has made a conscious choice to follow Jesus with all that entails.

      You register more misunderstanding of Christianity when you talk about ‘worshipping a book’ - many Christians throughout the world now and down through the ages have/had no access to God’s printed Word. He is not contained within the pages of a book, His Word is living.  The Bible is a wonderful tool for spiritual growth when one is born-again and the believer has its meaning revealed by the power of God, but God is not restricted by anything.  You have yet to meet Him as s
      Friend, but it will be your choice.  He invites, up to us to accept or reject.

      Re you wish that I come to know your “god” - I think I know who that is and no thanks, he has no part in me. I want nothing to do with him.

      Hope that helps. :0)

    • PaulB says:

      08:18am | 31/03/11

      Why do all discussions here collapse into mindless fundiespeak everytime the christians wade in.

    • True Believer says:

      09:04am | 31/03/11

      @PaulB says
      Why do all discussions here collapse into mindless fundiespeak everytime the christians wade in.

      Because atheists wade in with their ignorant “fundiespeak” - someone has to put them right. They make such foolish comments.

      Not all atheists are “fundies” though some of them make for good discussion, but not all sadly.  If only they would put their brain in gear before touching the keyboard. :0)

    • emel says:

      12:50pm | 31/03/11

      Liz,
      two things about that article:
      1. If god was responsible for the little girls cure then he was also responsible for the father running his daughter over.
      2. The story is not true.

    • Elphaba says:

      12:25pm | 30/03/11

      If Nitschke has created that perception, then it is up to the people to be better informed by doing some reading.  He shouldn’t have to stop his crusade just because someone hears half a conversation.

      The people against VE will howl down this bill no matter what it might offer.  What we should be able to do, is have the debate, without name-calling and histrionics.

      It’s death.  We all go through it.  Our rights to live the life we want are fiercely protected, I’ve yet to hear a single reason why an individual can’t have the same say over their death, without God or ‘it’s unnatural’ applied.

      Why is death so different?

      Reply

    • Liz says:

      12:38pm | 30/03/11

      Why is the media giving him so much airplay if this bill is not about the slippery slope to Euthanasia?

    • Elphaba says:

      01:01pm | 30/03/11

      He gets airplay because when it comes to this topic, he is the advocate.  The second something like this comes up, he’s going to be the guy the media seeks out for comment.

      Clearly he knows what he’s talking about and can debate it in a calm, measured manner, as demonstrated by the Punch’s Q&A yesterday.  He obviously knows a lot about it, and it’s a cause he passionately believes in.

    • LC says:

      04:29pm | 30/03/11

      “What we should be able to do, is have the debate, without name-calling and histrionics.”

      Knowing how the anti-euthanasia debaters operate, a debate without fear-mongering, ad-hominems, slippery slopes, and strawmen is way, WAY too much to ask for.

    • Elphaba says:

      05:22pm | 30/03/11

      @LC, I am the eternal optimist. grin

    • baal says:

      07:45pm | 30/03/11

      @Elphaba.Those that used to worship the god of books used to control (and in some countries still do) almost every aspect of life remember.
      The creation of life and the end of life are two once super mystical places where they gave book God alot of authority. Take that authority away and secular people like you and me will be able too live without the book god having any say.
      I have faith. I am also probally insane but I really think secular values are awesome but insecure jewish christian ans muslim people do fear the day when faith is a personal matter and temples churches and mosques are private clubs for the like minded without political influence.

    • Bern says:

      12:29pm | 30/03/11

      Unfortunately this bill can be the beginning of the slippery slope as we have seen with other life related bills. You give a little bit and next time you give a bit more until you have voluntary Euthanasia.

      Just about every week the Adelaide Advertiser has been running a poll on do you support Euthanasia. Why if this bill is not about Euthanasia has the media been running this campaign?

      Yet Dr Nitschke, turns up in town telling the people you can have a Euthanasia clinic set up in a month and you are running sacred. Perhaps it time to see that the Euthanasia proponents are using your bill as an open door to start the ball rolling for their wish to introduce Euthanasia as an end end of life option.

      As one who watched my mother died from bowel cancer in 6 weeks, I see every reason why Euthanasia does not deal with the issue of death but masks the situation and short circuits the natural process of life. So much happens during this time as a person moves towards their natural end of life.

      Why aren’t co-sponsoring a bill to increase the availability of pallative care in the state of South Australia, to give people loving and care at the end of their natural life?

      Reply

    • Maria says:

      12:57pm | 30/03/11

      I completely agree with you there Bern and I commiserate with your experiences.

