- MR KEVIN RUDD and MRS ANNA BLIGH 06/03/08 (from on contributor)-

Dear Prime Minister and Premier of Queensland

With reference to Senator Bob Brown recently announcing his intention to table a Private Members Bill in the Federal Parliament to reinstate the repealed “Northern Territory -Rights of Terminally Ill Act” – 1996 –(NT-ROTI – Act ), it is with an eye on social justice issues that motivates me to correspond.

In reflecting upon the repealed “NT-ROTI - Act”, it was an interesting observation at the time of this Federal Government intervention, that none of the other States or Territories had complained of their interest being morally threatened or injured by such legislation.

The effect of having witnessed this over-riding government decision to support the Kevin Andrews Private Members Bill, re; “Euthanasia Laws Repeal Bill – 1996” was an extremely disappointing political event. Clearly I can’t ever recall, where politicians, via an act of duplicity carried a vote, contrary to the majority wishes of their constituents. This approach indeed represented both a travesty in social reform and an infringement of the Territories rights to legislate in accord with the due process of government.

As politicians are elected representatives of the people it is important to reflect upon the revered words of Abraham Lincoln and that being “of the people, by the people, for the people” and these words are as relevant today as when first spoken.

Patient directed dying is an issue that will not diminish whilst the terminally ill and those experiencing unrelenting suffering demand more autonomy and better quality of their own death. Also with our population aging, the question of patients right’s will become more acute. This important issue of personal choice should be beyond political debate and be an inalienable civil right for all citizens to decide for themselves how they want to die and not for others to make that decision for them.

Recent and past community surveys indicate approximately 70 - 80% majority support for “Physician Assisted Dying” and I clearly believe that the onus is on our politicians to legislate accordingly.

When considering the discriminating social injustices associated with the officious extending of the cruel dying process and for those loved ones left behind, memories of degrading suffering endured by the patient can leave one with feelings of horror, shame and anger at such systemic neglect.

As Labor has traditionally represented governments of reform and with all community surveys indicating support, then it begs the question as to why Labor at both State and Federal levels have not elevated this issue on to their electoral platforms.
.

(NB) – On the 12th June 1999, the Queensland State Labor Conference at strong Party grass roots level, adopted V.E. as valid policy which was passed by an estimated 2/3s majority after considerable debate and the resolution wording is setout below verbatim

(1) Labor believes that voluntary euthanasia should be available as a legal treatment option for a person of sound mind suffering from a terminal illness, which has diminished the quality of life to the extent that, that person requests termination of their life.

(2) – Conference resolves to:

(a) - Adopt a conscious vote on the question of euthanasia consistent with the decision of the National Executive;

(b) - In the event that a Private Members Bill is introduced on euthanasia, all member’s of the Parliamentary Party shall be free to exercise a conscience vote on that Bill.
 

On a point of interest and irony, whilst the “NT-ROTI ACT” was being repealed by the Howard government in 1997 in what could be broadly described as lacking circumspection and serious political neglect, Oregon (US) conversely legislated their “Death with Dignity - Act” into law which was warmly welcomed by the Oregon people. In accepting differing points of view, however this is the kind of legislation that the majority of Australians have been seeking since that point-in-time. Unfortunately some politicians, in displaying a misguided perception of this issue regrettably failed on the day in their support for this important social reform.

For your perusal and interest please find set out below verbatim a copy of a recent report re; “Oregon Celebrates Ten Years of Assisted Dying”, by Barbra Cooms Lee

           Oregon Celebrates Ten Years Of assisted Dying

By Barbra Cooms Lee, President, Compassion and Choices excerpted from her OP_ED piece in the Oregonian, Oct 26th. 2007
_______________________________________________

In October, Oregon passed the ten year milestone for The Death With Dignity Act. For ten years that law has been a still, small voice of hope for dying patients – a quietly powerful message that no one will be forced to suffer needlessly or endure the relentless loss of body and mind because there are no other options.

Keeping the law intact has required vigilance and fortitude. It has prevailed in both Oregon’s Legislature and in Congress, It has overcome extended legal attacks by right-to-life groups and the John Ascroft – Justice Department, until Oregon’s law making authority was finally vindicated in the US Supreme Court. The laws opponents claimed it would destroy end of life care, would harm vulnerable populations and become a slippery slope for abuse. None of that has happened.

