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

The Dignity in Dying Bill 2001 was introduced into both houses of the South Australian parliament in March 2001. It is described as 'a bill for an act to provide for the administration of medical procedures to assist the death of patients who are hopelessly ill, and who have expressed a desire for such procedures, subject to appropriate safeguards'.

The order of words in the title is significant, shifting the emphasis from 'dying' to 'dignity'. If we respect human life, whether because we regard it as sacred, or intrinsically valuable, or simply from deep compassion, we have a responsibility to preserve its dignity. Requiring someone to die, against their will, over a period of grave suffering or irreversible loss of meaningful life, is a denial of human dignity. It is an act of cruelty.

While the Bill incorporates many clauses similar to those included in other voluntary euthanasia laws, actual or proposed, there are noteworthy features:
The patient must be 'hopelessly ill', defined as 'an injury or illness that will result, or has resulted, in serious mental impairment or permanent deprivation of consciousness; or that seriously and irreversibly impairs the person's quality of life so that life has become intolerable to that person.' The common requirement of 'terminal illness', usually meaning a life expectancy of not more than six months, not only calls on doctors to make an unreliable prediction, but prescribes a pointless time limit: The longer the life expectancy the greater the patient's suffering. The essential elements for legislation are that the condition is irremediable by medical treatment and the suffering is intolerable to the patient.

Provision is made for an advance request as well as a current request. In the former case, a trustee or trustees may be appointed to act if the person loses competence. There is to be a voluntary register of requests. A patient who proposes to make a current request, must be given prior information about palliative care options - in particular, the extent to which the effects of the illness can be mitigated by palliative care. A palliative care specialist must be consulted if reasonably practicable when that information is given, if the attending doctor is not a palliative care specialist.

The attending doctor and the confirming doctor must examine the patient for symptoms of depression and certify that the patient either does not show signs of suffering from treatable clinical depression, or, if symptoms of depression are present, that treatment is unlikely to influence the patient's decision. After a 48-hour waiting period following confirmation by a second doctor, the treating doctor may take steps to ensure a painless and humane end to life, either by administering drugs, or prescribing drugs for self-administration, or by withholding or withdrawing treatment. Any doctor may decline to participate but should inform the patient (or trustee) that another doctor may be willing to consider the request. Any person may decline to assist in the administration, and medical facilities may refuse to participate provided they take reasonable steps to inform patients entering the institution.

Five objects of the Act are listed. The inclusion of a statement of objectives will serve as an aid to interpretation as well as a necessary counter to misrepresentation. A committee is established to monitor the operation of the Act and to recommend improvements or amendments which will further the objects of the Act. The committee will include persons nominated by the South Australian Branch of the Australian Medical Association, the Law Society of South Australia, the Palliative Care Council of South Australia, the South Australian Voluntary Euthanasia Society, and the South Australian Council of Churches. The Minister for Human Resources may appoint three additional members making a total of eight.

Arguably the bill provides safeguards against abuse to satisfy any reasonable person. Unfortunately, opposition is not likely to be rational. Past experience is that most opposition in parliament is founded on commitment to church doctrine, or fear that support will reduce the chances of re-election, or both.Time will tell if the Bill will be allowed to proceed to the committee stage of the second reading and be debated clause by clause. This is an issue that must ultimately be resolved for the good of society.

It is imperative that SAVES members and the general public who support the bill write to their state MP, as listed on page 16 of the telephone directory.

In an article entitled 'Matter of Conscience' published in The Advertiser on 17^th March 2001 by journalist Kym Wheatley, Archbishop Leonard Faulkner was quoted as saying 'No-one has a right to die. 'We have a right to live.' The issue of what a ' right to life' may imply is raised below.