      This death culture is surely taking away the the human ability to “care”.  We’ve already damaged our planet from our “throw away” behaviour with material goods, then that shifted to relationships, and now it’s shifting to life.  This “throw away” attitude has certainly done nothing but “thrown us away” into the abyss, hence our socio-fabric is up in shambles.  At least we still have a “fabric” at this moment, but surely nothing will bind us together anymore as a citizens when the very nature that keeps us together - ie “the ability to care” - and also the opportunity to exercise this universal “caring” nature is lost.

      Killing is no mercy.

    • Bern says:

      01:12pm | 30/03/11

      Maria, how true to word you are.

      Killing is not the answer to suffering.

    • Kika says:

      01:23pm | 30/03/11

      I disagree. It’s very rare that anyone gets a ‘natural’ end to their life. If anyone has had someone die of say for example cancer, the fair reality is that they died as a result of the doctor putting a little bit more morphine in the drip and allowed them to slip away peacefully.

      If anyone really truly and honestly died naturally of cancer they would be an absolute horrible sight - the poor things would be in excruciating pain and would be living skeletons.

    • Shane says:

      01:39pm | 30/03/11

      Quite frankly, when I’m about to die and am in terrible pain and knowing that there’s nothing more that can be done to help, love and care might possibly feel insulting and fake.  It becomes less about the person dying and more about the people left behind.

      Euthanasia isn’t for everyone and that’s fine, but if I decide to die I’d like to think there’ll be someone who can push the button for me and let me go with my head held high, not with me having to “embrace” the pain and work through it despite what I want while people give me loving looks and feed me through a tube.  You’d be lucky if I didn’t start throwing things at your head actually if you offered sympathy when I want a rifle wink

    • Bern says:

      04:30pm | 30/03/11

      Look if you want to die when you, please ask the medical profession to do it for you.  They are there to protect life, to prolong life, to give care and love within their ability.

      My mum died of cancer in 6 weeks. When she came home from the hospital after have a bowel blockage removed, we went to see the pallative care Doctor.

      The Morphine is not give with the intention of hastening the end of a person’s life but give them pain relief and put them in a position of comfort and pain management. That is very different to giving a patient an overdose and ending their life.

      During the time of pallative care, my mother was able to come to peace and acceptance of her death. Each of her 6 children were able to see their mother and be at peace with her.

      Just wait till you are really faced with death and see how you all feel, I think it will be very different.

    • True Believer says:

      12:42pm | 01/04/11

      @Liz

      Thanks for that site - that is scary to see what an impact legalisation has had on hospice care.  I fear it will all come down to economics and those young who cry out for it to be legalised here may find themselves the recipients of a gutted health system when they get older.  An injection is cheaper than proper compassion and caring treatement for the dying. Tis a case of be careful what you wish for methinks.

    • True Believer says:

      12:32pm | 30/03/11

      What does secularism have to do with legislation - people who believe in nothing should have no more say in legislation that those who believe that humans are more than just animals surely?

      Killing humans in peacetime is surely not the sign of a civilized caring society? Wherever it has been legislated it has been abused and involuntary deaths have occurred. There is no legislation or legislature that can guarantee there will not be abuse.

      Nitschke will turn up wherever the “e” word is mentioned. Could it be an unhealthy obsession?  I have never known anyone so preoccupied with bringing death to others outside of prisons.

      Reply

    • eddie says:

      03:20pm | 30/03/11

      TB, I have some news for you. You are a mamal. You are simply an intelligent animal nothing more or less. You can belive what you like but that is the truth.
      Everyone in our society is entiltled to their opinion on any subject but when it comes to legislation, it should be enacted in a “secular” way in as much as for the common good, not just because you think that your sky dadddy wants it that way. Face some facts, there are a lot of people in this country who dont worship huwei day and night ( perhaps you should give it a rest too)
      If I want to do something that does no harm to anyone else and dosent interfere with anyones freedoms, what right have you got to stop me or condemn me? Who made you the guardian of Australian morals?
      If you really think that legalising euthanasia will result in people wheeling their grannies in for the green dream because there is no-one to look after them on hollidays, well - you need help. I think your objections are based purely on religious grounds with added flavour from your rather vivd imagination. (have you had your medication re-assessed recently?)

    • Mikeymike says:

      05:06pm | 30/03/11

      @ Eddie
      My favourite part is when you say: “Everyone in our society is entiltled to their opinion on any subject but when it comes to legislation, it should be enacted in a “secular” way in as much as for the common good, not just because you think that your sky dadddy wants it that way. “

      Could you explain why the religious should have no say in the running of this country?  I’ve heard arrogance before, but this…  You’re actually suggesting that our representatives should not enact any law unless it comes from an atheist position. 

      Perhaps a religious test should be part of entering public office?  Any hint of a religion, “Sorry, you’re not qualified.”  It must be truly awesome to live in your elitist position and get to laugh at all of the believers. 

      By the way… the ad hominems?  Nice.  Classy.

