Image: Nationals MLC Trevor Khan presents his Assisted Dying Bill to the Legislative Council in September this year.
The defeat in the NSW Legislative Council last night of a voluntary assisted dying bill again demonstrates the extraordinary and undemocratic gulf between much of the political class and the electorate on an issue of huge importance to many in the community who have watched loved ones suffer, and those who fear they may be forced to do the same.
Support for euthanasia in Australia has for a long time been consistently between 70% and 80%, according to polling. Some polls put support above 80% in Victoria, where the Voluntary Assisting Dying bill remains in the balance in the upper house there, and above 70% in NSW. Unusually for social issues, support among older voters is significantly higher than the rest of the community. Yet much of the political class remains resolutely against reflecting the will of the electorate in enabling those in the grip of terminal illness to make their own choice about ending their lives.
Having successfully demonstrated, via the postal plebiscite model, a mechanism that will give voters a say on issues where politicians refuse to lead, or are prevented from leading by their own internal weakness, conservative politicians have given us a means to resolve this tension between undemocratically minded politicians and the electorate. And one can confidently look forward to advocates for a marriage equality plebiscite such as the Australian Christian Lobby supporting a euthanasia plebiscite, given there is no possible distinction to be made between the issues — if we’re not supposed to trust politicians to determine who can marry whom, then they certainly can’t be trusted with basic rights such as electing to end one’s life on one’s own terms.
That VAD is primarily a matter for state and territory governments can easily be dealt with by making funding available via the Medicare Benefits Schedule to those who would provide the service, and removing current laws that purport to ban online discussion of euthanasia, imposed by the Howard government in one of its periodic holy wars against the internet.
That such lobby groups belong to “let dying people suffer” camp is irrelevant — the issue is democratic consistency. As Eric Abetz put it so well, “democracy is an infinite good and political elites should never seek to stand in the way of the people having their say.” He, like Lyle Shelton, and Tony Abbott, and Malcolm Turnbull, and Kevin Andrews, will presumably be only to happy to apply that to the right to end one’s life. Let’s make it happen in 2018.
If 2 people want to submit to the crap-shoot that is modern marriage, no harm no foul (except for the kids of course) – but having the State (staffed by people who can’t read or undertsand a simple plain-English form when nominating) decide when I die? No thanks.
It’s VOLUNTARY assisted dying. Only YOU get to choose.
I think you’ll find it’s a panel of 2-3?
I think you’ll find YOU need to make a VOLUNTARY request. ( the way it’s operating successfully in multiple jurisdictions. )
Would you consider yourself open-minded? Have a listen to Andrew Denton’s thorough examination of the topic in the series of podcasts entitled Better Off Dead. He went to the places that have VAD to see first hand how it operates. He spoke with those in favor and against. If you consider yourself open-minded, then have a listen. I challenge you.
It’s tough. People lose their mental capacity with age and a diagnosis of dementia or similar is problematic. Voluntary is a definition that’s hard to adjudicate.
Sorry Mikeb, not tough. Dementia isn’t some nebulous condition which cannot be defined. Neuro-psychiatric testing quite clearly determines whether someone has dementia or not and hence whether they have the capacity to make the request.
Well I’ve had 2 parents (1 now gone) with dementia and there’s a fine line to draw. If you have enduring guardianship over someone it’s a HUGE decision to make. I could have pulled the plug on parent nbr 2 not so long ago but didn’t. She is pulling along reasonably well now. In 12 months time it might be a different story ……..
Sorry for your losses Mikeb. You are missing the point however. Even with enduring medical power of attorney , YOU cannot request VAD for someone else. THEY have to request it, when they are able to and they have to STAY able to understand it. THEY take the medicine themselves. If they have dementia, then that option of VAD is not available to them. Perhaps you make decisions about treating pneumonia with antibiotics, or not etc but that is NOT VAD and is not affected by these laws.
Please see my first comment about the podcast “Better Off Dead” and have a listen.
Parent nbr 2 did request euthanasia. I understand the arguments but my point is that there is a dangerous grey area, not a line you can just rule off.
Sorry to push the point Mikeb. If a patient WITH dementia asks for VAD, the request will most likely be denied if the experts think that the person is no longer able to make rational choices. [ I personally believe in way more liberal/progressive VAD laws, as in Belgium. The lawmakers in Victoria have crafted probably the most restrictive laws in the world.]
No one said it’s easy or clear-cut but the laws DO work overseas. The vast majority of requests in Holland are REFUSED. Of the ones which are granted, only a small number actually go through with it. Please listen to the podcasts.
Yeah, sure. I’m sure he’s compelling, too. It’s just, I do not trust the State to be handed this power. Any State. Any bureaucracy. Anywhere. As I say, they can already screw up things beyond recognition, things that don’t really matter much, in the long run* – but not, my life.
*in the long run, we’re all dead, of course, as Galbraith said.
Electme: your distrust of state condemns thousands of people to intolerable, undignified, painful deaths. Even actual palliative care specialists admit that ~4% of their patients have bad deaths. I agree that our law-makers leave a lot to be desired. It’s not the state who is given this power however – it’s doctors. The very same doctors in whose hands you trust YOUR own life. Those doctors who don’t want to participate don’t have to.
