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

For the first time it is now possible to make a comparison of end-of-life medical practice in three countries, one of which allows the practice of voluntary euthanasia in certain circumstances and two which do not. (The brief period from July 96 to March 97 during which voluntary euthanasia was legal in the Northern Territory, came after the data gathering period.)

Two of the countries have similar populations, 18 million in Australia and 15.3 million in the Netherlands. Flanders has a population of 5.9 million which is 60% of the total population of Belgium.

The following comparisons of percentage of all deaths are made:
 

The study revealed that in 30% of all Australian deaths, a medical end-of-life decision was made with the explicit intention of ending the patient's life. Only 4% were in response to a direct request from the patient. The authors conclude that:

"Australian law has not prevented doctors from practising euthanasia or making medical end-of-life decisions explicitly intended to hasten death without the patient's request."

Whatever criticisms of the studies are made, or interpretations offered, it is clear that the situation in Australia and Flanders is less satisfactory than in the Netherlands, where there is more emphasis on the careful regulation and monitoring of medical end-of-life decision-making. The case is strengthened for law reform to permit voluntary euthanasia under appropriate safeguards.

References:

(1) van der Maas, P.J., van Delden, J.J., Pijnenborg, L, Looman, C.W.N., 'Euthanasia and other medical decisions concerning the end of life', in the Lancet, vol 338 14 Sept 1991 pp 669-74

(2) Kuhse H, Singer P, Baume P, Clark M, Rickard M 'End-of-life decisions in Australian medical practice.' Med J Aust 1997; 166: pp 191-6).

(3) Deliens, L., Mortier, F., et al ' End of life decisions in medical practice in Flanders, Belgium: a nationwide survey' in the Lancet 2000 vol 356 pp 1806-11

Israel

The Knesset Constitution, Law and Justice Committee yesterday approved a bill enabling anyone over the age of 18 to sign a statement instructing physicians not to extend their lives by artificial means if they stand no chance of recovery.

The bill amends the criminal law by determining that a physician will not be liable for prosecution if he or she does not provide medical treatment in the form of artificial life support, mechanical breathing, dialysis, chemotherapy, radiation or transfusions to terminally ill patients who have signed the statement.

The bill won support from a wide spectrum of MPs, including ultra-Orthodox legislators, who congratulated the former chairman of the committee, Meretz MK Amnon Rubinstein, for working out a draft that did not violate Jewish law. It creates a simple form that can be signed by anyone over the age of 18, and is renewable every five years. A patient can cancel the signed statementorally, at any point, according to the law.

Judge Shlomo Shoham, worked hard to obtain a unanimous vote, emphasizing that the law works by protecting the doctor, rather than by protecting the patients right to die. Both secular and religious legislators supported the law.

Based on an article in the Ha'Aretz (Israeli Daily) March 22 2001 entitled 'Death with Dignity bill gets broad approval', by Gideon Alon, courtesy of the Euthanasia Research and Guidance Organisation (ERGO)

Korea

Mercy killings are illegal in South Korea but the Korean Medical Association, a lobby for 70,000 doctors, has drafted a new ethics code that would give doctors more discretion in determining the fate of patients suffering from unbearable pain with no hope of living.

If adopted the new code would allow doctors to discontinue treatment for terminally ill patients. Without a clear legal definition of mercy killing, doctors have been uneasy treating patients suffering unbearably and with only a few days to live. However local medial claims that the new code may cause legal disputes when doctors refuse treatment against family wishes.

The euthanasia dispute drew wide media attention in South Korea after the Netherlands this week became the first country to legalize voluntary euthanasia.

Based on an article by Associated Press April 13 2001 entitled 'Korean Doctors push for mercy killing'.

Hawaii

Leaders of the State House and Senate wish to discuss a bill that legalises voluntary euthanasia or physician assisted death, but need to persuade their committee chairman to call public hearings for the controversial proposal. It has been two years since the legislature seriously studied the issues and faced strong opposition form the medical and religious communities as well as other groups.

Senate President Robert Bunda introduced a proposal that lets patients with irremediable conditions choose a 'painless inducement of death.' If passed the measure would override state law, which bans mercy killings or euthanasia and replaces it with a new chapter on death with dignity. Senate Bill 709 allows those suffering from an incurable, painful, serious illness or impairment to sign a declaration that allows doctors to perform euthanasia at a time set by the individual. However, as with similar bills, these latest measures are likely to prove unsuccessful due to powerful entrenched opposition.

Based on an article by Pat Omandam of the Hawaii Star Bulletin 31 Jan 2001