    • baal says:

      08:03pm | 30/03/11

      @eddie.
      You are proof that you can have stupid athiests just like you can have stupid monothiests.
      One of my closest friends is a secular muslim doctor who beleives in euthansia. We are not rational creatures and the secular reflects real values like vengence mercy compassion love and a belief that liberty and life is valuable. This value on life is comes with the belief we are not just meat and sinew. We are partly abstract creatures with a physical form.
      We demand the law act on abstract values and make our lives better.
      You just sound like a person who likes to believe a lack of something gives you value. It does not. It is your ability to believe in something. Anything greater than yourself like believing in a secular society and the law that makes you more than just an animal. It is part of what makes you human.
      I may not like that TB worships a false God but I do not think that gives me the right to make assumptions about TB.
      @TB. I prayer you find God. You will be happier when you do. I think your heart is open unlike those militant anti thiests.

    • The Guardian says:

      10:27am | 31/03/11

      True Believer,their is an old saying…..“When you understand why you dismiss all Gods other than your own…you will understand why I dismiss yours” As for your comment “I have never known anyone so preoccupied with bringing death to others outside of prisons. ” I have and they are usually called religious extremists.

    • True Believer says:

      10:45am | 31/03/11

      @eddie

      I have better new for you my friend. You and I both have a spirit which is made in the image of God.

      Yours is dead, because you are on the run from God - your God-given choice. I stopped running and met Him. Now I am alive to Him - so much difference between that and the hopeless world of the unbeliever. 

      You cling to your atheistic, Darwinian fairy tales if that brings you hope, happiness and joy (which I doubt) I will stay with my Lord.

      BTW my rellies didn’t crawl out of a swamp and they didn’t hang from trees.

    • True Believer says:

      10:52am | 31/03/11

      @The Guardian.
      True Believer,their is an old saying…..“When you understand why you dismiss all Gods other than your own…you will understand why I dismiss yours”

      There is an older and wiser saying “the fool says in his heart there is no God”

      ” I have and they are usually called religious extremists.”

      I cannot comment on your “religious” acquaintances who are obsessed with death outside prisons. I am not into “religion”  I just humbly try to follow my Lord Jesus - BTW He is not into “religion” either. Just the “Way the Truth and the Life.”

    • True Believer says:

      12:49pm | 31/03/11

      @baal

      Don’t know who you are “praying” to for me to know who you refer to as “god” - I know my God and He knows me - we have had a great relationship for many years.  I will pray to Him that your eyes will be opened my friend. I know my God hears and attends to prayers of His people.  :0)

    • Bobster says:

      12:32pm | 30/03/11

      Fair political point, Duncan, but I don’t think that you can argue that this bill doesn’t represent the thin end of the wedge as far as VE is concerned.

      I know what you’re getting at though, and I appreciate it, but the opponents of VE (odious little worms that they are) will rightly see this as a step towards legitimising VE thus paving the way for legalisation.

      It is a shame that Nitschke (who I’ll bet you 10 grand votes Green) can’t resist a (faux) populist stunt.

      Folk like him have difficulty understanding the fine art of the possible and treat the effectiveness of divisive stunts as an article of faith.

      The sooner they learn to leave the big stick at home and speak a little more softly a little more often, the sooner we might finally silence the crew on the other extreme of this argument.

      Reply

    • Chestro says:

      12:39pm | 30/03/11

      In reality only those in the medical practice should be commenting (or indeed legislating) on this. They’re the ones who will have to administer euthanasia, and are the most experienced people to discuss the issue.
      I’d like to hear the MPs who come from a medical background to be given more of a voice in this debate.
      This is a medical and scientific issue not a religious, legal or economic one.

      Reply

    • Bobster says:

      12:49pm | 30/03/11

      Not a legal issue? Interesting point considering the debate is about changing the law and legal protections for doctors.

      I’m not sure you’re going to find a lot of doctors who are particularly skilled when it comes to drafting legislation.

    • Steve says:

      01:01pm | 30/03/11

      Unfortunately the medical and scientific side of it do rely on the economic side to survive and the legal side of it to act.

    • Bern says:

      01:07pm | 30/03/11

      Everyone is going to die, so we all have a right to speak up about what is good for society. Wholesale endorsement of death under the guise of Euthanasia is crazy for a society who upset over the number of people killed in natural disasters, wars or even murdered by another human being.

      We must do what is right for the creation of good for the sum of the whole of our community. We need loving, caring alternatives to this kind of death. We need greater investment in pallative care and we need to have a say to support our medical profession in the care of life.

    • Timmy says:

      07:35pm | 31/03/11

      Euthanasia is most definitely an economic decision! The Dutch will tell you. It is far cheaper than palliative care.

