- RELATED READINGS : POLITICAL -
'All that is required for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing'
- Edmund Burke (1729-1797), Irish born writer and politician -
The Age Newspaper (Federal Politics) Friday June 27, 2008
Article headed Battle looms over euthanasia bill
By MICHELLE GRATTAN
A PUSH to allow the Northern Territory and ACT to legislate for euthanasia has split a Senate inquiry, with Parliament set for a fresh battle over the issue.
Labor senators Patricia Crossin (NT), who chaired the inquiry, Linda Kirk (SA) and Gavin Marshall (Vic) said an amended version of Greens leader Bob Brown's private member's bill should proceed.
But Liberal senators Guy Barnett (Tas), Mary Jo Fisher (SA) and Russell Trood (Qld), together with Labor's John Hogg, who will be president of the new Senate, said the anti-euthanasia status quo should remain.
Democrat senator Andrew Bartlett said the bill should not proceed, urging a national framework be considered.
The co-operation of the states would be required for this as the Federal Parliament only has authority in the territories. Both sides promised a conscience vote on the bill but the crucial issue is whether the Government allocates time for the bill to be debated and voted on in both houses. The Howard government gave time to Kevin Andrews' private member's legislation which overrode an NT law that had given the right of assisted death.
A spokesman for the Prime Minister said the Brown bill would be treated in the same way as comparable legislation in the past, flagging the Government would give it time.
The euthanasia issue splits both main parties. Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has been opposed to its legalisation.
The Brown bill in its current form would repeal the Andrews legislation and revive the NT legislation that was overridden. But the committee said it should not go ahead in that form, so Senator Brown immediately said his revamped bill would simply restore the rights of the territories to legislate on euthanasia.
The three senators supporting the bill "do not necessarily support legalisation of voluntary euthanasia" but stressed the right of territories to self government, without "arbitrary interference by the Commonwealth".
http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,23904036-5001031,00.html
Right-to-die debate will draw Kevin Rudd out
Article from: The Daily Telegraph
By Malcolm Farr
June 23, 2008 12:00am
THE right-to-die debate, highlighted again by the Sydney court case over Graeme Wylie's death, will feed into a critical parliamentary discussion this week.
It will be one of a range of central moral issues testing the political skills and values of Kevin Rudd and Brendan Nelson.
There is a traffic jam of social issues - from funding of abortion in foreign aid, to equal financial rights for same-sex couples - on the legislative highway.
And on Wednesday, the Senate will consider a Bill from Greens leader Bob Brown which would allow the legalisation of euthanasia in the Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory.
Both territories have their own parliaments but the Commonwealth has the power to overrule laws those Parliaments pass.
Brown put his case to the Senate during a second reading speech.
"In 1995 the Northern Territory led the way in Australia by giving its citizens the option to end their suffering with dignity and medical support," he said.
"In 1997, Canberra (the federal government) removed that right. This Bill would redress that action. It reflects the heartfelt views of the majority of Australians on this important issue."
Brown's Bill would repeal the Euthanasia Laws Act 1977, also known as the Kevin Andrews laws, a reference to the conservative Liberal MP and former Howard government minister who launched it.
John Howard allowed a conscience vote on the legislation 11 years ago, and now Rudd and Nelson will be pressed for the same liberty, which they are expected to grant.
Rudd wasn't in Parliament in 1997; Nelson voted for the Andrews Bill.
The Senate will on Wednesday hear from a committee which has been looking into Brown's Bill. The timing is, by accident, remarkable.
Last Thursday, a NSW Supreme Court jury found Graeme Wylie's partner of 19 years, Shirley Justins, guilty of manslaughter for bringing about the death of the alzheimer's sufferer.
Justins' friend Caren Jenning, who had provided the Nembutal which killed Wylie, was convicted of being an accessory to manslaughter. The Greens' right-to-die policy differs from the circumstances of the Wylie matter. They would allow only for a mentally fit person who was dying to make a life-ending decision.
But Brown believes the conjunction of the Wylie case and the Senate committee report will start a public debate which might, late in the year, lead to a vote in Parliament.
Well before then, Rudd and Nelson will be asked their views on euthanasia.
Nelson is almost certain to maintain the conservative tone he has adopted on other social matters such as gay marriage and equal financial rights for same-sex couples.
Rudd's Christian faith could prompt him to oppose the Brown legislation and it could also force him to set out a template of values for his Government.
There rarely was any doubt where John Howard stood on such issues. There is nothing yet clear-cut with Rudd and his Government.
Liberal frontbencher Tony Abbott has challenged Rudd to state his case on moral issues, and to produce that moral template.
On Friday he used a Daily Telegraph blog to outline how in his own instance, as a religious MP, he responded to morally sensitive issues.
Abbott insisted he always backed good public policy, not the strictures of his faith, but also underlined the matter of "values".
"As a politician, I can't base opposition to abortion on demand, for instance, on religious faith but on the consequence for society of taking a people-are-disposable attitude to life," he said.
"This is a hard distinction to grasp but its an important one and its existence in our policy has been very important to our country's success and that of like-minded countries."
Abbott said he was no Captain Catholic, but pointed out - in response to a reader's question as to whether being a Catholic was a career impediment - that of the six NSW Liberals leader starting with Nick Greiner, five had been co-religionists, and that half the 18-member Howard cabinet had been Catholics.
He said that it was a "politician's policies and philosophies (and their characters too) which counts, not their personalities".
"My problem with Mr Rudd and his team is not that they're not decent people. By and large they are decent people," Abbott wrote.
"It's that they don't have the best political values to run a good government.
"Their instinct is for government control rather than personal freedom; it's to regulate rather than trust individuals; it's for government solutions rather than private or community-based ones."
The euthanasia debate could again set Abbott on the "values" trail, leading inevitably to Kevin Rudd.
Media Release from Colleen Hartland MLC
State Member for Parliament for Western Metropolitan Region
Delay will only help Physician Assisted Dying bill
28/05/08
Greens MLC Colleen Hartland is happy to wait another two weeks for the second reading of her Physician Assisted Dying bill. "The longer we wait, the more support we get", said Colleen Hartland.
"Support has grown to an overwhelming 80% of Australians calling for the right to obtain assistance to die, should they need it. The bill has been available for over a month. I'm ready, and Victorians are ready. Let's get on with it."
"The bill provides compassion and support for people who are suffering intolerably, and who want to die. But it also provides safeguards, and regulates a process that is currently going on in the dark," said Colleen Hartland, MLC for Western Metropolitan Region.
"I would like doctors such as Dr Rodney Syme, who I admire for having the courage to act and speak out, to be able to assist in the open. They operate without support, but also without regulation. This legislation will bring it out into the light."
Ms Hartland outlined a range of safeguards in the bill, for patients, medical staff and other Victorians
"The process is transparent, yet private. There are independent checks at every stage, from the second opinion of a doctor, right through to a Coroner's report being presented to parliament. These safeguards are far superior to those in the present system."
"Individual doctors, organisations and health care providers may refuse to participate. At least two independent doctors must be satisfied that the patient is terminally ill or has an advance incurable illness, with no realistic prospect of recovery, and is suffering intolerably. Assistance can only be granted if palliative care is not suitable to the patient. There are penalties of 14 years prison for attempting to unduly influence a sufferer to make a request for physician assisted dying."
"Most importantly, anybody who assists the patient in a formal way, waives any right to inherit or benefit from the death, directly or indirectly. By removing completely the temptation of money or inheritance, we are removing completely any possibility that physician assisted dying will
assist criminals. We are also removing any hint of stain upon the character of the people who assist those who request assistance to die."
"It is likely that the mere existence of physician assisted dying, may give people the courage to continue with the final stage of their illness. They would know that relief will be available, should they need it," said Ms Hartland.Choice Comment: I have a hard copy of the 20 page bill but just can't download it right now so will come back to it at a later date and try again.
http://news.smh.com.au/rudd-explains-why-he-opposes-euthanasia/20080502-2a5z.html
Rudd explains why he opposes euthanasia
May 2, 2008 - 10:56AM
Prime Minister Kevin Rudd remains opposed to voluntary euthanasia but says parliamentarians are entitled to a conscience vote on the issue.
Euthanasia was a complex and difficult area of medicine but laws allowing it could lead to the elderly and terminally ill thinking they were a burden on their loved ones, he said.
The Senate is currently revisiting a decision by the previous government to overturn the Northern Territory's euthanasia laws.
Australian Greens senator Bob Brown has introduced a private member's bill seeking to restore the laws.
Mr Rudd, who supported the Howard government decision, said he was opposed to the move.
"I say that as someone who has ... been in family circumstances where you've seen people very near and dear to you, in the case of myself, my
mother, who died of cancer," he told Macquarie Radio Network.
"It's not pretty to watch but my own personal view ... these are matters for conscience votes.
"If it becomes a mater for vote in the federal parliament, people exercise their conscience differently.
"You asked me directly what my view is, that's it."
The question of whether there would be another conscience vote on euthanasia depended entirely on what proposals were put forward across the country and how they impacted on the federal parliament, he said.
"All these life matters, including euthanasia, have historically been the subject of a conscience vote on the part of our government's members," he said.
"I think I can say the same in relation to the coalition.
"If one came forward, from whatever quarter, then that would be my approach."
Mr Rudd says his opposition to euthanasia is "not some sort of abstract ideological point of view".
"It's just my own personal view ... that if you changed the laws in this area, I do become concerned about the way in which these things can drift over time," he said.
"Particularly in the attitude taken by older people themselves, or people with terminal illnesses, who then conclude that they are being an increasing burden to their families and then conclude that it's in other people's interests, not their own best interests, to seek euthanasia."
Mr Rudd wouldn't comment on a suggestion euthanasia was already being practised illegally in Australia.
