- LETTER TO VICTORIAN PARLIAMENTARIANS 12/07/06 -

To the Politician of Victoria Parliament: as addressed:________________________

Please permit me to present you with some reading matter on the subject of Choice and Dignity in dying. These pages consist of Media Articles, excerpts from my website under My Diary and Letters from the general public. I would be very grateful if you would give them some attention during your busy schedule, and perhaps see them as more thought provoking in an election year.
I would like to clarify that I understand Ms Pike is the Health Minister and that Ms Barker, Member for Oakleigh, is my Representative in Parliament. However, from the viewpoint that you will all vote on these matters eventually as a Member of Parliament I needed reassurance that we in the general community are being heard. I need to think that Politicians in representing their constituents know they are making decisions which affect the broader community that is all Victorians.
Thank you in anticipation for your consideration of these matters.

Mary Walsh

www.yourchoiceindying.com

July 12, 2006

Your views on dying with dignity? (An Article published in The Age)
By Neil Francis

July 1, 2006

It is time for Victorian MPs to tell us where they stand on this issue

Today is the 10th anniversary of the first law in the world to recognise the right of terminally ill people with profound suffering to request medical assistance to die with dignity. Enacted in the Northern Territory in 1996, it operated for nine months before being overthrown by the Federal Government.

In the past 10 years, similar laws have come into operation in the Netherlands, Belgium, Switzerland and Oregon in the United States. Many US states are moving towards it. So are Japan and a number of other countries. Annual audits of the Oregon law in operation over eight years have clearly demonstrated a complete absence of abuse of the process.

In Victoria, new Liberal Party leader Ted Baillieu has already made it clear that he is strongly in favour of voluntary euthanasia but will not seek to make it law unless it has widespread support. It already has.

The overwhelming majority of Australians believe the terminally ill should have a right to choose to die with medical assistance. Independent polls since 1978 have consistently shown this. In the most recent poll (Morgan 2002), 73 per cent of Australians and 76 per cent of Victorians want this law reform and, in repeated surveys, the majority of people from all major religions in Victoria want it. Legislation therefore lags behind the will of the people.

The Federal Government does not have the power to override state voluntary euthanasia legislation.

Steve Bracks has been Victorian Premier for more than six years, but we still have little idea of his position on many social issues such as this. In the lead-up to the next Victorian election, he and all Victorian politicians are being asked where they stand on this issue. Members of the non-profit organisation Dying With Dignity Victoria are asking their elected representatives and election candidates this question, and responses are being posted on the society's website at www.dwdvictoria.org.au

During the brief time the Northern Territory act was in operation, Bob Dent, suffering dreadfully from terminal cancer, became the first person in the world to die legally with medical assistance. After careful deliberation, he pressed a button indicating his decision to end his life and then dropped off to sleep and died peacefully within 10 minutes. People throughout the world are demanding this ultimate right of choice for terminal sufferers, and Victoria is no exception.

Last year, Steve Guest, a terminal cancer sufferer in great pain, publicly appealed for changes to be made to the Victorian law to enable him die with dignity. As he pointed out, terrible suffering and unintended negative consequences occur when there is no right to medical assistance to die with dignity. With no other recourse, many terminal patients attempt to hasten their own end by violent means such as hanging, knife wounds, overdose, exhaust gassing or jumping in front of a train. Even more tragically, many attempts fail, leaving the sufferer in a worse condition.

At present, anyone in Victoria giving advice or assistance to a terminal sufferer who takes their own life risks 14 years' jail. Even being present when the sufferer takes their own life means a risk of prosecution. The result is that sufferers often end their own lives in isolation to avoid the risk of their loved ones being prosecuted. It's a very lonely way to depart this earth and leaves many relatives with feelings of guilt and anxiety - for being powerless to help the sufferer experience a more dignified, humane and loving departure.

Despite this threat of incarceration, Dr Rodney Syme, president of Dying With Dignity Victoria, has counselled more than 500 terminal sufferers over the years including Steve Guest, for which he continues to be under police investigation. Many sufferers say the availability of advice and medical options itself provides such a profound peace of mind about their end of life that they often don't have to avail themselves of the end immediately.

So, 10 years after the world's first legislation, we are now poised for change in Victoria. Victorians are in overwhelming support of the rights of the terminally ill to die with dignity. The proposals for law reform put forward by Dying With Dignity Victoria in a legislative charter, posted on its website, have already been endorsed by the Australian Nurses Federation (Victoria), the Doctor's Reform Society of Australia, the Victorian AIDS Council, the Victorian Council for Civil Liberties and the Humanist Society of Victoria, as well as by a number of Victorian politicians.

Ultra-conservatives will no doubt continue to make a lot of vitriolic noise in opposition to reform. However, theirs is a stand squarely against the respect for terminally ill people to choose for themselves whether they wish to continue or to go. This time, a November state election is confronting an electorate that is more galvanised and more informed. The will of the people of Victoria is for compassionate recognition of the right for the terminally ill to make their own choices.

