|
The following article is from the SAVES newsletter, The
VE Bulletin, Vol 15 No 2, Jul 98
Hard Cases
"Hard cases make bad law". Its such a pathetic excuse for doing nothing.
In the case of voluntary euthanasia it ignores at least two vital issues.
One is that the numbers of people who obtain voluntary euthanasia, perhaps
2% of those who die, is quite large, around 2,600 in Australia each year.
Among these are many who could reasonably be described as hard cases. And
secondly, even if few, what should be done with the "hard cases"? How can
we claim to be a sane society, let alone a civilised one, when we refuse
an earnestly requested quick and peaceful release from severe and hopeless
suffering on the basis that the suffering is too great?
One of our members has drawn attention to the situation of her cousin,
Fred Robinson. Fred lives in New Zealand but his plight is far from unique
to that country. Fred has been a quadriplegic for the last 20 years. At
the age of 38 he had an accident while on training on the Tasman Glacier
for a mountaineering expedition to Nepal. At first he was able to live
at home in the care of his wife and find a quality of life worth living.
The last five years has seen the death of his wife and a marked deterioration
in his physical condition. His bones are softening, he has pain in sitting,
he can no longer read or watch television. He wants to die, cannot commit
suicide without help and is not even classed as terminally ill.
He has been an ardent campaigner for the voluntary euthanasia movement
in Christchurch where he now lives in a hospital. Ironically, promoting
the voluntary euthanasia movement is the only thing he experiences as giving
meaning to his life and yet even a glimmer of success seems as far away
as ever.
Here, with Fred's permission, is a shortened version of an article he
wrote towards the end of last year.
SOME PERSONAL THOUGHTS ON VOLUNTARY EUTHANASIA
I am a quadriplegic, confined to a wheel chair for nearly 20 years.
This means that for all that time I have had to rely on other's help for
undressing, dressing, being put to bed, toiletting etc. These are the common
problems not only of quadriplegics but also of the terminally ill. I have
witnessed the unbearable stress that diseases such as cancer and conditions
of strokes, among others, cause the sufferer. However, only in the last
few years, when my condition has seriously deteriorated, has their plight
been brought home to me personally.
I am an expert on my own condition and no doctor, or anyone else for
that matter, can stand in my shoes, feel my pain and suffering. No amount
of sympathy and compassion will relieve it. I see no purpose in prolonging
my life, even for five years, if there is no better quality of life available.
To me it is sheer stupidity, to say the least, to carry on the burden of
living, day in, day out, to no purpose except to abide by the law.
Every person over the age of 18 has the power to make a will disposing
of their estate at the time of their death. The only precaution to prevent
duress or coercion on the testator is that he or she signs the will before
two witnesses both being present at the same time and in the presence of
each other. Some of the arguments that have been applied for denying the
right to voluntary euthanasia apply equally to making a will.
Politicians and health professionals, among others, have made great
play of the merits of palliative and hospice care. Many of them do not
realise the limitations of these treatments. We have one hospice presently
being built in Christchurch that will have room for just 11 patients. This
in a City with a population of over 300,000. With a large number of conditions
palliative care is only partly satisfactory, sometimes useless. For example,
tumours of the head and brain, and of the spine, have such severe symptoms
that all it is possible to do is to put the sufferer into a coma from which
death will follow. This also applies to cancer of the bones and those in
the pelvic area where there are a great number of nerve endings.
It seems to me that the object of medicine in general is to ensure that
nature does NOT take its course. This justifies such serious operations
as heart-lung transplants, heart-by-passes etc. However, all the medical
profession can do if you have an incurable disease is to supply the patient
with pain killing drugs and let nature take its course. As in Alice
in Wonderland, medicine becomes curiouser and curiouser.
When Michael Laws introduced his Death With Dignity Bill some two years
ago, it was defeated on a first reading by 60 votes to 30. Most Members
of Parliament who had a chance to speak, spoke against the Bill and the
Hansard reports show the arguments used were pathetic, based on emotion
rather than on reason. One example will suffice. Mr Wyatt Creech said,
"I think every member of this house has probably been through a personal
experience at some stage or other that was extremely difficult for a member
of his or her family. I have myself last Christmas when my father-in law
died. At the end of his life it was clear what the situation was going
to be (sic). But I do not think that in the circumstances I could have
taken a needle or some other device and ended his life. I believe that
if I am not prepared to do these things myself, it is wrong to expect others
to do them on my behalf."
The request, of course, would have been the father-in -law's, not Mr
Creech's. Fulfilment of the request would have fallen to a qualified doctor
whose medical judgement and conscience were in accord. Mr Creech's reservations
can only apply to his own death.
|
|