"It's a complex area. Really hard. People going through this trauma right now ... I don't apply any judgment whatever."
16th April 2008
Marshall Perron Address (The Northern Territory Minister responsible for the ROTI legislation in 1997 later overturned by the Federal Government because the Northern Territory, along with the ACT and Norfolk Island were treated as incompetent to create Voluntary Euthanasia legislation in their own right. A conservative government ably assisted by Mr Kim Beazley, the then Leader of the Opposition Labor, were able to join forces and overturn the NT legislation.
This particular speech given by Marshall is in response to efforts by Bill Smith, Liberal Member for Bass and Colleen Hartland, Western Metropolitan Upper House to have Legislation supporting Physician Assisted Dying being legalised in Victoria. It was heard on the step of the Victorian Parliament in recognition of the Steve Guest Commemoration Day by a crowd of three hundred, mostly frail elderly Melbournians.
His Speech is as follows:
The Rights of the Terminally Ill Act, passed by the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly in 1995 was based on a relatively simple principle:-
“If there are terminally ill patients who wish to end their suffering by accelerating inevitable death, and there are sympathetic doctors who are willing to help them die with dignity, then the law should not forbid it.”
We in the Territory believed law reform was needed to formalise and decriminalise a practice, which occasionally occurs now, but a practice for which most patients regrettably cannot find sympathetic doctors prepared to risk their careers and liberty.
For a brief period of 9 months we had such a law. In that time, four people used it to seek relief from intolerable suffering through death.
Our opponents predicted disaster—the very fabric of society would crumble.
To describe if the Rights of the Terminally Ill Act was responsible legislation I quote to you the words of a man who voted against it being adopted.
The Hon. Denis Burke, a catholic who had the job of administering the Rights of the Terminally ill Act while it was in operation said after the law was vetoed by the Federal Parliament:-“As Attorney General and Minister for Health the duty fell to me more than any other member of this house, to defend what I believed to be truly democratic legislation. It was a pleasant duty. I was well able to put aside my personal opinions and debate, on a number of occasions, with commentators who sought to question the merits of the legislation and attempted to find weaknesses in it. While it was in operation, I can say honestly that I thought that it was good legislation in that, once passed by this House, it survived every attack by academics and theologians.
When it was finally overridden, one would have to say is all honesty that that legislation needed not one word of amendment in terms of its workability in delivering the intent of the legislature.”
Those are the words of a man who originally opposed the law, had the job of overseeing its implementation and who later become the Chief Minister of the NT.Oregon in the United States has for ten years now allowed its adult citizens a right to physician assisted dying in limited circumstances. The law has operated with great scrutiny from every quarter and has demonstrated that responsible safeguards can be devised to render the practice safe from abuse.
Studies backed by the Oregon government have shown there has been no cause for concern that the so called ‘vulnerable’ in society are at risk … There is not a sign of the slippery slope!
Time to Stop Pretending
It’s time we stopped pretending doctors are not helping people die without safeguards or scrutiny—time we stopped pretending palliative care satisfies every patient’s needs—stopped pretending elderly citizens are not choosing to die violently in fear of an undignified or painful death.
Just under three million Victorians of voting age want their Parliament to adopt a dying with dignity law. That’s a mandate politicians ought to get excited about.
Here is an issue, which will relieve fear and suffering, reduce violent suicides, restore dignity and extend lives.
Responsible legislation should be boldly put on the Victorian Parliamentary agenda with a demand it be debated.
After all, you are not asking your Politicians to lead—you are asking them to catch up!
Catch up with the 30 million in Europe and the United States who have access to medical assistance to die with dignity.
Catch up with the million Victorians who want the dying with dignity option.Let’s get on with it!
Marshal Perron
Former Chief Minister of the Northern Territory
ON EUTHANASIA
A letter published in the Northern Territory News, April 17 which basically tells the religious groups to stay out of the politics of voluntary euthanasia
My friend hung himself 4 freedom from painful, terminal illness. He should have been entitled to go with dignity. No person or religious group has the right to decide 'no' for every1 else.
To christian groups keep your noses out of peoples lives, government and health. Keep to what u know best.....yourself.
Maybe if one of the australian christian lobby members had to watch a loved one die of terminal bowel cancer, they would whistle a different tune.
Footnote by Choice: they do watch, but they don't have sufficient compassion within their own belief system to really understand the depth of someone's else suffering. They feel sufficiently superior within themselves to withstand the health dramas associated with terminal cancer, that until they arrive at their journey they cannot possibly know the cost of the ticket! And who would wish it on them? to learn the hard way - our way!
http://www.geelongadvertiser.com.au/article/2008/04/17/13130_news.html
Die with dignity rally draws hundreds
17Apr08
HUNDREDS of people remembered Point Lonsdale man Steve Guest in a rally at State Parliament yesterday.
Holding placards saying 'Let's get on with it,' the pro-euthanasia supporters backed a private members Bill introduced to State Parliament that will allow medically-assisted suicide.
Mr Guest committed suicide in July 2005 after taking a powerful barbiturate banned for human use.
Last year, pro-euthanasia campaigner Dr Rodney Syme admitted prescribing the drugs to Mr Guest.
Yesterday's rally heard from former Victorian Law Reform Commission chairman Professor David Kelly and Marshall Perron, the former Chief Minister, who introduced right-to-die legislation in the Northern Territory.
Mr Perron said Victorians should demand the issue be given prominence on the Parliamentary agenda.
"Here is an issue which will relive fear and suffering, reduce suicide, restore dignity and extend lives," he said.
"After all you are not asking your politicians to lead. You are asking them to catch up."
Mr Perron said 30 million people in Europe and the US had died with dignity.
Prof Kelly said doctors who assisted people, such as Mr Guest, risked prosecution under present legislation.
But he said the Bill now before parliament would allow medical professionals to help terminally-ill people to end their lives.Footnote by Choice: I attended the rally in which Mr Perron, I believe, said that 30 million people had access to dying with dignity which is not quite the same as "had actually died with dignity because of their own choice". They merely had access to its opportunities.
Furthermore, the bill as I understand it, is not before parliament yet, as the incumbent Labor Government believes there are more important issues to be addressed than acting on behalf of the 80% of voters who have indicated a support for voluntary euthanasia, with legally binding restrictions.
No worries, there'll come a time in each of those politicians lives when they too will have the face their own mortality with or without the choice or option to remain suffering. Suffering and dying has no favorites...We all will do it eventually.
For a comprehensive read of all submissions that weren't marked confidential please go to the dropdown menu on top of the main page of this website and under, Viewpoints, see the full list available including those from all the Voluntary Euthanasia Societies of Australia, the Law Reform, and anti ve views from both the medical profession and religious organisations.
http://www.livenews.com.au/Articles/2008/04/17/Growing_support_for_euthanasia_rights_Brown
Growing support for euthanasia rights: Brown
17/04/2008 1:36:00 PM.
Australian Greens leader Bob Brown says there's growing public support for legal euthanasia, despite warnings given to a parliamentary committee.
Senator BROWN introduced a private member's bill in February to restore euthanasia rights in the Northern Territory, and pave the way for their introduction in the ACT.
Yesterday a Senate committee hearing on the bill was told reinstating the NT laws would be an irresponsible legislative action.
Senator Brown's told ABC Radio there's a growing sentiment across the country in favour of the right of the terminally ill to die.
He says the prohibition on the ACT and Northern Territory assemblies legislating euthanasia laws could, and should be removed.
On the 12 March, 2008, The Senate referred the below mentioned Bill to the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs for inquiry and report by 1 May, 2008.
Written submission should be sent to;
Committee Secretary, Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, Department of the Senate, P>O> Box 6100, Parliament House, Canberra ACT 2600, Australia.
Public Hearings are set for, but perhaps subject to change, April 14-15, Darwin, April 15-16, Sydney, and Melbourne to be confirmed at April 17th.
I will post my Submission for publication to this site at a later date: We have until April 9th to complete a Submission.
AUSTRALIAN TERRITORIES RIGHTS OF THE TERMINALLY ILL BILL 2007 Second Reading Speech Senator BOB BROWN (Tasmania-Leader of the Australian Greens) (10.31 a.m.)-I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.
Leave granted.
The speech read as follows-
This is a Bill for an Act to confirm the right of a terminally ill person to request assistance from a medically qualified person to voluntarily terminate his or her life in a humane manner, to allow for such assistance to be given in certain circumstances without legal impediment to the person rendering the assistance, to provide procedural protection against the possibility of the abuse of the rights recognised in this Act, and for related purposes.
The Bill is patterned on the Northern Territory Rights of the Terminally Ill Bill of 1995, which was overturned by the national parliament in 1997. Similar euthanasia laws are now available to the citizens of the Netherlands, Switzerland, Belgium, and the state of Oregon in the United States.
The Medical Journal of Australia has reported that hundreds of terminally ill citizens are assisted to an early death by compassionate medical attendants each year. Indications by terminally ill people that they wish to die are not uncommon even though there remains a social stigma on this issue.
The safeguards against misuse of the option of euthanasia are built into the Bill and this option is only available for adults.
The Bill also takes good account of the option of palliative care and cannot be used where, in the doctor's opinion, palliative care is reasonably available to alleviate the patient's pain and suffering to levels acceptable to the patient.
At least a week must elapse between the day the patient's medical practitioner is told she or he wants to die and the patient has signed a certificate requesting assistance to die. At least 48 hours more must pass before the patient's request is fulfilled. At any time in this process the patient can verbally rescind her or his request.
I commend the Bill to the Senate.
Continue
Senator BOB BROWN-I seek leave to continue my remarks later.
Leave granted; debate adjourned.