      Think about it. The doctor tells you that your next year is going to be really painful and then you’ll die, “... but we can manage the pain…..Oh you don’t have palliative care cover? .... Well the I can bulk bill the injection for you ....or you can go on the public palliative care waiting list.”

    • Shane From Melbourne says:

      12:43pm | 30/03/11

      Memo to self: must get copy of The Peaceful Pill Handbook.

      Reply

    • Liz says:

      01:14pm | 30/03/11

      Why do you need a book to end your life? Are you that unhappy with life that you need to consider ending it?

      There are other loving, caring alternatives to living life and find joy and hope again.

    • fairsfair says:

      01:03pm | 30/03/11

      Surely this legislation can be passed and the hippocratic Oath (or whatever the Australian version of that is) amended to reflect same and we can just move on? If the ultimate decision is placed in the hands of a medical profession I have no issue with it. I have issue with “families” and “individuals” deciding to end their own life and seeking assistance from another person (who is not a member of the medical profession) to do so.

      Reply

    • maria says:

      01:06pm | 30/03/11

      Dignified death?  what about those people suffering with despair? depression to the extreme and can’t cope? yet have healthy bodies? should they be given the right to appeal for the so called “dignified death” just because they failed to commit suicide?

      There are many people that attempted suicide but failed, but later on realised that there is hope, that there is care, that there is love - they live and have the sense of “being” because they received the care and love from doctors, nurses or whoever reached out to them to save their life.  It is the same dynamics of terminally ill people - it is the spirit that matters. We have no right to take away their life if they have the “will” to live!  Nitschke wants to take the life of what he sees is suffering - ie physical illness without even acknowledging the dimensions of what makes a human being sense the state of existence and being. 

      If we were living in the primitive ages, i might just agree with Nitschke.  But now, we are living with knowledge and wisdom that our existence comes together with state of “being” .

      Reply

    • Likes Joining Dots says:

      01:51pm | 30/03/11

      @maria - ‘If we were living in the primitive ages, i might just agree with Nitschke’.

      Can you elaborate on that last statement? From what I have seen, death and a state of being has not changed much from the ‘primitive ages’ to now.

    • KS says:

      02:50pm | 30/03/11

      I don’t think we can compare say an 80 year old cancer patient who is on their last legs to a 20 somthing year old who is depressed and wants to commit suicide.  The older person still has to go back to horrible physical pain and what else is there to cure this other than medicine while they slowly are entombed in their own body.  At least the younger depressed person can seek counselling etc. 
      And people need to realise we aren’t taking their life away we are simply giving them another option.  Clear boundaries need to be set so we are all on the same page but with fear mongers trawling it may prove difficult.

    • Slick says:

      03:26pm | 30/03/11

      Maria
      The idea is that it is the patient choice.
      I understand all the reasons behind not allowing it. But I still support it. The way Nitschke wants it set up is that a panel of 3 specialists would form a panel per applicant. They would asses the physical, mental and possible treatment options before approving it. They would ALL have to agree, not just one or 2.

    • Lisa H. says:

      11:54pm | 30/03/11

      KS, your vivid expression ‘entombed in their own body’ is morbid and nihilistic.

      Are you saying that a young person in pain feels less pain (physical or mental) in comparison to an older person?

      Or are you simply saying that, because the young are presumed to have greater physical ‘prospects’ long term,  and because the old are aware of their relative lack of ‘prospects’ in comparison with the young, that the life experience of the old is therefore worth less (to them and to society) than a younger person’s?

      Hey, just a thought but maybe some older persons appreciate life more than some younger persons…? Should we really make life and death judgements based on age?

      Reality is that such judgements would be made based on age all the time, if VE was part of our social structure.  Yet my grandmother was diagnosed with dementia, and then recovered, while aged in her 90s.

    • Slick says:

      03:20pm | 31/03/11

      The problem is you do not understand that this is not just about killing random people!
      These people must have incureable, life ending diseses.
      It is not about the family of some healthy 75 year old saying “oh poor old mum, she is going to die anyways lets kill her off and get her money”.
      These are disesed, older people, who don’t have the time to wait for a cure to be found in 10-15-20 years. If you are given 6 mths to live, and it is confirmed by 2 other doctors that you WILL die, but horribly and painfully, and your already in your 80-90’s then why would you want to wait and put yourself through 6mths of pain and suffering when you can opt to do it before it gets to bad. You spend 3 mths with your family, tie up loose ends, then once you are bed bound in hospital with tubes from every part of your body, you say I have had enough and ask them to let you go now.

      Please, Someone, tell me how it is uncaring to want to end the suffering of someone who is terminally ill and has no chance of EVER getting better, only worse???????

    • Kika says:

      01:21pm | 30/03/11

      I really hope that one day our country gets some sense and allows voluntary euthanasia.

      If I ever get an incurable, painful, life ending disease I would prefer to die in dignity and painfree then having to endure something as horrible as cancer.