Neil Francis is vice-president of Dying with Dignity Victoria.

Cut & Paste from My Diary Pages follows:

Wednesday, July 5, 2006: 5 am
Article from the Age Newspaper July 4
Euthanasia showdown By Annabel Stafford, Canberra

The Commonwealth is heading for a showdown with South Australia over plans to introduce a voluntary euthanasia bill before the end of the year.
A decade ago, the Federal Government overturned Northern Territory legislation allowing euthanasia. But Canberra does not have the same power over States as it does over territories, which means that if a bill goes through it will stand.

After reports that an Adelaide woman travelled to Switzland to end her life, two members of the South Australian Parliament have signaled their intention to put up a voluntary euthanasia bill.

Labor backbencher Steph Key said that while it would be the sixth time such a bill had been introduced in SA in the past decade or so, she was hopeful that this time it would pass. Ms Key, who has just returned from a fact-finding mission to the Netherlands, and independent MP Bob Such said they planned to introduce a euthanasia bill.

"I get the impression there is genuine support for voluntary euthanasia." Ms Key said.

Choices Comment: Unfortunately the article does not clarify in which manner a "showdown" may occur. Any one who reads newspapers will be aware of Canberra's greedy eyes on State powers....If Canberra interferes in State Politics I think we will have an entirely different type of "slippery slope" and it has already started with the ABC Board of Channel 2 Television. Sometimes though recently it has been hard to tell the Labor Party from the Libs......

More than the VE issue, causing concern is Australia's involvement in American politics, and the Israeli spokesperson linking us all together in condoning the taking of Hamas Politicians prisoner in retaliation for the abduction of a single soldier, made me despair of peace in the Middle East. (Hamas may be seen as terrorist to the West, but in their own country, they are seen as Freedom Fighters. It just depends on your perspective of ownership. Would Aboriginals fighting for land be seen as "terrorists" in Australia?)

And Australia, like Vietnam before, has been dragged into an abyss of point scoring, , where neither party will give an inch. With globalisation upon us we are leaving a very bad legacy for our children. And we do this all in the Name of God on both sides!

But! back off my soap box!

I think we are in more strife in Victorian with the incumbent Labor Government than South Australia. Keep the Church out of Politics, or keep Politics out of End of Life Choices. The communities' peace of mind should not be a political football of egos to be kicked around at will!

Those who favoured the Andrews Bill

Eric Abetz, (Lib Tas): Richard Alston, (Lib Vic): Mark Bishop, (ALP, WA): Ron Boswell, (Nat. Qld): David Brownhill, (NSW NP): Ian Campbell (Lib. WA): Grant Chapman (Lib SA): Jacinta Collins, (ALP Vic): Mal Colston. (Ind Qld) (I feel, we all remember Mal!) Stephen Conroy, (ALP Vic): Helen Coonan (Lib NSW): Barney Cooney (ALP Vic): Alan Eggleston (Lib WA): Chris Ellison (Lib WA): Chris Evans (ALP WA); Alan Ferguson (Lib SA): Jeannie Ferris (Lib SA): Michael Forshaw (ALP NSW): Brian Gibson (Lib Tas) Brian Harradine (Ind Tas): Bill Hefferman (Lib NSW): John Herron (Lib Qld): John Hogg (ALP Qld): Rod Kemp (Lib Vic): Sandy MacDonald (Nat Qld): Julian McGauran (Nat Vic): Nick Minchin (Lib SA): Belinda Neal (ALP NSW): Bill O'Chee (NP Qld): Warwick Parer (Lib Qld): Kay Patterson (Lib Vic): Nick Sherry (ALP Tas): Jim Short (Lib Vic): John Tierney (Lib NSW): Judith Troeth (Lib Vic): John Watson (Lib Tas): Sue West (ALP NSW) John Woodley (Dem Qld).

38 Votes for: against 33 which included Lyn Allison (Aust Dem Vic): Robert Ray (ALP Vic): Kim Carr (ALP Vic) 3 Abstained (No Vic)

A small number of these names are no longer in politics. I've often wondered whether Mal Colston regretted his decision to support the Andrews Bill, as he lay dying of stomach cancer. Whether his journey had taken him to that place of understanding the need for relief from intense pain or whether he laid back and offered his pain up to God. Mr Andrews took 9 months to bring down what Marshall Perron had worked so hard to achieve. I wonder if some time in the future Mr Kevin Andrews will develop an ailment that will propel him to an understanding why for others; a religious belief is insufficient comfort when facing the demons of bad health. I know there are many people who hope that he does not leave this earth without sharing some of the pain he perpetuated with his Bill.