RIGHTS OF THE TERMINALLY ILL (EUTHANASIA LAWS REPEAL) BILL 2008 Second Reading Speech Senator BOB BROWN (Tasmania-Leader of the Australian Greens) (10.12 a.m.)-I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
I seek leave to table the explanatory memorandum and to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.
Leave granted.
The speech read as follows-
This is a Bill for an Act to repeal the Euthanasia Laws Act 1997, through which the national parliament overturned the Northern Territory Rights of the Terminally Ill Act 1995. It restores the legitimacy of the Northern Territory legislation, which established the right of a terminally ill person to request assistance from a medically qualified person to voluntarily terminate his or her life in a humane manner, to allow for such assistance to be given in certain circumstances without legal impediment to the person rendering the assistance, to provide procedural protection against the possibility of the abuse of the rights recognised in this Act, and for related purposes. Additionally, my bill will enable the Australian Capital Territory to introduce legislation for the rights of the terminally ill.
In 1995, the Parliament of the Northern Territory passed a law which reflected not only the will of Northern Territorians, but also the strongly held views of the majority of all Australians. Every opinion poll conducted over the last two decades has shown that approximately three-quarters of Australians support the concept of voluntary euthanasia. A poll conducted by Roy Morgan in June 2002 found that seventy percent of those surveyed thought the law should be changed to allow a hopelessly ill patient to seek assistance from a doctor to commit suicide; and seventy- eight percent thought the law should be changed so that it is no longer an offence to be present at such a suicide. A Newspoll in February 2007 found that eighty percent of Australians believe that terminally ill people should have a right to choose a medically assisted death. This poll also found that twenty two percent of respondents nationally have had a personal experience of a close relative or friend being hopelessly ill and wanting voluntary euthanasia. It has been consistently reported that each year hundreds of terminally ill people are assisted to an early and dignified death by compassionate medical professionals.
In the decade since the Euthanasia Laws Act was introduced here, the legal right to die with dignity has been available to the citizens of The Netherlands, Belgium, Oregon in the United States, Israel and Albania. In Switzerland, assisted suicide has been legal since 1918.
Introduction of such laws has not led to a significant increase in the number of people choosing this option. For example in The Netherlands after an initial increase the percentage of deaths as a result of euthanasia, the number has decreased from 2.6% in 2001 to 1.7% in 2005.
In Oregon, according to the health department annual report, an average of 29 individuals has died each year as a result of their Death with Dignity Act - in a population of 3.5 million.
In 1995 the Northern Territory Assembly led the way in Australia by giving its citizens the option to end their suffering with dignity and medical support. In 1997, Canberra removed that right. This bill would redress that action. It reflects the heartfelt views of the majority of Australians on this important issue.
I commend the bill to the Senate.
Continue
Senator BOB BROWN-I seek leave to continue my remarks later.
Leave granted; debate adjourned.
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,23103766-2862,00.html
Mercy kill debate to go ahead
Ellen Whinnett
January 25, 2008 12:00am
VICTORIA is set for an explosive parliamentary debate on euthanasia after the Government agreed not to block the introduction of a Private Member's Bill.
Liberal MP Ken Smith has agreed to introduce a Bill to let doctors help terminally ill patients commit suicide.
Greens MP Colleen Hartland will co-sponsor the Medical Treatment (Physician Assisted Dying) Act 2008, some time in the next six months.
Premier John Brumby's office has written to the pro-euthanasia group Dying with Dignity and assured them it will not stand in the way of the Bill if it is introduced.
Mr Brumby's spokeswoman, Alison Crosweller, said no formal request had been made to introduce the Bill.
Children's and Women's Affairs Minister Maxine Morand had previously supported the group's causes.
But Ms Morand could no longer be a sponsor of the Bill as she has been promoted to Cabinet and is not permitted to sponsor anything except government business.
Dying With Dignity president Neil Francis said he was confident the group would have a replacement co-sponsor from Labor's side of politics, but he would not say who that would be.
MPs already have many controversial social issues this year, including decriminalising abortion, providing IVF to single and lesbian women, and setting up a register for same-sex couples.
But Mr Brumby has never shown support for altering the laws relating to assisted suicide of terminally ill people.
Mr Smith, the Member for Bass, said he felt very strongly about the issue and would definitely be introducing the Bill.
"It's something I believe in very strongly," he said.
"I will be talking to my party but I plan to introduce it anyway."
The move by a Liberal to introduce the Bill is likely to be controversial and cause considerable debate within the party.
If it gets through to a second-reading stage, it's likely the party would be given a conscience vote.
Mr Smith said he was committed because he had seen members of his family die from cancer.
"I don't believe a person suffering a terminal illness, in terrible suffering and pain, should have to go through a period with no dignity, before dying."
Mr Francis said surveys showed 35 per cent of doctors had giving medication to terminally ill patients, expecting they would use it to take their lives.
25 October 2007 from Sydney Star Observer
http://www.ssonet.com.au/display.asp?ArticleID=7250
DR DEATH TARGETS ANTI-GAY MINISTER
by Harley Dennett
World-renowned euthanasia advocate Dr Philip Nitschke is now taking on same-sex marriage equality as an independent candidate in the Victorian seat of Menzies.
His opponent is the federal minister who killed the Northern Territory euthanasia laws, Kevin Andrews.
“He’s tried to ensure gay couples don’t have access to the same rights that heterosexual couples have,” Nitschke said.
“Andrews is quite open about basing his decisions on his Catholic-Christian belief. The problem is it doesn’t reflect what most of the population want.”
Nitschke said he was campaigning against Andrews to give people an alternative on stem-cell research, abortion and same-sex issues.
“I get very worried when people say we don’t mind if the rights are the same, but we can’t call it marriage,” he said.
“We’re talking long-standing commitments, whether they be heterosexual or homosexual. It’s clear to me that there should be no legislative impediment to a relationship between same-sex people.”
Nitschke’s election video is available on YouTube.
15 October 2007 From ABC News (Australia)
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/10/14/2058977.htm
Nitschke isn't being unfairly targeted: Ruddock
Posted Sun Oct 14, 2007 7:18am AEST
Federal Attorney-General Philip Ruddock says any monitoring of euthanasia workshops run by Dr Philip Nitschke is an issue for his department.
Mr Ruddock has rejected suggestions by the euthanasia campaigner that his workshops are being
unfairly targeted because he is challenging the Melbourne seat of the Immigration Minister, Kevin
Andrews.
Dr Nitschke, who is running as an independent, says the Attorney-General's department wrote to him
on Friday to say the content of his workshops might breach classification laws, and Victoria Police
had been alerted.
But Mr Ruddock says there has been no political interference.
"If the officers of the department become aware that there are products that have been refused
classification that are being used or distributed then they do take action to warn those involved about
possible breaches of the law and also law enforcement agencies," he said.
Mr Andrews led the Commonwealth push to override the Northern Territory voluntary euthanasia
laws 10 years ago.
October 9, 2007:
A Political Milestone in England: Perhaps Australia will now follow as a Member of the Willing for War - What about as a Member for Compassion with legalising a person's last wishes as a statutory requirement on those who have the physical care but not the mental capacity to emphasise with the terminally ill. One Christian websites lament but there are others who do understand the need for compassion in understanding the end of life choices, people choose for themselves.
Scare mongers yet again the Lawyers' Christian Fellowship is probably immune to the sentiments felt by the dying, because their own time is yet to come. So full of life, money, and all the trappings a good education can bring, they've yet to arrive at that other space, time, moment in their own lives that would enable a more sympathetic understanding of a person's own rights when there is no good reason for them to live longer. Their prognosis is death and should be allowed to be hastened to order to bring peace to both the ill person and their relatives. It should be an individual's choice without Lawyers ever being involved:
http://www.christiantoday.com/article/euthanasia.assisteddying.concerns.for.christians.in.new.legislation/13722.htm
Euthanasia & assisted-dying concerns for Christians in new Legislation The Lawyers' Christian Fellowship has lamented the coming into force this month of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. While Dignity in Dying, the pro-euthanasia lobby group, described it as “a great day for patient choice!”, the LCF said it was a sad day for many elderly and vulnerable people whose lives could be put at risk.
by Jennifer Gold
Posted: Saturday, October 6, 2007, 10:25 (BST)
The Lawyers' Christian Fellowship has lamented the coming into force this month of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. While Dignity in Dying, the pro-euthanasia lobby group, described it as “a great day for patient choice!”, the LCF said it was a sad day for many elderly and vulnerable people whose lives could be put at risk.
The LCF said that the Act makes it far too simple to make a “Living will”, otherwise known as an advanced decision. Advanced decisions are written in anticipation of a time when a person cannot make their own decisions, so that after becoming incapacitated, wishes are already known.
Living wills also allow people to refuse medical treatment in advance, including life sustaining treatment. This can include the refusal of water and food by tubes, which is regarded as medical treatment.
Without the provision of such treatment some patients will die, not of their illness, but of thirst. For this reason, many believe the provision of nutrition and hydration should be seen not as medical treatment, but as basic care which cannot be withdrawn.
The Act has been referred to as “Back-door Euthanasia”. Elspeth Chowdharay of ‘Best of the Alert’ pressure group has said : "People sign living wills thinking they will die a little bit earlier…….But what this law does not say, and most people do not know, is that they will be condemning themselves to die terribly of thirst."
As well as Living Wills, the Act introduces Lasting Powers of Attorney, or LPAs. These are legal documents which allow others, such as a friend or relative, to make decisions on a patient’s behalf.
This individual is then referred to as an ‘attorney’. The attorney can make decisions not only about financial affairs, but about personal welfare, including what medical treatment the patient should receive.
The LCF explained that it is possible to place restrictions or conditions on the authority the attorney can have, and this can include the authority to give or refuse consent to life sustaining treatments.
