SAVES is not affiliated with Exit International / Dr Philip Nitschke and opposes the public availability of a 'peaceful pill'.

The February 98 issue of Reader's Digest contained an extensive article under the above title in opposition to legalising voluntary euthanasia. It was journalism at it worst, giving a biased, emotive and distorted account of one of the most important social issues of our times. Letters were invited and a brief review of these letters appeared in the April issue. The review only partially achieved a semblance of balance. It acknowledged that many of the letters supported euthanasia ("voluntary" omitted, of course!) but persisted with its bias against. It included a brief quote from a letter by one of our Patrons, Professor Jim Richardson. If space permits, we will publish Jim's letter in full in the November issue of the VE Bulletin.

In the last VE Bulletin we drew attention (see above) to an anti-VE article in the February issue of Reader's Digest. Among others, one of our Patrons, Professor Jim Richardson, responded to Reader's Digest's invitation to comment. Here is a slightly shortened version of his letter, only a few lines of which appeared in a follow-up article in their April issue.

The major issue in the debate on euthanasia is whether or not voluntary euthanasia should be made legal, ie, whether a physician should be lawfully able to bring about, by direct means, the peaceful death of a suffering, terminally-ill patient, at the express and continued request of the patient, under strict controls.

It is not whether euthanasia in a much broader sense should be allowed, ie, deaths brought about indirectly by medical decisions to withdraw or withhold life-prolonging treatment or to give pain-killing drugs in sufficient quantity to bring about death. This is not a serious issue. Ending the suffering of a terminally- ill, suffering patient by such indirect means is commonly practised in many countries including Australia and the Netherlands as shown by a number of surveys including the 1995 Dutch survey cited by Brian Eads. It is not helpful to confuse the issues, as Eads manages to do, no doubt unwittingly.

The suggestion that voluntary, or any other form of euthanasia, gives a licence to kill is nonsense. Its use in the title reflects the biased misrepresentation throughout Eads' article. No-one has ever seriously proposed anything vaguely resembling an unfettered licence to terminate the lives of terminally-ill patients. "Kill", too, is an emotionally charged word which links an act of humanity to a person, earnestly and repeatedly asking for relief from suffering, with the brutal, malicious ending of another person's life against his or her wishes.

There is some useful information in Eads' article, more particularly his summary of the provisions for euthanasia in the various states of Australia and his background information on the position in The Netherlands.

In respect of the latter, it is unfortunate that he refers only to 1995 survey and ignores the earlier 1990 study which it replicates. If availability of voluntary euthanasia had the dire consequences referred to by Eads, undoubtedly this would have been reflected in a large and significant increase in the incidence of euthanasia, both direct and indirect, in The Netherlands. This is just not so.

A serious case for a "slippery slope" cannot be logically made from the Dutch experience. No case at all can be made for the grossly exaggerated and unsubstantiated statement attributed to Dr Hendin, which Eads apparently accepts uncritically.

Eads fails to mention the important 1997 Australian study, carried out at the Bioethics Centre of Monash University in collaboration with the University of NSW (Med. J. Aust. 1997; 166). This survey revealed that 1.8% of all deaths in Australia were brought about by voluntary euthanasia or physician- assisted suicide, which are both illegal in Australia. Further, the survey found that physician-assisted deaths are significantly greater in Australia than in The Netherlands. In regard to voluntary euthanasia, the major difference between the two countries is that in one it is open and subject to careful regulation; in the other it is more secretive and less regulated. The former position is surely preferable.

The bias in Eads' article is illustrated again by his reference to palliative care. He is right in stressing its importance; he is wrong in his suggestion that it is a complete answer to voluntary euthanasia. His statement that it is "largely unavailable" in The Netherlands is open to serious question. It is true that hospice facilities are few compared with Britain and Australia. However, Eads ignores the fact that palliative care is not only provided in hospices but also in the patient's home. The latter is the preferred form of treatment in The Netherlands, one which is increasingly advocated in Australia and elsewhere.

Space precludes discussion of further examples of Eads' failure to make even a pretence of impartiality. His case against voluntary euthanasia relies largely on unsubstantiated opinion, limited interpretation of available data and emotionally charged case studies, reference sources unstated. This is a pity. The topic is important and worthy of balanced consideration.

The case for voluntary euthanasia is a strong one. It is based on compassion for the terminally ill whose suffering cannot be relieved effectively. It is based on concern for the quality of life and respect for human dignity, loss of which is entailed in irreversible lack of control over mental and/or bodily functions. It is based on a belief in personal autonomy - the freedom to make our own decisions, provided they are not to the detriment of others.