- LETTER TO KIM BEAZLEY 28/04/05 -

From: "yourchoiceindying" <choice@yourchoiceindying.com>
To: <Kim.Beazley.MP@aph.gov.au>
Subject: Criminal Code Amendment (Suicide Related Material Offences) Bill 2005
Date: Thursday, April 28, 2005 4:44 PM

I am appealing to you, Mr Beazley not to support this Bill. ( Senate Report is due May 10th.) Yes, I have heard you interviewed on the subject of euthanasia and know you don't believe it for yourself. Thousands of words have been written in numerous Submissions. I attended the Public Senate Hearing personally driving to Canberra, sleeping in the car overnight, lost and running on empty in the dark of Canberra at night, returning to Melbourne the next day. I tell you this only to convince you I am committed to choice and dignity in dying. This Bill just makes people, such as myself work that much harder, to achieve justice in society for choice.

I operate my personal website www.yourchoiceindying.com and am a financial member of both the Voluntary Euthanasia Society Victorian and Exit International. None of us flout the law on the internet or operate chat rooms, to counsel or incite suicide. If you look very carefully at this Bill, it is quite clear that talking on the telephone between two friends, can be construed as illegal. Sometimes discussion of methods of suicide, is a diffuser of severe emotional distress. I have been able to stop a person by saying "no it won't work, it will just make you vomit!". By forbidding under law, comprehensive discussion to be permitted by email, fax or telephone, I feel will result in many a botched job of suicide, particularly in the frail elderly who do not want to spend their last days, mouth agape, "sleeping drugged" in a nursing home. Terminal loneliness was an expression that hit a nerve when spoken by an 86 year old who had lost her soul mate of 50 plus years! Waking up each day "for what" she asks?.

It is on public record that the actual number of suicides is declining. That the ratio of reported suicides are, 5 elderly to 1 other. It is also on public record that people are living past a time when life has any realistic meaning. due to technology advances.

What many of us are asking you, Mr Beazley is to create the forum that will enable a proper debate to be developed allowing for legislative change. It is about making realistic provision for those in society least able to find a strong piece of rope, in preference to the Peaceful Pill. What we want, is to die with peace and dignity preferable with a friend holding our hand, rather than slinking like rats in a drain, fearful some one will report us.

It is for a sad, and bad legislation that makes talking, an offence in itself, Senator Ellison in his interview on morning television talks about the "intentions" of the Bill, but he obviously he had not read the Hansard Report on the Public Hearing held April 14. What the Bill 'intends" will not protect the innocent from being guilty should a zealous officer put his mind to it. The question was asked "if the Bill saves just one life?", personally I think it will cost lives because people will feel there is no where to turn when the stress of being grievously ill is too much to handle alone.

The point was expressed "that an example needs to be made" Who of, Dr Philip Nitschke??? Ok, what then! What sort of civilised society do we call ourselves when we would brand a compassionate doctor, a criminal, because he advocates dying with dignity. I bet those doctors, opposed to "helping others" die a good death, will make sure their own death is hastened when living becomes an unbearable pain!

I hope Mr Beazley that you can put personal feelings aside, just for a time to consider those of us who would prefer choice. You already have the choice of doing nothing in your personal situation, we, on the other hand, would prefer the choice of doing something!

Please reject the Bill.

Mary Walsh