Dr Philip Howard, a London gastroenterology hospital consultant, was quoted by The Daily Mail as saying: “The law will lead to real difficulties when a family member has the power to order that someone should die while at the same time they are a beneficiary of the will… Law governing wills and property makes it very difficult to influence someone to make a will in your favour - the Mental Capacity Act has nothing like that sort of safeguard."
The LCF has released a statement saying: “The Code of Practice says Doctors or Healthcare professionals do not have to act against their conscience for living wills and can transfer care to another healthcare professional. It is vitally important that those who consciously object to stopping life sustaining treatment (for religious or other reasons) for living wills are aware of this.
“Unlike Living wills, which desperately need more formal safeguards to protect the elderly and vulnerable, the LPAs do at least have the safeguard that the form has to include a certificate of understanding by an independent third party which confirms that ‘Nobody used fraud or undue pressure to trick or force the donor into making the LPA’.”
The lack of safeguards for living wills is of huge concern, according to the LCF, because of the watertight enforcement of such advance decisions.
One of the main principles in the Act is that any act done or decision made, for or on behalf of a person who lacks capacity must be done, or made, in their “best interests”.
However, there is no description of how this best interest principle ‘theory’ is carried into actual ‘practice’ by attorneys.
One of the key safeguards in the Act, to help attorneys and those making decisions to work out what actually is in someone’s best interests in practice, is a checklist. However, this important checklist is missing from the LPA form.
The LCF says, “This (the checklist’s absence) is surprising since during the passage of the bill the Government recognised this as a key safeguard when concern over the withdrawal of water and food treatment was discussed.”
One of these key safeguards stated that if the decision concerns life sustaining treatment, it must not be motivated in any way by a desire to bring about the person’s death. However, this vital and potentially life-saving statement is missing.
“Dealing with this in the initial guide for Attorneys taking on the role is insufficient,” the LCF has stated. “It will also be difficult for attorneys to practically have regard to the 302 page code of practice.”
There is also no sentence in the LPA – Personal Welfare form itself to make it clear that medical treatment includes the withdrawal of tubes for food and water. This was in the original draft LPA form. It is now mentioned in the guide for the people who want to make a LPA, but not in the guide for the attorney.
The LCF concluded: “We believe the safeguards for both Living wills and Lasting powers of Attorney are insufficient in the Act and should be of major concern to Christians who are concerned for the elderly and vulnerable. It is also of concern to Doctors and healthcare staff, not only those who are religious, but those who work tirelessly to preserve and sustain life.”
September 14, 2007:
Article I'd missed previously in the May 2007 (pg 3) Exit Newsletter
Australian Penthouse Breaks Ranks
This month Exit International found a new, if not slightly odd, ally in Australian Penthouse. In a move that will no doubt challenge the authorities, the June edition of Penthouse has boldly printed extracts from Drs Nitschke& Stewart’s banned Peaceful Pill Handbook.
In a significant article based on an extensive interview with Philip (but no photo shoot), Penthouse has devoted several pages to the issue of Voluntary Euthanasia information and censorship in Australia.
According to Editor, Ian Gerrard, Penthouse is no stranger to censorship. “We’re an adult magazine and I think we should talk about adult issues ... The banning of Philip Nitschke’s (book) has deprived us of yet another choice, pre-emptively silenced yet another debate and stripped away another human right.”
The article continues: “In the Supernanny State, the Government not only wants to tell you how you should live, but how you should die, preferably with as little dignity as possible ... Hopefully the following extracts from this intelligent, reasoned and now totally illegal book will go a small way to redressing the balance.”Choice Comments: Not only do I have an intact complete copy of the book purchased prior to its banning, I also possess one badly burned copy taken from the fire at Canberra Parliament House. Burnt by the authors of The Peaceful Pill Handbook as a symbol of compliance with the ban - I pulled the book clear of the smouldering embers unable to bear the thought of book burning as if Australians lived in Nazi Germany. Hitler too justified the destruction of the most fundamental tool of learning!
Headlines in the Monash Journal (Fairfax Community Network) July 30, 2007:
MP pushes to legalise voluntary euthanasia for a dignified death "Right to Die".
By Cameron Lucadou-Wells
MOUNT Waverley MP Maxine Morand will be at the forefront of a push to legalise voluntary euthanasia next year.
A bill is expected to be presented to State Parliament based on a charter of lobby group Dying with Dignity Victoria — one that allows, under safeguards, a patient to request an oral prescription to end their life.Ms Morand. who addressed a DDV rally on Parliament House steps last month, said her view was based on a patient's self-determination and their right to respect and dignity.
"There are excellent palliative care services in Victoria that satisfy most needs, except in some cases where palliative care doesn't relieve suffering."
Dying with Dignity Victoria claims in surveys that more than 80 per cent of Australians support voluntary euthanasia, but it has not been legalised in any Australian state or territory.
As a former nurse, she said she witnessed patients in profound pain receiving "terminal sedation'', a heavy dose of morphine for the patient to slip away into a coma.
"I wouldn't want my life to end that way and not have the chance to spend my last few hours with family around me, in peace and dignity."
DDV claims in surveys that more than 80 per cent of Australians support voluntary euthanasia, but it has not been legalised in any Australian state or territory.
Ms Morand believed many state parliamentarians supported voluntary euthanasia "in principle", and there should be an open debate on the issue.
She said she addressed the DDV rally because she "wanted to make them aware that there are MPs that agree with them and that there's a need for legislative change".
Liberals' Ken Smith and the Greens' Colleen Mankind also attended the DDV rally,
DDV president Neil Francis said it was possible to provide safeguards to ensure a patient's decision to die was their own.
"Suggestions that there would be family pressure on people to die is just a scare campaign. You can document a person's request."Palliative Care Australia president Margaret O'Connor said efforts should be focused on adequate palliative care services throughout the country, rather than a euthanasia debate.
She said it was difficult to get adequate palliative care in rural and remote areas.
"We've got palliative care treatments that can meet the majority of people's needs."
She said in 20 years of working in palliative care, she had come across "two or three" patients who couldn't be relieved.
"But there's a little maxim — hard cases make bad law."What do you think? Write to Monash Journal, PO Box4305, Wantirna South, 3152 or journal@fairfax.com.au
OPINIONS ON EUTHANASIAIn support or against?
Kirstie Marshall (Forest Hill, ALP):
I do support in principle this model of voluntary euthanasia. I hope that if I was in tnis position, legislation would support me in any decision I wanted to make.
I believe this is a reasonable charter that weighs the needs of the individual against protecting family and friends against the threat of prosecution.Ann Barker (Oakleigh, ALP): I certainly support the right of people who are suffering terminal or incurable illnesses to be able to die with dignity. At tnis stage I am supportive of considering advanced medical directives which would ensure that A person can complete a legal document which states quite clearly that they wish to withdraw treatment and basically be kept very comfortable at the end stage of their life.
Daniel Andrews (Mulgrave, ALP):
I'm of of the view that the provisions of the Medical Treatment Act is adequate.Kim Wells (Scorosby, liberal):
I do not support voluntary euthanasia. Having experienced a very difficult time with the passing of my own father, I support current intensive palliative care measures.
Choice Comment: I am personally stunned by Ann Barker's publicised "opinion on euthanasia", as my Sitting Member for Oakleigh I had little reason to believe she remotely supported anything I'd worked for. While I am grateful that at last, at long last she has committed herself to a position, that in itself is a rarity, I will await developments in Parliament with interest.
July 30, 2007:
June 2007 Article: Veterans' Affairs Newsletter
Labor will Boost Funds for Suicide Prevention Program
At the Queensland RSL Congress, Shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs Alan Griffin announced a Rudd Labor Government will implement reforms and increase financial assistance to the Applied Suicide and Intervention Skills Training Program (ASIST), currently utilised by the Department.
Labor will provide an extra $1 million over four years to programs aimed at preventing suicides by military Veterans. This will support a range of reforms to service provision in this area, including:
• Greater promotion of ASIST through an increase in its advertising and marketing budget.
• More information and training sessions to be held in rural and regional areas.
• Increased financial assistance for participants in order to encourage higher participation.
• An expansion of the suite of programs to lie offered by ASIST trainers.Labor has expressed concern about the problem of suicide within the Veteran's community and their families. At the recent Estimates hearings Labor learnt of some of the tragic circumstances surrounding the death of a young SAS soldier upon his return from Afghanistan.
In response to a question on notice' from Labor, the Department revealed at least 31 Veterans have committed suicide as a result of their .service over the past five years.
This is a sad and tragic statistic. However, this is far from the whole story. The Department made the point that they do not include those on the Special Rate TP1 pension or Veterans waiting for their claims to be processed in these figures. This is very concerning as these two groups would be at high risk of suicide, suggesting that the number of Veterans who have committed suicide may be many more.
To help facilitate these reforms, and to ensure the long term viability of this program. Labor will bring the ASIST program formally under the control of the VVCS.
The governance of the program will remain independent of the Department and under the control and direction of the Veterans' Community through the stewardship of the VVCS National Advisory Committee. These reforms will expand a worthwhile program that has been under resourced for far too long.
These statistics also do not include members of the broader ex-service community who have no qualifying service and have committed suicide. No qualifying service, does not mean no problems.
We know that families also suffer. Children of Vietnam Veterans are known to have a suicide rate three times higher than other children.
Suicide is an important issue for the Veterans" community. To overcome this we must be proactive. We cannot sit back and wait for people to self report. We cannot expect that everyone with a problem will be forthcoming in asking for help.