On the contrary, end of life care in Oregon is both better and more accessible and there is no evidence that the law has harmed anyone….Palliative medicine and pain care have made huge strides….doctors throughout Oregon recognize the importance of proper pain treatment, referred more patients to hospice and improved their ability to recognize depression among the terminally ill. Approximately 50% of Oregonians now die in hospice care. Fewer Oregonians die in hospitals and more die in the familiar, loving environment of their homes than any other State.

Since 1997, 292 Oregonians have used aid in dying. That’s about one in one thousand deaths. In contrast, many more terminally ill patients think and talk about aid in dying, as one in six, discuss it with loved ones. About one in 50 actually begin the eligibility process by speaking to his or her doctor. Many consider it, few need to use it. And that’s a good thing.

The law helps all people equally and harms no one. The journal of Medical Ethics recently published compelling evidence that the Death with Dignity Act does not adversely affect people considered “vulnerable” such as the disabled, the elderly and the uninsured.

Ten years of compelling scientific research have persuaded even some staunch moral conservatives that they should not oppose a legal medical alternative that is desirable to so many, harmful to none.

Oregonians have drawn a wonderful road map, empowering patients with choice, control and dignity at the end of life. Our State can now serve as a guide to others as they approach the previously uncharted territory of aid in dying. (End of quote)

________________________________________________________

To expand upon the above legislated Oregon “Death with Dignity Act,” if the terminal patient has only six months or so to live, they can lawfully approach their doctor for a prescription to be medically assisted to die. When the patient’s life has deteriorated to the point where life has become intolerable, the script can be fulfilled by the pharmacist and the medication self-administered at the time of his/her choosing. With the fatal dose ingested by choice, no doctor is actively involved thereby extending protection to the doctor along with satisfying the needs of the patient.

It’s a well known fact that when the patient is empowered with the means to self-deliver or have available physician assisted choice like what is available in Switzerland , The Netherlands, Belgium and Oregon, their stress levels drop and they become more relaxed in knowing that they are in control of their own destiny and subsequently live longer.

Faced with end of life decisions more than 80% of Australians will have some advanced knowledge of their pending death due to being earlier diagnosed with a chronic illness such as cancer or heart disease etc. One of the greatest concerns to any patient would be a prognosis concerning the loss of faculties and descent into total dependency on others over an extended period of time as a miserable prelude to death.

With time to decide what kind of treatment the dying person would like to receive towards the end, the decision often entails being revived on a ventilator or forced fed through a feeding tube. With death imminent, what is now accepted practice under the guise of good palliative care is terminal sedation which cruelly entails starvation and dehydration resulting in the patient taking several days to expire. Clearly the dying should not be discriminated against in this degrading manner by being forced to endure to the very end when all they really want is choice in being assisted to die as a shorter more merciful path to the same end. Also if his/her request does not interfere, harm or injure others then this choice should be freely extended and respected.

In stating the above it’s pertinent to focus on the Government’s most recent initiative to sign the “Anti-Torture Treaty” whilst ignoring the imposed plight of the disempowered terminally ill who are enduring their own ignored stressful form of torture.

Pragmatically speaking, why should the terminally ill be discriminated against and forced to leave their own country to obtain the drug of choice to self deliver or have go to other distant countries to be assisted to die when elected politicians, endowed with reason could placate this situation by legislating more liberating laws?

Also with reference to most recent events, instead of shameful police harassment of the desperate terminally ill for possessing the means, be it legal or not, to take control of their end of life situations in the absence of legal options, is reason enough for politicians to get real and legislate appropriate Oregon type overdue reform.

As bad laws are the worst kind of tyranny, it was Nelson Mendala who once said “To break an unjust law is an imperative : Not to break an unjust law is to collaborate with that law”

I would like to conclude by saying that “Choice in the manner of our dying is the ultimate civil liberty and should always be a legal moral option”.

Would you please circulate copies of my correspondence amongst your political colleagues for their awareness and I sincerely trust that this important focal issue receives the consideration and attention it deserves.

It is in anticipation that I await a reply at your earliest convenience.


Yours truly
RB of Queensland