- HUMANIST’S DEBATE LANGUAGE USAGE April 2008 -

An original article posted in the Victorian Humanist newsletter of December 2007:
And the debate on terminology that followed!

Political Suicide

David Milan
Australians want it, politicians want it to go away, it's as simple as that! Simple, maybe, but at the same time puzzling, because although these same pollies know that, according to the latest of many polls (Newspoll, February 2007), 80% of us want access to legal medically-assisted suicide ('MAS'), this vexed question has been safely put to bed insofar as both major parties are concerned.

The Greens and Democrats have gamely promised to introduce legislation to enable MAS to be debated in parliament, with a conscience vote to follow, but the Coalition and ALP remain shamefully indifferent to the vox populi, preferring to seduce voters with a glittering array of pre-election goodies. There is, however, one defiant voice to be heard denouncing this tawdry arrangement, that of Dr Philip Nitschke. This battle-scarred hero of the 'Right to Die' movement has materialised in the Melbourne metropolitan electorate of Menzies, to make a vainglorious bid to unseat his implacable foe, Kevin Andrews.

It was this same Kevin who introduced his baleful bill allowing the Commonwealth to ride roughshod over the wishes of the people of the Northern Territory, whose parliament had passed ground-breaking legislation legalising voluntary euthanasia. Whilst Dr Nitschke probably entertains little expectation of becoming a new independent in Canberra, he is, at least, gaining much needed publicity for the cause he so passionately advocates.

But his enemies are formidable, cashed-up and vocal. They represent, broadly speaking, two different lobbies. The first are those whose objections are based on their religious convictions, and hopes of swaying their opinion are minimal. Perhaps I might instance a public figure like Tony Abbott to illustrate my argument. When he resolutely opposes legalising MAS, he does so as an obedient Catholic sticking to his church's rigid teaching on this subject.

Well, Mr Abbott has every right to shun MAS for himself, but when he seeks to impose his church-informed ethics upon all of us, he goes too far. In a nutshell, the Tony Abbotts of this world want to block my right, and yours to choose when and how we wish to end our lives, however punishing and distressing the circumstance may be. These zealots act according to their conscience, not ours. They argue that, what's right for them must also be right for us, whatever our personal beliefs may be!

The second group of vocal dissenters are larger and more diverse, but more open to reasoned debate, basing their objections upon the 'slippery slope' argument. Some paint a lurid picture of avaricious relatives pressuring grandpa to sign off on his life, so that they may enjoy an early reading of the will. Others dismally forecast a rash of untimely funerals as the elderly and depressed decide to end it all in a moment of despair. The more extreme ludicrously compare MAS to the evil NAZI euthanasia (read 'extermination') programme of’ social cleansing'.

These imagined fears are quickly scotched by examining other countries where MAS is lawful and scrutinising the strict legal and medical safeguards in place. The numbers seeking deliverance from their suffering is statistically tiny, but the huge, unseen benefit for thousands of ordinary, well people is the comfort derived from knowing that, as last resort, MAS can be accessed legally.

But here's the riddle. There is a total of 226 politicians in both houses of federal parliament. Assuming that these men and women think much the same as the rest of us, 180 (i.e. 80%) of them would answer this poll-question positively, Should a terminally ill patient with no chance of recovery have the right to seek medical assistance to die, on their own terms?

Why then do these 'servants of the people' resist even debating this vexed question? Only six months ago, Senator Bob Brown introduced a voluntary euthanasia bill into federal parliament, but the government used its numbers to block the progress of the bill in both houses. Democracy?

Why do the heads of governments, both state and federal, refuse to bite this moral bullet? Too difficult or divisive? Is it perhaps fear of the power of the 'religious right', led by the mighty Catholic Church? Is it to avoid the disapprobation of the conservative AMA? Or is it simply a case of'don't rock the voters' boat' as timorous pollies mistakenly believe that, by endorsing MAS they risk committing 'political suicide.' And what part does conscience play in all this? I wish I knew!


Letters

> Freedom to choose death

I ask David Milan and others not to use the title, "Medically-assisted Suicide".

We of the movement who have supported Philip Nitschke, over many years, do not consider our wish to time our death at the time of our choosing, to be an evil thing, which the word 'suicide' implies - as formerly it was associated with such issues as police investigations or nasty-minded religious denials of ceremonies.

As democrats in this society we should have rights over our bodies, just as much as we do in choosing books to read for our minds. If healthy, we just expect to live on happily, but if illness or weariness with failing senses or body functions becomes insupportable, there is no reason to prolong our existence. Family members are usually well able to take care of themselves but not so often of us as well. Community care is well-meaning but likely to be spasmodic. Nursing homes eat away capital which is irreplaceable. I have done my part in the world of work and war for 70 years and now, at 87,1 wish to make my own democratic choice, as governments make laws for us to have choices in every other part of living.
No-one can tell me I am depressed in wishing to choose my exit. I have surmounted so many traumas of disappointment, unhappiness, cancerous illness, and more, that I think I can overcome temporary depression. Having done much with life, if there is nothing more I wish to experience, or endure, why be forced to continue?