      How is it ‘caring’ to give people chemo? I saw my Nana go through chemo and I can tell you, there wasn’t any loving, caring in that. She died as a cancer riddled skeleton in a hospital bed. How is it loving caring to allow our loved ones to endure pain and agony so much that they become living skeletons doped up just to get through anoher day.

      Or is it so WE can endure another day? Is it because we don’t want our loved ones going that we prolong their agony just so we have a little more time with them?

      We don’t even allow our pets to endure the kind of agony we allow our fellow human beings through. So we have more compassion for the pet dog than our family members?

      And like with everything, if you don’t like euthanasia, don’t do it. But in all reality, ALL doctors do euthanasia. They slip a little more morphine in the drip and let the patient slip away during the night.

      Reply

    • Steve says:

      02:47pm | 30/03/11

      This whole “pet” and “animal” analogy is getting a bit much.

      How about, the fact that we allow children to go through the rigours of long term treatment for a critical illness and we try to make their lives as comfortable and fun as possible by sending them to camps, fulfilling their life’s dreams and wishes, yet when old age or illness gets to us adults we cry foul because our “rights” are taken away.

      Do we live in such a coddled, comfortable bubble that any form of suffering is considered inhumane?  For those who insult others of living in a fantasy with their beliefs, I find their dose of reality quite surprising.

      Suffering and death are all a part of life and the idea of having a “dignified death” is a concept I just don’t understand.

      How about helping that person understand that they’ve lived a dignified life?

      @Kika - ALL doctors? Hmmm

    • Elphaba says:

      02:58pm | 30/03/11

      “This whole “pet” and “animal” analogy is getting a bit much.”

      I agree.  I don’t champion euthanasia because we afford it to our pets.  I champion it because I have as much right over my death as I do my life.  I want the say.  That’s all I’m interested in.

    • Sheldon says:

      03:14pm | 30/03/11

      The reason we do it to animals is because they dont have large amounts of money or land that people can get to once they have died.

    • Elizabeth says:

      04:20pm | 30/03/11

      Thankyou Kika for saying how it is…..It was unbearable for me when my father kept asking me to kill him and give him some dignity and stop him from the pain and suffering…I found this very hard and still affects me today…5 years later…hje wanted to die quickly and peacefully, but no, they made hyim go for weeks in agony…as for pallative care…well whats to be said, they failed him miserably…they are just death houses anyway. We need this bill to come thru and the sooner the better.

    • Shane says:

      01:28pm | 30/03/11

      It’s quite amazing to think that voluntary euthanasia legislation has been debated since the 1800s, however from ancient history to the present day euthanasia has been quite commonly practiced.  I think it’s incredibly sad that for so long we’ve denied people peace, instead forcing them to draw one breath after another in an attempt to prevent the inevitable.

      I believe we should start thinking about how best we can accommodate voluntary euthanasia into our society cause it’s happening right now whether it’s legal or not.

      I’ve been diagnosed with a fairly serious case of renal cancer.  Anyone who’s faced this sort of stop sign in life knows that one of the things you think about is the possibility of dying and how you’ll handle that.  Fix your will, sort out beneficiaries on superannuation and insurance etc.  But for some people the option of ending your life on your own terms is a very valid consideration.  It’s fine if you don’t want to - no one’s going to hover around and say it’s time you ought to knock yourself off. 

      Really though - there’s only so many times you can go through chemo, dialysis and operations removing parts of your body before you’re just over it.  Not to mention the support groups.  Quite frankly I’d prefer to watch reruns of Today Tonight for the next 10 years instead - it’d be less torturous! 

      This legislation is a wonderful step in the right direction to stop blaming others for voluntary euthanasia.  Take away the fear of prosecution and maybe we might be able to have an honest debate - not about the right of a person to die, but the right of a person to die safely, securely and on their own terms.

      Reply

    • Kika says:

      01:34pm | 30/03/11

      I completely agree with you Shane. My grandmother died of bowel cancer horribly. She was sick for a long, long time and the chemo made her so ill. I just can’t believe in the modern age that people would prefer to endure the pain and agony of their loved ones just to make sure they are still there with them instead of allowing them to die on their own terms.

      I wish you every bit of luck and success with your disease.

    • Elphaba says:

      01:43pm | 30/03/11

      Great post.  Death is a personal experience, and no one, no matter how much experience they may have had, can tell you how to face it.  Only you face your death, and you should be able to face it on your own terms.

      Thank you for sharing your story.

    • notSue says:

      02:35pm | 30/03/11

      I’m sorry about your circumstances, Shane, but I’m afraid many of you have missed the point of this legislation.

      “The legislation does not legalise voluntary euthanasia.  The legislation does not legalise assisted suicide”.