On the 10th December, 1996 Victoria's Premier of the day went on public record attacking the Andrews Bill. Later, he saw the danger of the Federal Government introducing legislation curbing State and Territory powers. He commented then that he suspected parliamentarians in Canberra are light years behind public opinion on this issue, and with the Andrews Bill, had cut short an "experiment" on which other States could have based similar legislation. (The Australian Newspaper: March 28, 1997).

Come back Mr Kennett - all is forgiven - just don't touch the hospitals, schools, transport - but as there is nothing left to sell off now, we need some rational thought in the debate, which even the most conservative would agree, has been a "considered one for a sensitive and difficult issue"! Perhaps Mr Kennett can talk to Mr Baillieu and inspire him to stop being coy and start having the strength of his convictions on behalf of the 73%! I remember thinking at the time that Jeffery Kennett was speaking from the heart indicating a personal understanding of endured pain.

The polls which indicate 73% in favour of restricted voluntary euthanasia (being selfish, I would settle for legal recognition of Living Wills or Advance Directives) are 73% of voters. In Victoria it is 76%. No one wants to be the next Maria Korp! and no one wants the agony that the family were forced to endure because forward planning of the community has not been treated seriously. All the paperwork attached to Respecting Patient Choices (A Victorian Initiative of the Austen Hospital) informs us that whatever we request, will not be legally binding on our care givers.

Mr Ted Baillieu is at least on public record as a supporter of the concept which demonstrates a lack of religious interference in his capacity as a politician. That was ten years ago. I want his current views as Leader of the Victorian Opposition. To be told he wants proof of further commitment to the cause by Victorians at 76%, one wonders what number would he settle for to be convinced of wide spread support.

With meeting people on the street, the one lesson I have learnt above all others, is the lack of public knowledge about their rights for end of life choices. So many think "their relatives and doctors will ensure they do not suffer" but I've told them, no one wants to go to jail for twenty years - nor do they have the right to expect that of those left behind.

It just means that "forward planning" takes on a whole new dimension!

Tuesday, July 4, 2006: 10 am

THE AGE LETTERS:

Letter No 1 "What are you waiting for Ted?"

The article "Dying with dignity (Insight 1/7) states that new state Liberal leader Ted Baillieu indicates support on this issue, but will not seek to make it law unless "wide spread support" is evident. With almost three quarters of Victoria's population indicating support for legislation to be passed, we are at a loss as to why there is continued hesitation from the Leader of the Opposition. Does he want 90% or perhaps 100 per cent support?

In politics one has to stand up for what one believes in, regardless of what the statistics indicate. So, how about it Ted? Show us and the rest of Victoria what you are made of.
John Wassenberg, Rosebud

Letter No 1 (They shoot horses, don't they?)
We are an odd society in some ways. We have not the slightest compunction in publicly discussing the most intimate details of our lives, and we insist on the right to all sorts of freedoms. Yet when it comes to the most intimate act of all, we remain incomprehensibly coy. Neil Francis' article ("Your views on dying with dignity" Opinion 1/7) focuses on just this issue, and the reluctance of our politicians to tackle it.
Dying is something that concerns every human being on this planet irrespective of race, gender or political persuasion. We all have to face our own demise, and some of us will be forced to do so in ways that question our right to call ourselves civilised.
Why is it so hard for those who purport to act in our interests to tackle this problem head on? Why does death remain such a taboo topic, and why is there not wider outrage at the lack of effective mechanisms when life has run its course? Is there any valid reason why each of us should not be allowed to die with dignity an in a manner of our choosing? We enact laws to ensure that animals are treated humanely; we punish humans who allow their pets to suffer - yet we continue to deny ourselves the right to end our own suffering or to choose a more dignified and peaceful end of life.
Perhaps each of us needs to think carefully about that day in the future when we too will die, and to ask ourselves what choices we will have at that time. Sometimes a little selfishness can be a great motivator.
Bob Thomas, Blackburn South

Letter No 2 (Merciless, cruel, selfish)

In April, my father, a dignified, intellectual man died of pancreatic cancer. Though medical staff eventually managed his physical pain, the obvious anguish he suffered at losing control over his mental faculties and personal hygiene was extremely distressing to watch. His illness was thankfully relatively short. I can barely imagine what it must be like to suffer so for months or years with no prospect of any quality of life.
Those who oppose medically assisted dying for terminally ill people are merciless, cruel and selfish. Victorian politicians who oppose 76% of Victorians who want to legitimise dying with dignity are also wilfully stupid.
Dr Meredith Doig, East St Kilda

Letter No 3 (A Shameful Way to Die)

Four years ago my 93 year old mother, in full possession of her faculties but trapped in a body that had been restricted to bed for many years, cried out for release from her intolerable pain and suffering. She took the only dignified option that was available to her - refusing food and water - while her family (and doctor) looked on in a societally imposed impotence.
It was shameful to allow a grand lady to die. Our society must advance to a point where compassion for the dying takes precedence over the selfish fixations of the living.
Jim Goodin, Camberwell