That is why we need to equip the Veterans' community with the skills to identify and deal with people who may be on the long road to despair and need our help. The time for action is now.VVCS can be contacted 24 hours a day on 1800 011 046
Choice Comments: The solution to this problem is so simple it defies logic!...Prevent the oneupmanship that results in man thinking war and killing the enemy is the only solution!...Stop the Wars, and people will not be driven to kill themselves as a result of their experience in killing others. It doesn't take any courage to kill an unarmed civilian running from your gun!! and they're the majority of the victims in these modern "wars" where helicopter gun ships cuts down rock throwing youths. Let the decision makers, the politicians go to the Front and take their children with them. Wars would cease overnight as a solution to difference and talking until a consensus was reach would replace it.
July 26, 2007:
I would like to remind Labor Voters that not all Labor Politicians are supportive of Voluntary Euthanasia, reminding you all in the Electorate of Watson in New South Wales that Mr Tony Burke is no friend of ours.
Mr Burke is the Federal Member for Watson, and Shadow Minister for Immigration, Integration and Citizenship. He is also the Labor Member who worked diligently with Liberal's Kevin Andrews, Member for Menzies and currently Minister for Immigration to bring down the Northern Territory Rights of the Terminally Ill legislation.
I humbly suggest we would be better off voting for minor party candidates who favour our stance than either of the major parties, both of who are lead by conservatives.
Looking at Mr Rudd's efforts recently, what had he really committed the Labor Party to? Is he an Opposition Leader or an extension of the Liberal Party? I expect more depth of debate from my Leaders than smiling photo opportunities for the camera. Mr Howard may have physically stumbled on a wet floor, but Mr Rudd is stumbling mentally on real life issues.
As previously announced, Philip Nitschke is standing as an Independent for the Seat of Menzies, currently held by VE's arch enemy, Mr Kevin Andrews. Members of Exit and DWDV are encouraged to please give whatever support possible to assist Philip's ability to make a difference and rid us once and for all time, of Kevin Andrews, a puppet for the Right to Life conservatives without regard for those in his electorate who are part of the 80% supportive of VE. Kevin Andrews is representing his own viewpoint in Parliament at the expense of his constituents.
Choice Comments: I wanted to share this delayed article as being totally relevant now, with the impending and ongoing debates that spring up on an irregular basis. I am particularly cheered by the news that Mr Baillieu, the Liberal Victorian Opposition Leader Leader is calling for a national approach.
SUBMISSION PREPARED FOR THE SENATE LEGAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL COMMITTEE INQUIRING INTO THE EUTHANASIA LAWS BILL 1996
by:Lynda F Cracknell (personal details deleted)
Dear Committee Members,
I have already made a submission with fellow committee members of the Northern Territory Voluntary Euthanasia Society. This submission is made in a personal capacity to express additional views about some of the important issues which you are inquiring into.
Having read a considerable amount of the debate in the House of Representatives hansard, I was at a loss initially as to what I could say that had not been said before. Then I realised that I was in a fairly unique position of being able to give you some insights into these issues from the perspective of my involvement since February 1995 when Marshall Perron first announced his intention to introduce his private members bill on the ‘Rights of the Terminally Ill’.
First a few details about myself. I am seventh generation Australian, 51 years old, mother, grandmother, wife, apolitical public servant, and resident of Darwin for more than 14 years. Until Marshall Perron’s voluntary euthanasia legislation came along, the only ‘causes’ I adopted in many years were Neighbourhood Watch, and the establishment in the mid eighties of an NT branch of the Institute of Public Administration.
No close members of my family or myself have a terminal illness, and we don’t have any close relatives who have died badly of a terminal illness.
I give you this information so that you will understand the strength of my support for voluntary euthanasia does not come from a personality which enjoys the notoriety associated with publicly supporting contentious causes, nor does it come from some hidden agenda of self-interest.
[At this point I ran out of time, and was diverted by the vote for the Andrews bill in the House of Representatives. Rather than abandon the idea of a personal submission, I will quickly include as my submission, three messages exchanged on the Internet since last Monday night]
Message 1. Posted on the Internet to an group of nearly 400 people throughout the world with an interest in right-to-die issues. Monday 9 December.
“At 9.30pm Darwin time the ABC announced that the Euthanasia Laws Bill which seeks to overturn the NT Rights of the Terminally Ill Act was passed by an 'overwhelming majority'. The count has not yet been announced.
This is shameful legislation, which will hopefully be forestalled in the Senate next year. The law can not take effect until it is also passed by the upper house (Senate), so the NT voluntary euthanasia law should remain useable in the meantime.
Kevin Andrews and his supporters should resign from Parliament immediately so their constituents can elect true representatives in place of these people who take taxpayers money to serve church interests.
This also makes a farce of our countries anti-discrimination laws. Our own federal parliament says you can't discriminate against Australians who come from other countries, but this same parliament now discriminates against Australians who live in its Territories.
Regardless of what the final outcome is of the NT's legislation, may other States and Countries be doubly inspired to carry on the work commenced by Marshall Perron in the Northern Territory of Australia.
Lynda Cracknell, President, NT Voluntary Euthanasia Society, Darwin.”
Message 2. Posted on the Internet to the same group of 400 people, by a supporter in Finland.
Date: Mon, 9 Dec 1996 23:36:58 +0200
“To Lynda Cracknell and all in NTVES.....the disappointment to-night, even if expected, must have been devastating. After such a text book success and tremendous effort by you all from the prime [chief?] minister on down to lose it to such a really insignificant piece of legislation.
Looking at the situation from afar the most surprising thing is that the house of representatives decided to take such a discriminatory action against the people of the Northern Territory in a way downgrading you from the ranks of the citizens of *real* states. One would have thought that irrespective of the matter itself you would have been allowed to keep your own decision and independence.
Do not get discouraged, you have already made your mark in history and everybody in the movement praises you for that. I am sure that an even stronger effort will be directed towards the senate. Maybe the senators will be wiser and fairer next spring.
What happened to-day will undoubtedly also fortify Anne Levi, Mary Gillnor and others in South Australia to show to the reactionary forces siding with Mr Andrews that the change is near.
With respectful regards,
Olli Pentilla
for Exitus Ry
The Voluntary Euthanasia Society of Finland”
Message 3. Posted on the Internet to Olli Pentilla in Finland as a personal message. (not seen by the rest of the group). Tuesday 10 December.
“Dear Olli,
Thank you. You are obviously very sensitive and realised how overwhelmed I felt last night at the extent of our defeat. Perhaps "the cock crowed too early in the false dawn?"
We will continue to strive for what we know is right. There will never be any doubt in my mind about that.
The worst for me is that I have always been a strong believer in democracy - that our system of government truly allowed for government 'of the people, by the people' through their elected representatives. Last night's vote is evidence of how hollow and hypocritical our 'democratic government' has become. At the end of the day, true democracy is what we must fight for, and everything else should follow.
Thank you again my friend.
Regards, Lynda C - and Alan”
In the absence of a more considered and formal submission, I hope the above messages will convey to you some of my concerns, albeit poorly expressed, and reasons for asking you to reject the Euthanasia Laws Bill in the Senate.
May I finally express some further concern that the closing date for submissions has not allowed for respondents to comment on the Euthanasia Laws bill as amended in the House of Representatives on Monday 9 December.
I wish you well in your considerations and would welcome an opportunity to answer any questions, or expand on my submission, during your public hearings in Darwin.
Yours sincerely,
LYNDA F. CRACKNELL
Dying With Dignity Victoria Media Release: 18th July 2007
Media Release: Thwaites Sponsors Dying With Dignity Petition
For immediate release
A petition with over eight thousand signatures was presented to the Parliament by the Deputy Premier on Tuesday 17th July.The Petition, one of the largest ever received, was organised by Dying With Dignity Victoria and draws to the attention of the House that under current legislation, Victorians do not have the right to choose to die with dignity when suffering a terminal or incurable illness with profound suffering. Independent research shows that the vast majority of Victorians believe this right should exist. The petition requests that the Legislative Assembly of Victoria enact this right into legislation with appropriate safeguards.
The petition comes a month after a rally on the steps of Parliament House by supporters of the petition. The rally commemorated the second anniversary of the death of Steve Guest. a journalist and former media advisor to the Cain Labor Government. Who may have helped him achieve his quest to go peacefully is still a matter that is under police investigation. At the rally, Dr. Rodney Syme, vice president of Dying With Dignity said that he provided Steve with medication and challenged the Parliament to enact appropriate legislation that more than 80% of Victorians want.
At the rally, cross-party politicians from Labor, Liberal and Greens spoke in support of the need for legislative change. Ken Smith (Liberal) undertook to join others in sponsoring a Private Members bill into the current Parliament.
More information is available at www.dwdv.org.au or by phoning (03) 9877 7677
Nurses' rights at work - worth campaigning for:
Article written by Geradine (Ged) Kearney, Assistant Federal Secretary for the Australian Nursing Journal (July 2007)
I've been doing a bit of lobbying lately. Lobbying is something we do in the federal office and it is more intense around the time of a federal election. Lobbying usually takes the form of travelling to often not terribly exciting destinations, meeting with politicians and their advisors and putting forward our concerns regarding nurses, nursing, health and other things relevant to ANF members. This is all done in the expectation of raising awareness of the importance of health and nursing to the Australian community and getting decent policy decisions.
It's a pretty tough gig really, lobbying, because you know that each politician is being lobbied by dozens of other groups all passionate about their own issue and all jostling for top priority. I often wonder about the politician I am talking to -who has she or he heard from today? What influence is that next group sitting in the waiting room going to have? What influence will they wield over this hapless person being lobbied to death?
So we keep messages short, simple and easy to remember. We follow up with letters and information reminding them of what we said. And often we get results.
