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

Several SAVES members attended the witness hearings of the Social Development Committee (SDC) inquiry into the Voluntary Euthanasia Bill 1996 (The Anne Levy Bill). As a result of the inquiry, four members of the SDC opposed the bill, with the Hon Dr Bob Such and the Hon Sandra Kanck dissenting. Ms Kanck has responded to the findings in a speech to the Legislative Council (1).

She argued that in the debate more attention was given to the issue of palliative care than the status of the bill under question; a view shared by SAVES members attending the hearings. However Ms Kanck recognised that a positive outcome of the continuing political battle for legislation is increased funding for palliative care. This is due to a widespread belief that increased palliative care will stop the demand for voluntary euthanasia; a belief considered unfounded by palliative care specialist, Dr Roger Hunt.

The official media release of the findings of the SDC included the following statement: 'We believe that the greater good of the community must outweigh the wishes of the individual.' Yet as Ms Kanck responded:

The 'greater good' argument appears mere sophistry against the practical experience of someone in this situation. This is not a proud achievement of a civilised society.

She also expressed other important concerns:

I was distressed, frustrated and angered by the lack of accuracy by some of the witnesses who opposed voluntary euthanasia. I do not know whether this was the result of poor research or deliberate distortion of the truth. However some individuals and organisations have the pursual of this issue as part of their core business. It really is inexcusable of them to come along and give evidence on such a volatile issue without ensuring that the information was accurate.

According to Ms Kanck specific instances of misinformation included the claim that many people believe that euthanasia is about turning off machines. However no information was provided on any research which may support such an assertion. The Morgan Gallup polls regularly conducted on the issue of voluntary euthanasia are quite specific:

If a hopelessly ill patient, experiencing unrelievable suffering with absolutely no chance of recovering asks for a lethal dose, so as not to wake again, should a doctor be allowed to give a lethal dose or not?

In 1996 74% of those surveyed answered in the affirmative.

Astoundingly a statement was also made that Holland has a shortage of hospital accommodation, and patients are euthanased to free up beds. Such misinformation has been clearly countered by the Dutch Government in a booklet issued 18 months ago through its foreign affairs department.

A further instance of misinformation provided to the SDC was the claim that the Northern Territory had no financial resources or trained staff to provide palliative care at the time that Marshall Perron, architect of the Rights of the Terminally Ill Act, introduced the legislation. This was not true, even though it is conceded that services were not optimal.

To support their presentation to the SDC, opponents of the bill cited an article co-authored by Professor David Kissane, palliative care specialist and opponent of voluntary euthanasia, Associate Professor Annette Street, a medical sociologist from La Trobe University, and Dr Philip Nitschke who used the Rights of the Terminally Ill Act at his patients' request (2). In good faith, and for the benefit of open research, Dr Nitschke offered access to case records of the seven people who had attempted to use the act. What he had not anticipated however was the subsequent distortion of the article by his co-authors. Despite this the article resurfaced in a presentation to the SDC in order to support Dr Kissane's view that 'the regulations did not serve as an effective safeguard to protect the vulnerable'.

Ms Kanck stated that this was clearly countered by Marshall Perron, in his submission supporting the Voluntary Euthanasia Bill 1996. He presented a flow chart to the committee, showing the 22 'hoops through which a patient in the Northern Territory had to jump' before they could qualify to use the legislation. He also presented the committee with shocking Bureau of Statistics figures on suicides in the over 75 years age group, stating:

It is terrible to contemplate that suicide by these methods is the only option left to these elderly people, who in our society at least, should have had a reasonable expectation that they would die with a little more dignity.

In another supportive submission to the SDC, Dr Philip Nitschke maintained that not only were these people driven to die in an undignified way, but their suicides could also result in insurance policies not being honoured. Their families are then faced with even further distress.

A recurring theme in the submissions of opponents to the Voluntary Euthanasia Bill 1996 was that the Kubler-Ross stages of dying - denial, anger, bargaining, depression, and eventual acceptance can be 'life enhancing experiences' (3). However, in response Ms Kanck argued:

Whose life is it anyway? Surely the person who is suffering these things is the one who knows what is enhancing their life. Nobody else knows, although some may pretend to know.

Similarly, other presentations affirmed the 'healing' that may occur in family relationships if people die at 'their natural time', to which Ms Kanck again replied 'It is perfectly possible to be complete in your family relationships without having an incurable illness'.

In referring to a presentation by a former nursing home director in support of the legislation, Ms Kanck claimed that the evidence revealed in the submission clearly illustrates what opponents of voluntary euthanasia are often unable to see. The issue is not just about pain but also human dignity:

Perhaps that is the fundamental difference between those who are for and those who are against voluntary euthanasia. Our view of what constitutes life is different.

In agreeing with an article by Advertiser journalist Samela Harris, concerning the findings of the SDC (22 Oct 99), Ms Kanck reiterated that members of parliament in a representative democracy fail themselves and their constituents if they 'duck' from dealing with the difficult issues. She maintained that Mary Gallnor, President of the World Federation of Right to Die Societies and The SA Voluntary Euthanasia Society, expressed to the committee a most coherent view of the role of legislators when arguing:

You are elected not to follow the will of the people and equally not to follow your own will. I believe your responsibility is to balance the harm and the good of any bill that comes before you.

Although Ms Kanck's reply to the SDC findings highlighted worrying instances of dishonesty, misinformation, a lack of focus on the bill under question, and a shirking of parliamentary responsibility, she ended her report on a positive note:

The busybodies have won this round, but I remain confident that ultimately commonsense will prevail, and voluntary euthanasia legislation will be enacted, and I believe that it will be in my lifetime. As long as I am in this parliament, I will work towards that aim.

1. Hansard , 12 April 2000, pp.891-896
2. 'Seven Deaths in Darwin: case studies under the Rights of the Terminally Ill Act Northern Territory Australia', Lancet, October 1998
3. Kubler-Ross, E. On Death and Dying , Tavistock Publications London 1970