      This legislation is to allow doctors to administer increased dosages of medication (most often morphine) which will have the *side effect* of ending some terminally ill people’s lives, without the risk of being prosecuted for murder, which has happened in the past, when relatives have reported the doctor to the police.

      For instance, a doctor ina hospice is allowed to administer morphine to patients struggling with lung cancer to alleviate distress. However, if they do, the patient will most likely die. This legislation will allow GPs to do the same, if the patient requests it. These decisions will be made on a case by case basis. It’s not VE, but treatment. There’s a difference.

      I wish you good fortune and peace.

    • CJ Morgan says:

      02:49pm | 30/03/11

      Great post, Shane.  As another who has been diagnosed recently with serious cancer, I agree with every word.  I also hear you re the support groups!

      To all those well-meaning (or otherwise) souls who want to deny people like me the option of legal voluntary euthanasia - I wish you’d literally mind your own business.  No version of any proposed legislation that I’ve seen would make it compulsory, nor anybody’s choice but yours.

      Quite simply, nobody will stop you lingering and suffering as long as you want to, but don’t get in the way of those of us who want a dignified death with minimal suffering.

    • notSue says:

      05:16pm | 30/03/11

      Again,  I truly sympathise, CJM. However, VE is everyone’s business and it’s not that simple. *siiigh* If it was, on purely humanitarian grounds, I’d support it unquestionably.

    • Kika says:

      01:30pm | 30/03/11

      But Maria I don’t think that euthanasia would be available to for example a quadraplegic that is just sick of their life. In all reality I’m sure any bill put through would be for people that have come to the point where it is 10000% certain that whatever illness they have will kill them, they should have the right to say when and where they would like to say goodbye.

      When my Nana died I saw her only the afternoon before she died. She had bowel and liver cancerat the age of 53 and when I saw her, she was literally a living skeleton. After she saw us the doctors gave her a little more morphone and she died that night content with seeing her grandkids for the last time.

      Doctors do it anyway.

      I believe that the main reason we don’t condone euthanasia is because we as humans can’t accept death as part of life that well, and death freaks us out so much that we just can’t say goodbye to someone too soon if we know they may have another 6 months of agony to endure before their body finally gives up on them. Or something. Like my point, we euthanase our pets to end their suffering, so why can’t we do that for ourselves?

      The thought that someday I will also be a living skeleton in pain, having to endure chemo which makes me violently ill terrifies me. If I ever get to that point, I would prefer an option where I can go to sleep and end it all and not have to endure any more suffering.

      Reply

    • nots8ue says:

      01:34pm | 30/03/11

      This is precisely why Nitscke bothers me. He’s hijacked this sensible legislation to push his own barrow, possibily to the detriment of the BIll. The man is an obsessive, who can’t see past his own agenda. Someone like that with power over life and death is damn scary!
      ” People should be aware that the intent of the Bill is to give family doctors treating terminally ill patients, patients of sound mind, who the doctor has a history of being the treating doctor, the ability to accede to the wishes of their patient to increase medication that in some circumstances may result in the death of their terminally ill patient.”
      This happens in hospices all the time. Family doctors should be able to do exactly the same, without risk of prosecution. It’s a sensible and wise Bill, but you’d never have known that from Nitscke’s reaction.

      Thankyou, Mr McFetridge for clearing up any misconceptions. I hope you get the Bill passed.

      Reply

    • Rose says:

      04:06pm | 30/03/11

      That’s right. I am opposed to voluntary euthanasia but I do support this Bill. There is a major difference between actively inducing death and protecting a doctor who, in delivering treatment, hastened death. This Bill allows for doctor’s to act on patients instructions and in their best interests, without opening up a Nitschke can of worms. Any time Nitschke gets involved it becomes a race to the slaughterhouse, the man is obsessed with killing. He should be expressly forbidden from opening his death clinics and only doctors who have a genuine history of treating the patient should be protected by this legislation.

    • Stephen says:

      04:10pm | 30/03/11

      In an on-going on-line poll conducted by News Corp in South Australia this question was asked,  “Should a euthanasia clinic be built in Adelaide?”  The results at 6:35PM on 30/03/2011 were Yes: 2419 or 28.51%, No: 6065 or 71.49%.  A total of 8484 people voted, a large sample as polls go.  As this is a democracy and,  in Australia,  polls so often influence policy, shouldn’t this poll’s result give the state’s politicians, in particular the proponents of this bill,  a strong indication that the majority of South Australians do not want this Euthanasia Clinic to be created? Listen to the people!!

      Reply

    • CJ Morgan says:

      07:02pm | 30/03/11

      On-line polls aren’t worth the paper they’re written on.

    • Shane From Melbourne says:

      10:47pm | 30/03/11

      I’m sure you can find 6065 god botherers in a hurry….

