Simply a Matter of Choice
The following article first appeared in The Australian
of 2 July 1996
This is an edited version of a speech by Marshall Perron
to the Darwin Press Club on 1 July 1996.
Mr Perron was the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory at the time
the Rights of the Terminall Ill legislation was passed by Parliament and
the architect of that legislation. It is easy to fall into the trap of
believing that the issue of voluntary euthanasia is a complex one. The
Churches, right-to-life groups and the Australian Medical Association are
up in arms. Opposing lawyers are arguing before the Full Bench of the Supreme
Court, the High Court is on notice that an appeal is on the way.
Under pressure to intervene, the Prime Minister is dancing between his
personal views and government responsibilities. A federal private member's
Bill threatens statehood for the Territory. That is, if the Rights of the
Terminally Ill Act survives a repeal Bill already before the Northern Territory
Legislative Assembly.
The world is watching and the media is in a frenzy, searching for warm
bodies to talk about.
So why think voluntary euthanasia is a complex issue? It is not. It
is all about who makes the decision that death will be induced - doctor
or patient. I acknowledge that it is also about whether politicians can
put enough obstacles in the way of those who desire death to ensure that
those who don't are not accidentally or unwillingly caught up in the system..
Could it be that from now on, voluntary euthanasia in the Northern Territory
will be more difficult to obtain than it is elsewhere in the country?
If a doctor is prepared to help you die illegally - and we know it happens
every day - you don't have to be bothered with this lot:
-
No second doctor's opinion (now upgraded to a specialist);
-
No psychiatrist asking dumb questions;
-
No witnesses;
-
No written request to sign;
-
No cooling-off period to endure the suffering a little longer.
So what have we done in passing the legislation to improve the plight of
the competent terminally ill patient?
The most important thing we have done is provide equity. Finding a doctor
willing to assist is no longer a gruesome lottery. For the first time,
doctors can use efficient lethal drugs and abandon the charade of overdosing
morphine and claiming double effect.
Detailed records will be kept and doctors who compassionately help their
patient die can fill out a death certificate honestly. Adherence to the
"code of silence", so essential under the old rules, is unnecessary. We
have stopped pretending it doesn't happen. We may have made it harder -
but we have also made it fairer and safer.
And we've provided a "test bed" to see if the predictions of social
and moral decay eventuate.
The big difficulty opponents of voluntary euthanasia have had is that
none of their arguments about a slippery slope to calamity could be proven.
All the stuff about Nazi Germany and their misrepresentation of the Dutch
statistics was seen as scaremongering.
Opponents are adamant that it is impossible to draft legislation which
would be safe. How many times have I read that you cannot authorise voluntary
euthanasia without leading to involuntary euthanasia? This is a major point
in a worldwide anti-euthanasia campaign. Well, we are about to see if they
are right.
How a competent adult who does not want help to die is going to accidentally
fulfil all the conditions required, or be reluctantly ushered past two
doctors, the psychiatrist and so on by unscrupulous family members, is
beyond me.
As for the Aboriginal view, while I'm no expert I have treated
with traditional Aboriginal people for a long time. One thing I believe
the tribal elders would agree on is: "Your land, your life, your business."
Another thing we have done is create one hell of a recipe for a beat-up.
Consider the mix. A subject of keen global interest. Unprecedented, untested
legislation from one of the world's smallest Parliaments. Powerful opponents
with a deep personal and institutional commitment to prove euthanasia is
morally corrupt. And competent investigative journalists. Occasionally
an individual facing death will agree to be interviewed and filmed. In
the meantime, I can foresee opponents of individual autonomy alleging malpractice,
coercion or corruption of some kind on a regular basis. Allegations of
this nature, even if unspecific, will be big news. I expect serious allegations
will be made under parliamentary privilege.
Our articulate, well-funded and influential opponents will work hard
trying to demonstrate legal voluntary euthanasia is destroying the very
fabric of our society.
The church hierarchy in particular has too much at stake to allow the
impression that legal voluntary euthanasia is working. History shows that
if the forecast abuses do not occur, pressure to follow suit will grow
in the (Australian) States. If the States move to accept the electorate's
wishes in this regard, it will be seen as a threat to church authority.
Irrespective of whether court actions result in the deferral or suspension
of the Territory Act, voluntary euthanasia is on Australia's political
agenda to stay. The ground has moved to the point where candidates for
election to the Legislative Assembly will have to declare their position
before polling day. Even our federal candidates, who avoided taking a stand
in the last election, will not get away so easily in future, thanks to
the Prime Minister's invitation for a private member's Bill.
While I am on the subject of politicians, I refer to Nicolas Rothwell's
article in The Weekend Australian of June 8, wherein he said that
a private Member's Bill in New South Wales is unlikely to succeed following
a pre-emptive campaign by the Catholic-tinged Labor Right.
Being far from the heavy politics of NSW, I wouldn't know if that is
true or not, but something caused Premier Bob Carr to change his stance.
If it was the Catholics in the right wing, I find it appalling that the
one third of Australians who live in NSW, 74 per cent of whom believe they
should have the option of voluntary euthanasia, will be denied that choice
because a religious group within a faction of a party which holds 51 per
cent of seats in Parliament have said so.
To borrow another of Rothwell's lines, we are "smashing down the barriers
to hypocrisy" - the hypocrisy espoused by the AMA's active opposition to
legalising voluntary euthanasia subject to strict conditions while condoning
covert euthanasia. The AMA rejects the demand for patient autonomy, believes
in the slow euthanasia of palliative sedation and the convenient fiction
of double effect.
Have you ever wondered if doctors who find themselves with one of those
awful diseases which invariably result in a painful, undignified death
endure the suffering until death comes naturally? Or do they arrange with
a trusted colleague a time when death will be comfortably induced?
If this occurs, and we can be pretty sure it does, then it is only just
and fair that the same option should be available to every citizen with
the same symptoms.
The Rights of the Terminally Ill Act gives us all that option.
|