AN’s right about this, please reconsider – I think you’ll find your agency in the process is paramount… and, to be frank, would you give this question to people who have, so very recently, shown that they are beholden to the influence religious hierarchies over their adherents, and think that their personally-held religious beliefs should decide what is law?
I say to you, if you are interested in your ability to make decisions for yourself, secular law is the only way to go.
You’ve made it even worse, Attila: doctors?! You want me to trust Doctors?? You really don’t get out much, you two, do you: such trusting faith. You’d have to be under 50, I’d guess, and, have never seen anyone terminally ill. You’re probably like those people yearning for meaning in the climate fight, or veganism, trying vainly to squirrel some faint hope that there is order, reason and Goodness on the planet. Good luck. But, Doctors? Give me a break. and, apologies if you’re none of those, but I just don’t or can’t share your optimism.
The junk mail, non binding, voluntary opinion poll has set an interesting precedent.
Many others has suggested that the mechanism be used for declaring war, nationalisation, banking enquiry etc etc.
However the most obvious topics at the moment are both euthanasia and capital punishment – both of which have far greater support than SSM 62% though I cannot recall when state executions were last polled.
Capital punishment? Now there’s a scary thought, AR. So many believe in absolute evil. So many believe capital punishment costs less than incarceration.
Umm. The most obvious issue is immigration levels.
The public are sick to death of overcrowding in their cities and being priced out of the housing market
Catholic lawyers infect parliaments. An ongoing problem that needs a solution.
To be fair, all of the more evangelical and dominionist (theology to make law) ‘religions’ are doing everything they can to influence our politicians.
Including, but not limited to, pandering to their egos – that is, the catholic church has always opposed genuine religious freedom being a part of our Constitution (*) they don’t want the Separation of Powers (Parliament Vs Judiciary) to be a healthy one – because… they want to maintain their influence over politicians. Which, of course the politicians love – they don’t like the judiciary disagreeing with them.
Listen very carefully whenever you hear the fashionable pejorative use of the words “unelected” or “elite”
(*) See their opposition to the Referendum question in 1988, and their submissions to every Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee since)
“huge importance to many in the community who have watched loved ones suffer, and those who fear they may be forced to do the same”
Yes indeed, but if I had to vote it would be a difficult decision for me. I’ve gone through this process 3 times so far with differing outcomes. Case 1 – after consultation the medicos indirectly euthanased a family member who was dying in pain by gradually upping the dosage of [—} …. Case 2 – the medicos let nature run it’s course and the family member basically starved himself to death…. Case 3 – the family member requested euthanasia but it was refused. That person ended up recovering up to a point and is now living a reasonable (if restricted) life. SSM is a cinch decision compared to euthanasia.
As with all of these sorts of issues, the people most affected should be able judge their circumstances for themselves. My view is the law should allow this.
I’m not saying it’s a “cinch” – I for example would not wish a “restricted” life upon anyone who did not want it. And most certainly not for myself.
Older people more strongly support euthanasia. No surprise there, they are on the whole closer to taking tbe final step into the void than younger people. And they may well have see their contemporaries suffer a miserable death and wish to avoid it themselves.
The right and the religious oppose this for a variety of reasons. For the religious, who have bought the snake oil sold by the after-life insurance salesmen, they are worried by the clause that prevents you from cashing in your policy early.
And as we have seen the right are increasingly divorced from the mainstream, they continue to yearn for a world now long gone.
The other great furphy in this debate is the clarion call of “if we had good paliative care we just wouldn’t need this”. This is disingenuous at best, and an outright lie at worst, and my fellow health practitioners pushing this line know it, to their shame. Good paliative care should be available for all, however it is a medical treatment. And like every other treatment known to medical science it has a discrete, real, and all too unfortunate failue rate. I have yet to hear what the proponents of the “good paliation makes this unnecessary” advocates propose to do for those unfortunate individuals in whom paliative care fails to provide solace. “Be quiet and suffer in silence, you are disturbing the man in the next room” just doesn’t cut it. We don’t need one or the other, we need both.
“We don’t need one or the other, we need both.”
Heartily seconded.
I’d like to have some indication of how many of the “health practitioners” currently arguing against VAD have this view due to their personally-held religious beliefs, or that of their employer. We like to think of doctors of ‘rising above’ these things and having their patient’s wellbeing as being paramount in any discussion.
Frankly, I don’t believe it is. The ‘do no harm’ ethos is hiding a great deal more (as is the influence of certain hierarchies in the Specialist’s Union – the AMA)
ABC radio the other day had a senior palliative care doctor explaining his “No” views. He took enormous pains to claim he “wasn’t religious” .
May I say that anyone working for a catholic-owned medical facility or university literally will not be hired (or would be fired) if they publicly expressed anything other than the hierarchy’s “line”. It’s in their ‘mission statements’ if one cares to look.
IF one were incredibly cynical, one MIGHT also draw the conclusion that certain specialties literally rely upon the desperately and terminally ill for their livelihoods. Could it be that they are concerned about their departments shrinking? I know, very cynical. But possible.