- QUEENSLAND LAW SOCIETY  10/10/06 from a contributor -

Mr Matthew Dunn
Queensland Law Society
QLS Principal Policy Officer
Townsville 4814

10/10/2006
Email (m.dunn@qls.com.au )

Dear Mr Dunn

With you being the Queensland Law Society (QLS) Principal Policy Officer I am corresponding by way of response to the Qld Advocacy Report as contained on page 27 of the September edition, 2006 QLS Proctor magazine. It is with a focus on the report covered therein RE:- (A Human Rights and Responsibilities Act for Queensland) that prompted me to respond, as set out below.

Having internalized what I have witnessed to-date by suffering irreversibly ill people in institutional and in at-home care, being systemically discriminated against by being forced to cruelly endure against their will to the very end, thus motivates me to contribute by way of input for consideration within the Advocacy Group’s deliberations.

To avoid anti-discrimination against the dying and respect for peoples stated choice within a registered “Qld Advanced Health Directive Document” in my opinion, there should be both a Legal and Human Rights provision as an inalienable civil right for all citizens to have inter-personal choice to accommodate patient directed dying in end of life decisions.

With suicide not being un-lawful and where some irreversible ill people experiencing unrelenting suffering are unable to self-deliver, because of a psychically debilitating condition, they may require compassionate assistance to bring about a desired, shorter more merciful path to the same end.

With reference to the above, it is disappointing to note how our inflexible draconian Assisted Suicide Criminal code decrees it murder to compassionately assist somebody who desires a choice regarding the quality of their own death and in this enlightened era, why should it be deemed a crime to assist a non-crime ??


It was the past great English statesman Edmund Burke (1729-1797) who once said “That bad laws are the worst kind of tyranny” which is as true today as when first spoken.

With reference to the aforementioned, the Encyclopaedia Britannica defines murder “as to kill with malice”. Contra wise, I feel it pertinent to amplify how requested Assisted Suicide hardly fits this definition, as no malice is intended or involved

Sometimes in the public interest obligatory outmoded law and questionable Government criteria needs to be challenged and reviewed in line with all past and recent consistent nationally surveyed, contemporary majority supported community needs.

In stating this, it prompts me to create a focus on the legislated “Queensland Guardianship and Administration Act -2000” that governs the Queensland Advanced Health Directive document. In citing the principles in question, within the Act, I am wondering if these principles could be interpreted more liberally by a higher Judiciary Decision as to that, authoritatively applied in the Qld Advanced Health Directive.. Set out below for the Advocacy Committees consideration, are the cited principles in question within the Guardianship and Administration Act.

(2)Human Rights:- Regardless of the decision making capacity, everybody has the same rights, including the protection of individual liberty and access to services. Decisions must realize the importance of encouraging the adult to exercise his/her rights.

(3) Individual value:- each person is valued as an individual, and his / her human worth dignity are respected

(6) Encouraging Self-Reliance:- Decision-makers must recognize the importance an adult to be as autonomous and self-reliant as possible-physically, emotionally and intellectually.

(8) Maximum participation in decision-making:- The adult has the right to participate to the greatest practical extent in the decisions affecting his/her life.


(These decisions, the development of policies, programs and services for people with impaired decision capacity). The application of this principal entails-

(1) Giving the adult any necessary support and access to information to help him/her to participate in such decisions.

(2) Seeking and taking into account, to the greatest extent practicable, the adults views and wishes, whether they are expressed orally, in writing or through interpreter’s or other communication systems.


(9 )Substituted Judgment:- If it is possible to work out from the adult’s previous his/her views and wishes would be, then these must be taken into account in any decision.

(13) Confidentiality:- The decision- makers must recognize the adult’s confidentiality, in relation to personal information.

In focusing upon the above Guardianship and Administration Act principles, that govern the (AHD) it will also be noted therein how the latter, lawfully provides for passive euthanasia via the turning off of both life-support systems and the refusal of life- sustaining medical treatments. Whilst the (AHD) provides for this supposed passive approach, there is no such provision for a merciful quick end-of –life option by way of an active medically-assisted termination.

Contrary to the best interest of those patients who invoke their legal rights, the (AHD) consequently allows those in authority to sit by and cruelly watch as the suffering terminally ill endure a slow agonizing death. Such an unconscionable situation may be legally viewed as discrimination against the dying and if so then a case may exist to pursue ones rights under a proposed judiciously constituted future “Human Rights and Responsibilities Act”.

With the (AHD) empowering the patient to lawfully have somebody turn off his/her life-support device, must be surely seen as not passive, but actively assisting that person to die. This situation creates a very fine line indeed between a law that allows a patient to dictate in order to hasten death as opposed to the archaic Assisted Suicide law that decrees it a serious crime to be even in the same room as a person committing suicide, which is legal. If an accommodating future “Human Rights and Responsibilities act” were to come into future being, then in the public interest this would make a valuable contribution to influencing a more equitable liberal Justice Department interpretation in law which hopefully may placate this perplexing, vexed, majority supported social issue.

In the event of failure by an evolutionary “Human Rights and Responsibilities Act” to adequately address this regrettable situation, then perhaps the QLS Advocacy Group associated with Societies Criminal Law section could recommend an amendment to the (AHD) document under section (3) re:- “Terminal, incurable or irreversible conditions. The inclusion of an additional straight forward question on page (11) of the (AHD) under Other Treatment’s could provide the informed terminally ill, with the autonomy and timing to choose at the behest of the patient’s oral or prior recorded wishes.

When the wonders of modern medicines have run out of miracles for so many hopeless sad situations we should be mindful to ask ourselves, who do we think decides “Your end of life scenario”?? The reality is “Not you”, because presently one does not have the autonomy as a basic Human Right to decide. Subsequently everybody should ask themselves “Do they think that they should have the right to decide for themselves”? based on a time of their own choosing.

When reflecting on the aforementioned, it is relevant to focus on the timeless words of Runyard kipling (1865-1936) who said “No price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself”.

With these words having a correlation with the Qld “Guardianship and Administration Act principles”, a key question at the core of the equation is “Who owns my life”. Whilst it appears difficult for some religious devout people to resolve this question in their minds and discounting pious deception we should all ask ourselves “Who owns my life” and if not ourselves “Then who”

With your organization representing an august body of learned influential people, one sincerely trusts that the QLS possesses the capacity to futuristically influence the evolution of a more caring liberated society with well reasoned humanitarianism.

The above and attached is for your consideration and it is in anticipation that I await a reply at your earliest convenience.

Yours sincerely

Contributor's Name & Address Supplied

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