Letter No 4 (Patronising)

In Medical emergencies - common at my age of 87 - I make it clear to all that "if my heart stops, leave it stopped". Oh, that I should be so lucky!. If not, then it is patronising for anyone of whatever faith or persuasion to deny me my right to die with medical assistance to ease the way.
Pauline Reilly, Aireys Inlet

Letter No 5 (Dying)

Yes, Neil Francis (Opinion 1/7) it is time for Victorian MPs to tell us where they stand on the issue of medical assistance to the dying. Death is not the enemy to many terminally ill or deeply suffering people but a welcoming friend - and the thought of being legally able to ask for help would give great peace of mind.
Marian Sargood, Prahran

Plus: three additional letters
These three letters have been sent to some twenty or so politicians including Mr Bracks (Premier), Mr Baillieu, Opposition Liberal Leader, Ms Bronwyn Pike, Minister for Health, and Ms Helen Shardey, Shadow Minister for Health.

(1) My letter............tackling the legal issue (received by email from a contributor.)
Will our MP's face the Facts?

In support of "Your views on dying with dignity" (1 July) by Neil Francis.

Fact being that there is no Legislation before the Victorian Parliament re:
Advance Directives entitled "Respecting Patient Choices" forms being given to some patients by health care workers. This pilot study by Austin Health being used at the moment is one step in the direction 73% of Australians and 76% of Victorians who support dying with dignity want to see. But until there is Statuary Legislation, and amendments made to the Medical Treatment Act 1988, as was proposed at the May Conference of The Victorian Labor Party in May. They are as dubious (even though they are filed in a "Green Sleeve"), as any other advance directive previously submitted, especially a person over 65 years of age.

It is welcome news that our MP's maybe looking out of our state, towards Qld, SA, and WA who are also being forced to listen to the voters in their electorates as they either have or are introducing their bills.

These voters are very informed about the possible outcomes of their health conditions. The prospect of maybe spending many years in a nursing home, in not their idea of dignity for themselves or their families.

This is not a criticism of care in these places, but a CHOICE being made while they are still able to. Most are exceedingly grateful for the medical skills that have enabled them to live reasonably active lives in spite of on going health conditions. I am more mentally capable than my body, now in slow painful decline, affecting my mobility. I am house bound, but not considered terminal.

My lobbying for voluntary euthanasia began in 1983 after watching my father die an agonising death from cancer, and then caring for my mother for 13 years after she suffered a stroke.

Face the fact that Legislation and serious debate is needed to make the fuzzy feel good talk clearer and to reflect the wishes of the people not on religious or party lines. Informed people have already made a choice on those issues.
(Name & addressed supplied:)

(2) Dated June 21, 2006 received by Choice, June 29th
Dear Mrs Walsh
I am a 92 year old childless widow, an Atheist in reasonable health, who has spent more than 60 years working to gain the right for voluntary euthanasia when life seems meaningless to me, but without success.
I regret that I can no longer be active as you wish but it takes me all my time to maintain my independence.
However I could take a telephone call if you wish
Yours sincerely,
Name & address supplied
PS Excuse the typewriter, but it is aged too.

(3) Another Letter received by Choice, dated June 7, 2006:
I agree wholeheartedly on your views on the matter of self determination about ones own death. Every individual should be able to make their own choice, even if we disagree with it. Other people’s views may be different to mine but I would always defend their right to have their view, provided they don’t try and force me to accept it.
If they prefer to spend years suffering before death let them, but they have no right to expect others to do the same all because of their belief system, and currently that’s how things stand. This will change in time as our ageing population realizes this situation and rejects it more and more. Most people I ask believe in voluntary euthanasia, a fairly well known fact these days.
As to my being able to devote time and effort to the cause I am unfortunately not able to do so for health reasons, time has become my greatest enemy and just getting everyday jobs done takes most of that time. If this changes I will let you know. I have no computer and no plans or reason to get one and so am old fashioned and use only the phone and normal mail, hence my letter to you.
A year or so ago I spoke to Martin Ferguson’s Office and asked them what the ALP’s official policy was on voluntary euthanasia. The spokesman for Martin Ferguson could not tell me initially and had to call me back later. They are very cunning and said that they leave the decision to each party member. In this way they do not have to have any official policy and can “sit on the fence” as a party on the matter. In this way they don’t take sides and so therefore offend nobody. Gutless Buggers.
The Liberals probably take the same stand for the same reasons.
If you wish to speak to me my phone number is on the top of the previous page. The evenings are the best time to reach me but please let the phone ring out as I can’t always get to it quickly. Thanks again for your letter.
Regards,

Name and address supplied:

_________________