I always begin by explaining there are 250,000 nurses in Australia all of whom vote and then let them know that over 150,000 of those nurses are ANF members! I often expect a surprised reaction to that, because I always say it with a touch of pride. Sometimes they seem impressed, and sometimes they don't. But interestingly, being an election year, we seem to be resonating with the parties. Health is an important issue for Australians and we have good ideas.
We have told Nicola Roxon (ALP) about them and are soon to meet with Tony Abbott (Coalition). We have concerns about 457 Visas and exploitation of overseas workers and we have met with immigration ministers about that. We are worried about WorkChoices and the negative impact the legislation is already having on our members and their families and we have met with Julia Gillard (ALP) and Joe Hockey (Coalition) to tell them so. And we are very concerned about aged care and have met with Jan McLucas (ALP) and Christopher Pyne (Coalition) to discuss this vexed issue. Kevin Rudd has met with us and discussed all our concerns at length but Mr Howard has so far declined our offers to chat,
I know that you, our members expect us to do this. You expect to have all these things brought to the fore and campaigned around. Lobbying is an important part of any campaign and we would not be doing our job here at the ANF if we didn't take part in this process.
Keeping you up-to-date on the parties' responses is also an important part of campaigning. In the lead up to this election we have been highlighting in the ANJ the issues edition by edition and have asked the questions that need to be raised, letting you know where each party stands.
Your responses to the ANJ health survey confirms we are on track with what is important to you (the results of that survey are reported on in this edition) and we will be checking in with you again on industrial relations in a future edition.
We are working with community activists in the Your Rights at Work campaign because our members are part of the community and it is our job to get the messages out there about the unfair legislation. This is all campaigning. It is nothing new. It is done by both sides of politics, by all sorts of groups, large and small, business or workers. So I am really confused by Mr Abbott's little tirade in parliament last month accusing the ANF of 'campaigning'. Well Mr Abbott, here's news for you -it's what we do and do well! And as for accusing us of campaigning in hospitals, hospitals are where our members are and they are concerned by the impact of WorkChoices on their working conditions and the quality of care delivered to patients.
We have talked to our members in hospitals for years. Mr Abbott declared that nurses can't be political - well Mr Abbott, nurses have opinions, strong opinions about government policy and if that is your definition of being political then that is too bad. Mr Abbott blamed the long waiting lists in public hospitals on nurses, and that is a gross insult to nurses. Mr Abbott needs to stop ranting and start answering our questions sensibly. Or perhaps he is too busy with his own campaign?
43 July 07 | volume fifteen ! number one • Australian Nursing Journal
Posted on ABC online today (July 8, 2007)
http://abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/07/08/1972987.htm?section=australia
Nitschke running for federal seat
Euthanasia campaigner Dr Philip Nitschke has announced he will stand against Immigration Minister Kevin Andrews in the coming federal election.
Dr Nitschke first stood against Mr Andrews in the seat of Menzies in 1998 to draw attention to the overturning of the Northern Territory Rights of the Terminally Ill Act.
He says he will be establishing a campaign office in Doncaster, in Melbourne's east, and will start full-time campaigning in the near future.
Swissinfo.com reported 6 July 07
Assisted suicide makes waves here and abroad
Zurich's status as a death tourism capital is once again raising hackles in both Switzerland and Britain.
Domestically, there have been calls on the government to regulate assisted suicides and, abroad, a British pro-euthanasia group has raised doubts about the Swiss model.
Since it was set up in 1998, the Dignitas foundation, based in Zurich, has helped 76 Britons commit suicide. It is the only organisation of its kind in Switzerland open to foreigners.
The service offered by the organisation, after an assessment period involving doctors, according to its website, provides so-called members with sodium pentobarbital. The member can then drink this deadly drug in one of two flats in Zurich rented by Dignitas in the presence of the organisation's volunteers.
Under Swiss law, active euthanasia is illegal but assisted suicide is not. With the latter, the patient has to carry out the final act himself. Euthanasia, on the other hand, is defined as administering a lethal drug to a person by a doctor or medical staff.
One Briton hoping to use Dignitas' services in the near future is Noel Martin. Especially well known in Germany, he was left paralysed from the neck down following a neo-Nazi attack near Berlin 11 years ago.
Having spent the past few years confined to a wheelchair and dependent on carers, Martin announced in 2006 that he would kill himself on his birthday - July 23, 2007 - with the assistance of Dignitas, a charitable foundation based in Zurich.
However, according to recent media reports, Martin has since decided to postpone his exit.
Dignitas' director, Ludwig Minelli, told the German-language Berner Zeitung that Martin "had not yet booked an appointment" and that the organisation had told him that he could fight racism better if he were alive.
British law
In Martin's condition, it would be arguably impossible for him to commit suicide without assistance from another person.
However, the legal situation in Britain makes it difficult for anyone assisting someone to commit suicide to avoid repercussions.
The Suicide Act of 1961 makes it a criminal offence to aid, abet, counsel or procure a suicide.
According to the British Dignity in Dying (DID) organisation, this makes assisting another person's suicide a crime punishable by up to 14 years'
imprisonment.
The most recent efforts to change the law were blocked by parliament in 2006.
DID says that even family members accompanying people, who want to take their lives in Switzerland, could be prosecuted under the Suicide Act back home.
On its website, DID adds that a change in British law would be a "safer option" fthan travelling to Switzerland, particularly as Dignitas has been criticised for helping people to commit suicide, who are neither terminally ill nor mentally competent.
DID spokeswoman Davina Hehir told swissinfo there were no links between Dignitas and her organisation.
"Dignity in Dying does not help or encourage people to go to Switzerland in any way. We understand why some terminally ill people choose to go, though. We are campaigning to change the law [in Britain] so that they aren't forced overseas to achieve a peaceful death at the time of their choosing," Hehir said.
DID says the Swiss model would not be suitable for Britain and is campaigning for legislation similar to that in the American state of Oregon. This allows terminally ill state residents to obtain and use lethal medication for self-administration. In all, 292 people have used the law since it came into force in 1997.
Patients must be above 18 years old, capable (able to make and communicate healthcare decisions) and be diagnosed with a terminal illness that would lead to death within six months.
In Switzerland, however, Dignitas appears willing to extend its services to a much broader mix of people, including those who have reasons other than terminal diseases to commit suicide and who may even be mentally unsound.
"We are persuaded that the right to end one's life is a guaranteed human right. It is our duty... to give the individual... this last freedom to act without fear, risk or pain," Minelli said last year at a British Liberal Democrat Party convention.
As for Martin, while speaking to the media earlier this year, he appeared relieved at the prospect of taking his life in a Dignitas flat.
"I will shut my eyes and wake up in another world," he told the British Guardian newspaper.
For his part, Minelli told the Liberal Democrats last year that the British authorities alone were to blame for Britons like Martin turning to Dignitas.
"Why do you force your citizens, people in the most terrible circumstances who are determined to end their suffering in a way of their own choosing, to leave your country and travel to Switzerland in order to exercise their free will? Where is the humanity in this policy?"
swissinfo, Faryal Mirza
OREGON
Switzerland, the American state of Oregon, Belgium and the Netherlands are the only jurisdictions permiting assisted dying in certain cases.
In Oregon, patients who ended their suffering through suicide in 2006 mostly had cancer (87%) and more formal education (41%) than Oregonians
who died otherwise. The median age at the time of death in 2006 was 74
years; 35 patients took the medication prescribed to end their lives.
The most frequently end-of-life concerns were: loss of autonomy (96%), decreasing ability to participate in activities that made life enjoyable (96%); loss of dignity (76%); and inadequate pain control (48%).
Patients requesting a lethal prescription must be 18 years or older, an Oregon resident, capable (i.e. able to make and communicate healthcare
decisions) and be diagnosed with a terminal illness that will lead to death within six months.
KEY FACTS
The Swiss Senate in June called on the government to draft a law aimed at improving controls of organisations offering assisted suicide. The motion targets the widespread practice of foreign patients, notably from Britain, who come to Switzerland to put an end to their lives.
The House of Representatives the other parliamentary chamber still has to discuss the Senate's request.
Last year the cabinet announced it was not willing to draft a national law regulating euthanasia, saying current legislation was sufficient and the 26 cantonal authorities could draw up their own regulations.
The National Commission on Biomedical Ethics, a government advisory panel, recommended state supervision for organisations such as Exit or Dignitas.
There are some 350 cases of assisted suicide in Switzerland every year, according to the commission.
Carol Nader
June 21, 2007
Latest related coverage
Liberal MP wants euthanasia law changed
A STATE Liberal MP is proposing to move a private member's bill that would allow doctors to provide medication at the request of terminally ill patients to help them die.The proposal by veteran MP Ken Smith came as Bracks Government MP Maxine Morand, the parliamentary secretary for health, yesterday voiced support for voluntary euthanasia at a rally on the steps of Parliament House.
If Mr Smith's bid to introduce the bill is successful, it is possible that the Victorian Parliament could have another emotive conscience vote.
Ms Morand's personal view is at odds with the Government's stance on euthanasia. Premier Steve Bracks has previously said that if there was a conscience vote on euthanasia, "I'm not predisposed to support it". State Opposition Leader Ted Baillieu has indicated he is personally in favour of voluntary euthanasia.
Under the Medical Treatment Act, patients can legally refuse medical treatment. But Rodney Syme, vice-president of Dying with Dignity Victoria, says the law is "opaque" when it comes to doctors giving terminally ill patients medication to relieve their symptoms, knowing that it could also hasten their death.
Dr Syme has left himself open to prosecution for assisting suicide by admitting he gave terminally ill man Steve Guest medication that may have helped him die. Dr Syme says his intent was not to help Mr Guest die, but to relieve his suffering. Mr Guest had cancer of the oesophagus and took his own life about two years ago.
Dr Syme says he made the admission to highlight grey areas in the legislation.
