- LETTER TO SENATOR CHRIS ELLISON 27/03/06 -

Senator the Hon Christopher Ellison
Minister for Justice and Customs
Senator for Western Australia
Parliament House 
CANBERRA, ACT 2600

Dear Sir,
Criminal Code Amendment (Suicide Related Material Offences) Act 2005

Thank you for your response on behalf of the seventeen Cabinet Members I had originally contacted regarding my concerns relating to the implementation of this Law. 

Your letter states quite specifically that you seek to reassure me that the new legislation does not penalize people for the discussion of the sensitive issues of euthanasia and suicide. But, Senator, it does precisely that, as was your intention as stated in the Public Senate Hearing which I attended in Canberra. 

You’ve said, The Act will not prevent people from talking about the issues of euthanasia or suicide, nor will the Act capture individuals who are researching material for personal reasons on how to commit suicide. How then, does one participate in a public forum such as a television program talking directly about suicide related issues? If I want to mention the word “Nembutal” which is not available on a doctor’s prescription in Australia, how is this freedom to discuss research options for suicide? Your answer to this question is very important to me. Is the medium of Television also included in the “terminology” a carriageway? I had always understood this was not the case! How then will you personally address issues under discussion of News Items (mother kills child then herself), CSI (stabbing oneself in order to look like murder, to collect life insurance) and then there are people like me, who want to bring the whole issue of voluntary euthanasia into the political arena! I can’t write a book, so that leaves the Australia Post, unless television is the one medium left without censorship within reason. As a self funded retiree/pensioner, how can I be heard? 

If you intend to capture the debate on suicide methods from being addressed even under the legitimate forum of a voluntary euthanasia discussion on television, how far will the current Federal Government go in order to prevent freedom of speech relating to suicide methods? Who will foot the medical bills arising out of failed attempts due to insufficient information? Who will pay for the counselors needed for those who find the bodies of the botched jobs, after the event? Put delicately Senator Ellison, the Law won’t actually stop people from attempting suicide. It may change the tone and methods in an ageing society, but it will not prevent it.

Your letter states that the Government respects every person’s right to live their life with dignity and with freedom of choice, yet how is this possible when the Law has blanketed most areas considered appropriate for communication between like minded people? People confined to their homes because of serious illnesses and great immobility. Is it any wonder that people are found dead in their houses six months after the event? Your Government claims to stand for prevention of dying by the vulnerable, but an 80 yo dying of breast cancer is equally vulnerable of great suffering, pain, which is even more distressing than the dying. They too are vulnerable of great psychological damage but who would protect them from their pain?. Rheumatoid arthritis is also extremely painful and debilitating. Palliative care has been proven to be useless for 5% of the dying population who are left in great pain. 

You go on to say that “this Government does not support those people who would seek to persuade or pressure the vulnerable members of our community to end their own life”. Yet your Government Laws are worded in such a matter that places more than “2300” currently at risk within the population. More vulnerable and insecure in their inability to end their suffering with any hope of legalised supervision. 

Some want without any pressure, to be allowed to die in a manner that is both dignified and peaceful. 

I have no idea why there is a perception that every person who would choose to die a hastened death is pressured into doing so by someone else. Trust me, pain can be so very severe that death can look really friendly by comparison, but the body has a great capacity for pain and endurance and it tells much about what is happening within the body, that there does come a time, when a person can say “enough is enough”.

It cannot be emphasized too greatly that the voluntary euthanasia forum is about choice. But while others have a choice to do nothing and live their life, regardless of its quality, I am fighting every inch of the way at both State and Federal levels to have policies put in place that would allow me those same choices, in a different direction. I feel discriminated against, along with some 70% of the population who favour VE under strict guidelines. It is clearly understood by all intelligent people that Laws could be introduced that could accommodate both needs in society. Unfortunately the group whom I would be representative of, has neither the lobbying power, the political resources, or in many cases, the energy. But our needs are still equally valid to that of “the vulnerable young” within society. 

When it suited, the Federal Government brought in a Law which superimposed itself over and above existing State Health Laws, with the introduction of the Criminal Code Amendment (Suicide Related Material Offences) Act 2005 implemented January 6, 2006. Back in 1999, while Ovarian Cancer racked my body, my doctor told me she didn’t agree with VE under any circumstances or in my case, in her future treatment of me, and was not able to discuss suicide methods in her rooms. Good doctor for RTL lobbyists, but not for freedom of choice to die a reasonably dignified death, when the cancer invariably returns. Already there were laws in place forbidding discussion, but this Federal Government took it even further, forbidding friends to discuss their options. On this basis I believe you are again capable of bringing in a Law which would give the terminally and chronically ill people across Australia a more humane way of dying than hanging, or poisoning themselves. 

When the Government takes away the right to freedom of speech by restricting the use of modern technology one could only assume it is fair to offer something in return. It is already well documented that palliative care is not the answer to all people undergoing the dying process, Advance Directives appear to be a “Hit or Miss” process depending on which State one lives in, and yet this very vulnerable group of people are ignored by most. What about you Senator Ellison?

I would very much appreciate direct answers to my questions and concerns, and look to you for leadership and guidance in this matter.

I look forward to these clarifications in law relating to the use of television specifically at this point in time.

Thank you kindly,

Mary Walsh
March 28, 2006 

If you cannot see the menu, click here for an alternate menu