    • Stephen says:

      01:04pm | 31/03/11

      Shane, too bad you couldn’t find more than 2419 heathens to support the proposal. As far as I know no one was excluded from the poll.  Perhaps there is a message in the result for all to contemplate. BTW the current result of the poll is Yes:  27.64%, 2432,  No:  72.36%, 6366.
      This poll is in its third day, surely the proponents of this bill could have organised their supporters by now.

    • jack says:

      10:28am | 31/03/11

      there is no right to dignity in death, so much is chance.

      Reply

    • Danielle says:

      03:29pm | 31/03/11

      Religion. God. Jesus etc, what rubbish.
      Damn people must be weak not to believe in themselves before a religion, this terrible virus that has been passed on over the years is destructive to many situations in society, open your eyes and look around the planet.
      The sooner religion is kept out of society the better off we will be, why can’t govt imput into schools from the beginning about understanding mind & body, so humans from a young age can learn how to be wise to understand what is right and wrong, good and bad in real logical sense and develop the true wisdom of life happiness and respect.
      Religion should learn to keep its nose out of peoples business, if people what religion in their life, that’s fine but stop being judgmental to others who want to live in the now and not worried if they are going to some heaven or not.
      I feel it’s a crime for parents who take advantage of their children from such a young age as they do not understand and cannot defend themselves from the religion virus/poison.
      This is why people do not have the right to choose to end life when in such horrible pain.
      No wonder there are so many stupid people.

      Reply

    • Elphaba says:

      06:35pm | 31/03/11

      *sigh*

      Militant atheists like you give moderate atheists like me a bad name.  That post was f*cking useless.

    • True Believer says:

      07:53pm | 31/03/11

      @Elphaba

      It had to happen!!!  Minus the reference to sexual intercourse I agree with your post wholeheartedly. :0)

    • Julie says:

      06:52pm | 31/03/11

      But why do doctors need protection? No one prosecutes them for this. I think we have to be very careful with this kind of legislation. Doctors are ideally positioned to kill, and a number of multiple murderers have been doctors who got away with it. The culture protects them enough.

      Reply

    • Danielle says:

      02:37pm | 01/04/11

      @ Elphaba says:06:35pm | 31/03/11

      *sigh*

      Militant atheists like you give moderate atheists like me a bad name.  That post was f*cking useless.
      What! - Militant atheists - moderate atheists, you making this up as you go along smile you know how many have made their own religion up over the years,
      My sister’s friend is a modern muslim and she told me that she can smoke drink and watch TV, what a load of bs, it must be nice to suit oneself in a western country to choose they own way in religion.
      The truth is why people don’t have the right to choose death when they are in so much pain with a terminal disease, it’s about these people and what they want and keep asking for, not what others believe for whatever reasons.
      I do not have a problem with religion, just the destructive trail it leaves behind, that’s coming from someone who grew up in a full on religious family because my parents neglected me when I could not defend myself at that early age, from that virus.
      It only took me 15 years of age to see the damage and conflict it causes everyday in society, not to mention the guilt it puts many people through in their adult years.

      Reply

    • Elphaba says:

      04:17pm | 01/04/11

      @Danielle, I’m not making anythng up as I go along.  I don’t believe in God, but I also don’t call people stupid for believing in God.  Religious people have no bearing on my day to day life, and just because your experience was bad with it, does not mean you tar and feather all religious people with the same brush.

      It’s s bad as Zac de Spud-idiot claiming that all atheists lead a bloody, communist agenda.  Utter rubbish.

      Calling people weak, calling religion a virus, and alluding that religious people are stupid, is not right.  No one is telling you to believe in God, and atheism does not have to be like the militant crap that idiots like Richard Dawkins spout.

      Atheism is an absence of belief - and wanting to wipe religion from the Earth makes us just as bad as the Christians who used to burn pagans at the stake.

      That’s why your post is f*cking useless.  We’re trying to be the bigger person, remember?

    • Stephen says:

      05:39am | 02/04/11

      @ Elphaba, Thank you for your moderation. It appears that Danielle has been very hurt by religious people but not by faithful people. Religion is corporate, faith is personal. I am faithful to the teachings of Jesus but not to the teachings of a “Church” or religious body when it differs from what Jesus taught. Unfortunately there are militant “Christians” as well as militant atheists. Certainly Jesus did not advocate burning people at the stake and that is a good example of where religion and faith separate. I feel great sorrow for what has happened to Danielle especially as the hurt was caused by people calling themselves Christians. Once again, thank you.