Mr Smith yesterday talked to Ms Morand and Greens MLC Colleen Hartland about the possibility of co-sponsoring a private member's bill. He said each would speak to their respective parties.
Such a bill would make it not an offence to confidentially advise a terminally ill person or to "assist or support" a death, Mr Smith said. "It's got to be at the request of the patient," he said.
"I feel very strongly about this. I've seen a lot of people die, a lot of people in agony, and a lot of people who shouldn't have to put up with pain but they did. I just think that something like this would be a worthwhile contribution to my time in Parliament."
Ms Morand, a former nurse, said she had discussed the possibility of a private member's bill with Mr Smith, but wanted to discuss it with her party before proceeding.
"I am supportive of voluntary euthanasia and have been for a long time, but I've always taken a view that I'd like to work within the party," she said.
"I've said to Ken that I would have some further discussions with my colleagues and get back to him."
Mr Smith's proposal has already earned the support of the Greens, with Ms Hartland saying she was keen to co-sponsor a private member's bill.
"It would be that basic right of people to be able to access drugs that would assist them to die, and die at their choosing," she said.
She said it was important for bills of this nature to be co-sponsored because they needed to cross party lines. When Federal Parliament had a conscience vote on allowing the abortion drug RU486 to be widely available in Australia, the bill was sponsored by four women from four different parties.
Tim Pigot, spokesman for Health Minister Bronwyn Pike, said the Government believed the Medical Treatment Act gave sufficient support for doctors and individuals when a patient was approaching the end of their life. The act allows a competent person to refuse medical treatment for a condition and to nominate someone as an agent to make medical decisions on their behalf, should they become unable to make such decisions for themselves.
TheParliament.com reported on 6 June 07:
Members of the European Parliament call for radical rethink on euthanasia
A cross-party group of MEPs have called for a wide-ranging review of the law on euthanasia.
Speaking at a news conference in parliament, ALDE group leader Graham Watson stressed that he was not seeking to harmonise EU legislation on so-called mercy killings.
We do seek to construct an alternative political platform, informed not by mainstream prejudices but by the empirical experiences of those countries which have already regulated this phenomenon, he said.
Euthanasia has been decriminalised in a number of European countries, namely the Netherlands, Belgium and Switzerland.
Though the issue remains controversial, many terminally ill foreigners, including Britons, now travel to Switzerland to commit suicide, taking advantage of Swiss rules which are among the world s most liberal on assisted suicide.
However, in April 2005, the Council of Europe rejected a draft resolution on euthanasia to assist the terminally ill.
In 2004, MEPs passed a motion supporting medically assisted dying for those suffering unendurable pain with no hope of recovery.
In launching a resolution on euthanasia on Thursday, Watson was joined in his campaign by NGO representatives, other MEPs, including Marco Cappato and Chris Davies, and academics.
Watson, a UK deputy, called for the creation of a network of legislators committed to regulating the practice of euthanasia across the EU and beyond .
As a liberal I do not wish to impose my view on others but I do believe it is important to air different opinions and alternative approaches to that advocated by prohibitionists.
The free and reasoned will of the individual should determine their life decisions. Why should this be any less true of end of life decisions?
Pro-life supporters claim that European legislation to legalise euthanasia has been the first step on a slippery slope which has led to an undesirable increase in the number of cases in countries like Belgium for morally unacceptable reasons.
Just another form of dying.....your choice is to do nothing!
May 29th 2007
Greens seek to protect troops at Shoalwater
Magnetic Islanders may protest at the impacts of inappropriate development but, to our south and still bordering the World Heritage Great Barrier Reef Marine Park, Shoalwater Bay is soon to be subjected to another military bombardment with the US/Australian Talisman Sabre exercises. But the Townsville Greens are going beyond environmental concerns to call for assurances that radioactive depleted uranium (DU) - linked to Gulf War Syndrome - will not be deployed, for the benefit of soldiers, civilians and the environment.
Greens candidate for Herbert Ms Jenny Stirling is asking the Australian and USA governments to give the public assurances that Depleted Uranium will not be used in it's up coming war games, Talisman Sabre.
“How can the Australian Defence Force prove that DU will not part of this year’s Talisman Sabre exercises? How can we be certain that the US military will honor the Australian directive not to use the materials in these exercises? How can we trust the US military when we see their track record in telling the truth about the use of DU in their own bases?”, asks Ms Stirling.
According to the Greens, the 14 000 strong US military presence arriving in Australia next month will include nuclear powered submarines and nuclear weapons capable and depleted uranium weapons equipped US warships off Yeppoon’s coast in June.
The Australian Defence Force denies that DU will be used (read here)
However, in 2003, in response to questions about Australian support for US use of DU, then Defence Minister Robert Hill stated: “In relation to DU used by our allies we have said that, if they believe it is the most appropriate element to use in their particular munitions in certain circumstances, we do not think it is appropriate for us to press a different view upon them.”
According to a Greens media statement, “Growing evidence from reputable organizations like the UN are proving that the use of depleted uranium poses extreme health risks to anyone in contact with these materials, including cancer, genetic damage that can cause horrific birth defects and even sexual dysfunction.”
Jenny Stirling said: “We want an unequivocal statement from the Australian government to the Australian public and our troops to the effect that US forces will not be firing any DU weapons in the Talisman Sabre exercises at Shoalwater Bay”.
Suggestions that DU may have been utilised at Shoalwater Bay in the past, though strongly denied by Defence, were first aired by Academy Award-nominated Film maker David Bradbury in “Blowin in the Wind” which “examines the secret treaty that allows the US military to train and test its weaponry on Australian soil,”(click here).
The Greens maintain that it is time come clean about the clear and present danger posed by these war games - on soldiers, the general public and the wildlife threatened by the biggest ever military exercise held in Shoalwater Bay.
A Peace Convergence protest at Shoalwater Bay against the exercises is planned for the Talisman Sabre period of June 18 to 24.
Greens Senate candidate, Anja Light will be holding Peace Convergence events in Ayr (31st May, 6.30pm), Bowen (6th June) and Airlie Beach (7th June) to raise awareness about the impact on these war games. For More information www.peaceconvergence.com
LETTER OF RESIGNATION TO THE AUSTRALIAN LABOR PARTY: Member No 50895
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN
It is with regret, but also a sense of relief I tender this letter of resignation. It is a painful decision arrived at over many months of consideration, but one which I feel is necessary for the sake of my own sense of integrity.
Since November 11, 1975 I have supported the ALP both in practical terms and with my commitment to positive membership.
I have fought the good fight around many dinner tables. I started with “Joan Child Board” in my front garden, I’ve worn my ALP T Shirt with pride, attending rallies, fundraisers and even rubbed shoulders with Mr Bracks at one of them……I’ve been involved!...I have walked many miles doing ALP letter drops and I’ve handed out thousands of how to vote cards, attended State Conferences as a visitor. I’ve written suggestions and observations throughout many years into the vacuum of the bureaucratic system that asks for our input, rarely receiving feedback.But over the past months I’ve lost that sense of belonging. I can’t see its purpose any more. There is little point in being a member of a group in which so consistently ignores its members
I “worked” for the ALP as an Organization but it doesn’t “work” for me. Any healthy relationship has to be two-way if both participants are to prosper.
In fairness I have to say the Glen Huntly Branch to which I’ve belonged have been very good to me and very patient with my obvious passion for my particular interests. They’ve shared my frustrations with good grace, but they too appear to be ignored by the Party. I found myself asking “why do we put up with it?” and importantly “why do I put up with it”? and I decided I don’t need to.
My disillusionment started at the local level with Ann Barker, Member for Oakleigh, progressed as my communications to various sitting Members were consistently ignored and has culminated with the ALP Leader Kevin Rudd’s policies.
It started when I went into Ann’s office to complain about the police brutality which I experienced firsthand at the S11 anti-globalization rally on September 12, 2000. Horses were reared up a metre above me, causing a group of older folk to fall over and hurt themselves, one received a broken finger, trying to escape the hooves. Ms Barker asked rather disdainfully “Who are you?!” and her Office Manager had to tell her gently that I was a member given to doing many letter drops for her in Glen Huntly.
Recently, I rang prior to going on SBS Insight, to ask if she had any response to the concerns I’d raised with her and the 33 member Executive Committee of the ALP, (Bill Shorten & Stephen Newnham etc, etc) regarding proper procedures at the State Conference. Ms Barker told me it was the responsibility of the individual member to follow up perceived irregularities in its management.
Again, in recent times, at a local level I’ve made contact with Ms Barker on three separate issues, as a member of the ALP with deep concerns about due process, as an Advocate for Choice and Dignity in Dying, and as a member of the Glen Huntly Progress Group.
Ms Barker has consistently demonstrated a complete lack of interest in my concerns as a private citizen, as a member of the ALP and as an office bearer of the Glen Huntly Progress Group. Ms Barker, on being asked specifically, admitted that she had never attempted to take the issues raised with her outside her office. Ann lost votes in Glen Huntly at the last election for a very good reason – little representation!
One of the reasons for having elected members of the Parliament is so that the citizen’s concerns may be brought to the attention of either the Parliament or its bureaucracy. The ALP and Ms Barker have not fulfilled this function in my experience.
I cannot support a Party that will take uranium out of the ground to be sent back to Australia as nuclear waste in the short term and as missiles in some distance future. As a private citizen and a grandmother I have to think beyond the next election. I would rather my grandchildren had a peaceful co existence with the rest of the world than be wealthy because of uranium sales to countries who have shown themselves to be political unstable or warmongers such as our ally, the US. There is no joy in being the richest corpse in the cemetery.