I envision settling all financial matters, writing letters to distant valued people (the rest, like politicians or religious busy-bodies, I gladly leave behind), then giving away as much as possible, leaving instructions with a funeral company all paid for, and if family are involved taking care of their needs, before asking a doctor for a quiet end. This is rational living for a humanist dying.
Why should governments get involved? My accountant will pay my taxes. I have no known spiritual life to save, so why should churches interfere? I don't bother them. If people want a religion, I have always respected that, but for me, no thanks. If I have lived well - keeping out of prison all my life - my philosophy has served me well. Ending my life my way should not be called suicide but 'sensitivity' -being concerned to leave no problems behind and like doctors, doing no harm to anyone. The doctor who might help me exit quietly would be doing me a favour, and paid for it by my estate, not doing something wrong as foolish interfering people would have it. LET US GO, sensibly and sensitively.
 

VICTORIAN HUMANIST (February 2008)


 

Letters

> Defending 'medically-assisted suicide'

C.G. Burgoyne's plea (VH, Feb.) that I, inter alia, should desist from using the title 'Medically-assisted Suicide' was earnestly argued. However the problem will immediately arise as to agreeing on a more effective, less malodorous term.

In general usage, the word 'euthanasia' has, unhappily, attracted a negative connotation, despite the presence of the all-important word 'voluntary' as its essential qualifier. What could be more accurate, concise and less emotive than 'medically-assisted suicide', or, in my view, its recent successor, 'physician-assisted suicide'?

A person who wilfully chooses to end his/her own life, with or without a physician's assistance, commits suicide: there is neither room nor need of semantics here. Personally, I believe the public image of the world-wide 'Right to Die' movement will be sympathetically enhanced by unashamedly, honestly and simply telling it how it is -1 suggest that 'physician-assisted suicide' does exactly that.
 

> Medically-assisted suicide

I strongly disagree with C. G. Burgoyne's request (Letter, February VH) to David Milan and others not to use the expression 'medically assisted suicide'.

Burgoyne says the word suicide implies 'an evil thing', and was associated with 'police investigations', but this strikes me as perpetuating a stigma against suicide as 'unmentionable', which it should certainly not be. Suicide may at times (or even often) be a tragedy, but in other circumstances it may be a wise means of relief. I am a chronic depressive, and have had to live with suicidal thoughts and feelings for half a century; and I once tried, unsuccessfully, to prevent a grandmother of mine committing suicide in 1968. I adamantly refuse to regard suicide as something unmentionable or shameful!

I strongly support voluntary, well-informed
euthanasia (with appropriate safeguards) for humane
reasons. And as voluntary euthanasia with medical
advice is indeed medically-assisted suicide, we should
not be ashamed, coy or squeamish about saying so, loud
and clear.
 

VICTORIAN HUMANIST (March 2008)

 

Letters

> Physician assisted dying (PAD)

I urge those who debate the term 'medically-assisted suicide', to adopt the one used by the Dying With Dignity Victoria, physician assisted dying (PAD)

Dr Rodney Syme and other long-term, experienced campaigners for voluntary euthanasia choose their words advisedly in their efforts to decriminalise assistance in dying. While suicide has been decriminalised and therefore, in my view, destigmatised, assistance in dying has not.

PAD is the term used in a Bill to be put before Parliament, the Medical Treatment (Physician Assisted Dying) Act 2008. Several members of parliament are ready to sponsor PAD in both houses.
 

> On terminology and language

At Dying With Dignity Victoria (DWDV) we encourage people of all opinions to use respectful rather than provocative or ambiguous language. The upcoming Medical Treatment (Physician Assisted Dying) Bill 2008 does not use the expression 'voluntary euthanasia', but rather, the expression 'Physician Assisted Dying' (PAD). Let me explain.

There are three reasons why the expression 'voluntary euthanasia' is loaded and volatile:

1. As soon as you have said the word 'euthanasia', many
people have forgotten you said the word 'voluntary'
before it. False fears of involuntary euthanasia and
eugenics arise — and neither act is permitted by the Bill.

2. Euthanasia is often taken to be something that Person A
(doctor) does to Person B (patient). However, the Bill
requires that the request for and consumption of a
prescription drug is something Person B (patient) does
for themselves, with strict safeguards.

3. It is common in Western society to 'ask for volunteers',
for example to seek philanthropic help with a good cause.
Of course, asking for volunteers in the context of dying is
entirely inappropriate, and the Bill prohibits such a
request or influence.

In addition, the Bill does not use the expression 'suicide'. Suicide is irrational, often hasty, and regrettable. However, a patient suffering intolerably with no realistic chance of improvement can make a careful and rational decision to die peacefully. 94% of Victorian doctors agree that such a request can be reasonable.1

Under these circumstances, we believe that it would be provocative and demeaning to apply the word suicide to such sufferers who carefully choose to die peacefully and with medical assistance as the only acceptable form of relief from intolerable suffering. In fact, the Bill itself stipulates that such a death shall not be construed as a suicide.

The Bill instead uses the expression 'Physician Assisted Dying' (PAD).

Neil Francis, President DWDV
1. Neil D.A., Coady C.A.J., Thompson J. and Kuhse H., Journal of Medical Ethics, 2007;33:721-725.


Victorian Humanist: April 2008

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