      Reply

    • Danielle says:

      11:11am | 02/04/11

      I still ask the question why the terminal ill people cannot have their wish to terminate their life from suffering, we all know why.
      As for myself, I’m not hurt from my past, I understand why my parents and many others were/are caught up in religion and I see how it has affected they natural why of thought, the majority who believe in god are no different in the way they think.
      Teachings of Jesus but not to the teachings of a Church - it don’t matter, the whole god thing is why people are the way they are and the way they think and it affects society in ways that can be seen by all, as he has been seen throughout history.
      We’re trying to be the bigger person, remember, - nice statement and I fully agree but it does not remove the problems of society that are caused by the people who follow the teachings of god.
      It’s not just about the right to die, the list is endless.
      The teachings of god may sound great to many people but the destruction is greater, society has always suffered and will continue to do so, we know the reasons why.
      I was born of free spirit and with innocents, then I was conditioned in such ways that I had to sort through all the negatives, guilt and confusement to become an honest and understanding being to exist in this life.

      Reply

    • Elphaba says:

      12:41pm | 02/04/11

      Regardless of why people believe you should or shouldn’t have the right to end your life, and what influences their beliefs, I agree, the option should be made available for the individual to choose.

      I’m sorry that your formative years were poisoned by the disgraceful representations some people think passes for righteousness.  But the bottom line is, calling ‘religion’ a poison isn’t going to win you an argument.  Only some people’s representations of religion are poisonous, not everyone.  The hypocrisy I’ve seen on this blog beggars belief, and if you want to question those individuals, go right ahead - I sure have.  But the broad sweeping statement that all religion is a poison, doesn’t help your position, and makes you as bad as religious people who call atheists ignorant.

      No one has the correct answer because we aren’t meant to know it until we die.  So instead, present a viewpoint, but don’t demonise the other side.  Otherwise, you can’t claim the moral high ground, can you?  grin

    • True Believer says:

      07:39am | 03/04/11

      @Stephen

      Thank you for a well-balanced post and telling it how it is.  People who have done evil things under the guise of “being Christian” have caused much harm to many.  They do not represent our Lord who never preached hatred or murder.  He told us to love our enemies. We may hate the sin but the sin is not the person, it taints them but it does not diminish their intrinsic value as God’s creation.

      Danielle

      It grieves me to hear that you and others here have been harmed by people who claimed to be Christian. Denominations do not determine who is a Christian, only God does.  People can call themselves anything, but it does not make it so.

      Elphaba

      Your post was sensitive and honest and I applaud you for it. If peope choose not to believe that is their choice, but it does not have to get as down and dirty with name-calling as it does in these pages at times.  One can have a balanced discussion where the insults are minimised.  I am very far from perfect, but I will always love my fellow human being and fight for the vulnerable, regardless of beliefs, lifestyle etc etc, because I know they are loved by their Creator and He has put a love of others in my heart.

      Reply
 
Comment

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Daniel Piotrowski

drpiotrowski 24 May 12 09:56PM

RT @popculturechris: Meanwhile, Gotye holds no.1 for a sixth massive week in the US - "that" song has now sold over 4 million copies there.

ToryShepherd

ToryShepherd 24 May 12 09:17PM

@loupascale if the survey made you sad, probably skip the comments...

Paul Colgan

Colgo 24 May 12 07:27PM

@paulwiggins @richardkendall that fountain pens yarn is a great social trend story

Paul Colgan

Colgo 24 May 12 07:27PM

I like how a tip erodes so only you can use it MT “@paulwiggins: BBC News - Why are fountain pen sales rising? http://t.co/0hk2MRtf”

See all tweets

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

Protecting the Barrier Reef is the Fin end of the wedge

by Tony Burke

38

Protecting the Barrier Reef is the Fin end of the wedge

When you take on a job like being Environment Minister there’s some hits you can see coming. …

ICB: Is white bread the worst thing since sliced bread?

by Tory Shepherd

92

ICB: Is white bread the worst thing since sliced bread?

Welcome to this week’s I Call Bullshit column. It’s a regular column that looks at skulduggery…

Sometimes, you’ve just got to stick it to the bloody ref

by Anthony Sharwood

71

Sometimes, you’ve just got to stick it to the bloody ref

We are taught early in life that we should not question authority. We must listen to our parents, our…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

Michael S says:

"A teacher at Geelong Grammar had criticised her for using words that were too long, which had left her confused and had made her doubt her ability to write essays. She became ''quite distressed'' when her English marks began to fall." I can sympathise. My scholastic mentors conveyed to me a causal relationship… [read more]

From: Welfare for breeders is a bonus for everyone

Change Up! says:

I have no problem paying my taxes. As a single, childless person on a very decent income, I can afford it and not have my life severely altered. Plus I understand that my taxes paying for things like schools, childcare and infrastructure is ultimately a good thing. A better community is better for me… [read more]

Light weight

Gentle jabs to the ribs

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

A private school girl’s family is sueing her elite, extremely expensive private school for not… Read more

243 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free daily Punch newsletter

Subscribe to The Punch RSS feed