I also strongly resent Kevin Rudd echoing the Howard Government’s cry to have Christian values underpinning Government policy making. Look at the Middle East, where religion and politics go hand in hand. Both State and Federal Governments should remain secular to ensure fair governance for all Australians.
A voluntary euthanasia policy implemented with strict guidelines ensures choice for the individual, but the current group of politicians, both Labor and Liberal favour Christian values above purely right/wrong, human/inhuman, kind/cruel, wise/stupid, good/bad. Do politicians consider the feelings of Australians who profess a different but no less valued faith.
As a member of the ALP, I was dismayed by the treatment of Mark Latham during his illness prior to his departure from politics when he ceased to be ‘useful’….No wonder he wrote such a scathing book in retaliation. I went into Simon Crean’s Office in Clayton to request the Labor Party stop their harassing of a very sick man while he was down. If we treat our own like that, what hope is there for others?
The strength of democracy relies to a great extent on the free flow of information and debate but neither the Liberal nor the Labor Party allows this to happen. The Labor Members signed away my right to free speech when they supported the Suicide Related Materials Bill January 2006 under the guidance of Mr Beazley.
The counter terrorist laws which were a knee-jerk reaction to an event on the other side of the world put Australia in the gun-sights of Islamic terrorists and this with the help of Labor. If Labor is ever to reinvent itself it needs to remember its roots and remove the words “me too!” from its dealings with the Liberal Party.
I’ve been asked many times who I think may win the next Federal election. I say quite honestly “I don’t know”. Many people are concerned by State Labor governments working with a Federal Labor government. Since personal experience has proven to me that neither the ALP Administrative Body, nor ALP Members will bother to listen to them once elected I can’t reassure them that Labor will honor its obligations.
The Labor Party as a bureaucracy has moved to the middle of the bed with the Liberals and they make a scary couple!
However I do take this opportunity to thank those members of the Glen Huntly ALP for all the support and friendships I’ve made over the years. I haven’t their strength of endurance.
My resignation is effective 10 pm, May 21st, 2007.
Mary Walsh
Footnote of explanation on the timing of the resignation was the ALP Branch Meetings were held in my home on a regular basis and I thought it seemly to allow members time to make other arrangements for future venues. Resigning from a political party is rather like a divorce, painful but necessary for all concerned.
Media Release
11th April 2007: For immediate release
Minister Thumbs Nose at Terminally IllLast week’s SBS TV’s Insight program on voluntary euthanasia drew passionate argument on both sides of the debate. It was attended by the Federal Minister for Ageing, Christopher Pyne, Dr Phillip Nitschke of Exit International and Dr Rodney Syme of Dying With Dignity Victoria, amongst others. During the debate, Pyne made several misleading assertions.
Firstly, he claimed that suicide is illegal in Australia. It isn’t. While suicide itself is not illegal, assisting someone else to commit suicide is and carries significant penalties. Other debaters had to correct the Minister.
Secondly, he claimed that if Government was run by poll, we’d still have capital punishment. We wouldn’t. Except for polling after a major act of terrorism, and in respect of that act in another country, polls have shown that Australians favouring capital punishment have been in the minority for more than 25 years.
Thirdly, in dismissing a recent poll on voluntary euthanasia that showed widespread community support, he claimed that polls can be made to say anything. He should know—Mark Textor has been a principal pollster for the Australian Liberals and the USA Republicans for some time and has been accused of push polling during election campaigns. [1]
However, the latest Australia poll in February this year on physician-assisted dying for the terminally ill was conducted by one of the nation’s most respected research companies, Newspoll. Its methodology and sampling were independent and robust. It clearly showed that 80% of Australians believe that the terminally ill with profound suffering should have the right to ask for medical assistance to die. Only 14% of Australians are opposed.
Mr Neil Francis, President of Dying With Dignity Victoria, said “This poll delivers an unambiguous message to Canberra—one that can’t be ignored. It’s not just a slight majority. Repeated polls have shown a significant majority for several decades, so it’s time for Canberra to stop sweeping terrible suffering under the carpet and to give Australians the choice they believe they should have had for so long.”
Marshall Perron, former Chief Minister of the Northern Territory, said “Three Australians over 75 kill themselves each week in undignified ways such as by hanging or jumping in front of a train. That’s an appalling tragedy that Canberra is ignoring.”
“I was surprised and disappointed that the Minister would take such a cavalier attitude to the issue,” Francis said. “A Federal Minister holding himself in such ignorance of the facts while participating in a national debate is simply unacceptable. And if polling were really a useless thing to do, why does the Government do so much of it?”
By his own admission, Pyne is a conservative Catholic. He railed against cloning, stem cell research, abortion and voluntary euthanasia in an address to the 2004 Right to Life organisation’s conference. Of course, holding and sharing these religious views is entirely Pyne’s right.
Francis said, “The Minister would be deserving of more respect if he were simply to say ‘I believe my God says “No”, therefore the answer’s “No”’. He attempts to hide his true position behind bluster and false argument, but Australians are not fooled.”
On the program, Minister Pyne said “I think the fact that older people who feel they might be becoming a burden on their family and know that euthanasia is available might feel that it's their family who want them to be euthanised…they might misinterpret what their family are saying to them.”
“But politicians are not elected just to hide behind perceived problems,” Francis said. “They are elected to find solutions, and it is easy to test whether a sufferer’s wish to pursue a physician assisted death is genuine and theirs alone.”
Dying With Dignity Victoria published a Legislative Charter early in 2006 which provides a full suite of safeguards. Its Charter has been endorsed by the Doctor’s Reform Society of Australia and The Australian Nurses Federation (Victorian Branch) among others.
Pyne has only been Minister for the Aged since Santo Santoro recently resigned amid accusations of impropriety over his reporting of private investments. Pyne headed an enquiry into Santoro’s conduct and cleared him of wrongdoing.
Francis points out that Pyne has been in Parliament for fourteen years, including when the Federal Parliament overturned the Northern Territory’s Rights of the Terminally Ill Act back in 1997. He had already been a member for four years at that time. Since then he has been Assistant Minister and Parliamentary Secretary for Health and Ageing. Francis said “It’s very disappointing that Pyne remains so ignorant of the facts still to this day.
“It is the responsibility of parliamentarians to make properly informed, evidence-based decisions instead of simply falling back on their own gratuitous opinions. By refusing to acknowledge the views of the overwhelming majority of Australians, Pyne is thumbing his nose at those who are rational yet suffering terribly from a terminal disease and who want the right to medical assistance to die with dignity on their own terms.”
Those wanting to express their views to the Minister can reach him on C.Pyne.MP@aph.gov.au or at Box 6022, House of Representatives, Parliament House, Canberra, ACT 2600.
END
Neil Francis
President
Dying With Dignity Victoria
t: 03 9877 7677
DWDV Activity history
1985: Helga Kuhse (DWDV) persuades Health Minister David White to establish a Parliamentary Committee of Inquiry into Dying with Dignity. This Inquiry rejected the ‘right to die’ but did recommend formally legalizing the common law right to refuse treatment. This Inquiry led directly to the Victorian Medical Treatment Act, establishing the right to refuse treatment and the right to appoint a Medical Enduring Power of Attorney. The Act also included the statement that the Parliament believed “it was desirable that dying patients receive maximum relief of pain and suffering”.
1992: DWDV developed, with the assistance of Prof. David Kelly (former Chair of the Law Reform Commission), model legislation for both voluntary euthanasia and physician assisted suicide. This model was used by Marshall Perron (Chief Minister of NT) as the basis for his Rights of the Terminally Ill Act (ROTI).
1995: DWDV President Dr. Rodney Syme advised Marshall Perron on medical aspects of the campaign to Legislate ROTI, and Kuhse and Syme gave evidence at the NT Parliamentary Inquiry into ROTI, which was passed in 1995.
1995: DWDV organizes the ‘Melbourne Seven’ – seven doctors who wrote to the Victorian Premier stating that they had helped their patients to die, and urging him to change the law.
1996-2000: DWDV President Dr. Rodney Syme reports three deaths to the Coroner – in each case, death was hastened by terminal sedation. Two were cancer patients, one had multiple sclerosis, and all refused medical treatment, in particular food and fluids. The Coroner took four years to decide that the deaths were not outside acceptable medical care.
1998: DWDV organized and supported Philip Nitschke’s election campaign as an independent in Menzies, standing against Kevin Andrews. The candidate obtained a remarkable 10% of the vote.
1999: DWDV, through the efforts of its Secretary, has a review of the Medical Treatment Act adopted as Labor policy. (This was later revoked without explanation.)
2002: DWDV alerts Health Department to deficiencies in and abuses of the Medical Treatment Act, resulting in a major campaign to educate the public and health professionals about the Act.
2003: DWDV counsels and supports the family of BWV, a woman with dementia in a persistent vegetative state, whose life is maintained by tube feeding against her wishes. This leads to a Supreme Court decision that such tube feeding is medical treatment (not palliative care) that can be refused.
2005: DWDV counsels and supports a member in her application for the appointment of a guardian for her 95 year old aunt who is being kept alive with end stage dementia by tube feeding.
2005: Dr. Rodney Syme counsels a man with terminal cancer, giving him advice that gives him control over the end of his life. After two weeks of public advocacy Steve Guest takes his own life.
2005: DWDV members, active on the ALP Health Policy committee, achieve adoption of policy amending the MTA, in particular to give statutory legality to advance directives. The ALP State conference adopted this policy in Dec 2005.Choice Comments: The Resolution "adopted" at the ALP State Conference was in fact 'invalidated" at the next Conference (if that's possible legally speaking?) because the April 2007 Conference moved a resolution that the adoption item be withdrawn and not accepted in the "Minutes as Approved", which may have been expected under normal business formalities. I am currently investigating this situation with the entire membership of the Administrative Committee of the Victorian AL