- LETTER TO ATTORNEY AND MINISTER
FOR JUSTICE,
QUEENSLAND 02/12/05 -
(from a contributor)
The Hon
Linda
Lavarch M.P.
Attorney and Minister for Justice
P.O. Box 2216
Strathpine Centre
Q 4500
Email:
Dear Ms Lavarch
In acknowledging receipt and in reply to your attached welcomed email advice dated 1st
December 2005 Ref 2005/07295, J/05/05744, I wish to advise as set out below.
In thanking you for your expressed condolences, however where the rights of the disempowered terminally ill are concerned I take issue with what I access as benign political opposition as expressed in the third paragraph of your reply which I hereby quote verbatim. As a perceived excuse for a do nothing approach you state therein as follows;
- "I understand that very different views are held within the community about this matter." In reading this, I presume that you are referring to the dissenting approximate 20% minority against the basic humanity for the individuals dignified right to choose in end of life decisions, which really should be an inalienable civil right of all citizens.
With all politicians collectively being elected personal representatives of the people and thereby being in a position to influence change to the good, I find myself wondering at the revered words of Abraham Lincoln that have been adopted as the principal of good government by the People's Federal House of Representatives.
The political timeless words that I wish to amplify are, "Government of the people, by the people, for the people" and these words are as relevant today as when first spoken.
Following the 2002 Queensland Nancy Crick public disobedience stance and the Melbourne death of Sandy Williams the Channel Nine Sunday Program and the A.B.C. radio conducted a
national survey on the question of merciful end of life personal choice decisions. In both instances the results were 81-19 and 74-26% respectively in
favor.
In the interest of good compassionate government that respects the basics of democracy, our laws should ensure both
a
life and a death with dignity for all in addressing end of life choices. Obviously some misguided politicians are disrespecting the majority will of their constituents by acting contrary to the expected democratic process of good government which can be broadly characterized as serious political neglect.
In my opinion it is also regrettable that some politicians have shamefully aligned themselves with the absurdity of the bigoted minority "anti right to choose" pressure groups. This obstructionist approach is effectively condemning so many suffering terminally ill like in my father's case and so many others like him to needless extended cruel suffering which is both undignified and incompatible with social realism when in
their time of need all they really want is to be humanly medically assisted to die as a shorter more merciful path to the same end.
To conclude, and central to the core of this merciful issue is not the sanctification of life as espoused via pious deceptive ideology, but rather required empathy for the actual personal sanctity of respect for the unfortunate individual's, concerned.
In the interest of compassion and overdue social reform, the above and enclosed is for both yours and your political colleague's attention and consideration and it is in anticipation that I await a reply at your earliest convenience.
Yours truly
If you cannot see the menu, click here for an alternate menu