- LETTER TO SENATOR CHRIS ELLISON 20/04/05 -

Dear Senator

In acknowledging receipt of your letter of reply Ref: MC05/4691 and MC05/5164 dated 9Th June 2005, the content of which I have read with interest, I wish to thank you for the courtesy of replying and I wish to advise, as set out below.

At the outset I would like to convey that as a civic minded person, and whilst not a member of any political party, however I do have a penchant for highlighting injustice.

In addressing the second paragraph within your reply, you refer to the illegal circumventing of the 1995 Customs Prohibitive Export Regulations which were more recently amended, the effect of which was incompatible with public realism. Such amendments along with the Criminal Code Amendment ( Suicide Related Material Offences) Bill 2005 hardly projects humanist ideals, especially with the Government intent, being to prevent the irreversible ill and those suffering unrelenting pain and distress from accessing autonomous end of life options and associated counseling.

With reference to paragraph (4) we must never loose sight of the fact that Australians are freedom - loving people. As such and with reference to the provisions within the Australian Constitution which proclaims liberty and freedom of speech as cherished principles of good Government, evokes me to state the following.

On the question of some possible conflict with the Constitution, I feel sure that the nation's founding fathers would not have wanted to see our freedoms or any future technological advances that facilitates personal communication to be fettered by
draconian legislation.

Whilst my perception may be wrong and I may stand correcting, however in accord with our freedom of speech, I expect that one could legally address a gathering and openly talk to and counsel people on the various methods available to commit suicide. But under the proposed pending legislation, my understanding is, if the same person utilized the phone, Fax or the internet to convey the identical information this would place them in breach of the law, which is nonsensical. People don't fear justice, they fear injustice and this situation is clearly unjust.

With reference to paragraph (5) of your reply, the following is quoted verbatim: "The offences in this Bill will not capture individuals who are researching material about suicide for personal use", end of quote. Hypothetically speaking, a person undertaking such research in accord with the freedom of information can legally reach out to the person who imparted the relevant information to the previously mentioned gathering on the methods available to suicide. However, if that person from whom such advice is sought is unavailable at the time and upon request he returns the call to convey the sought-after counseling and assistance, then this places the return caller in breach of the law, which is absurd.

In this era of enlightenment where Governments should be displaying broad discretion, then surely such legal impediments should not be today's option where our law makers are concerned.

The peoples elected representatives who govern our island continent should be more circumspect and aware of the liberal social changes occurring elsewhere in the world around us. Along with the Netherlands, Belgium and Oregon (U.S) it was with well reasoned humanitarianism that the progressive liberal thinking small country of Switzerland decriminalized its punitive Assisted Suicide law in 1937, in fact the year I was born 68 years ago.

During this time span and contrary to common misconceptions, espoused by some misguided minority sectarian and right to life groups, Switzerland reports that there has been no reported cases involving criminality. With the advantage of hindsight, this welcomed social change in Swiss law has been overwhelmingly popular with its citizens.

Being all for life and the quality of life and being one of the approximate 70-80% majority who support autonomy and dignity in end of life decisions, I believe that there should be limits to the authority of society over the individual, if the individual is not injuring the interest of another.

The above is for both yours and your political colleague's consideration.

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

Yours truly

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