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

Guest speaker at the 2006 SAVES AGM was Associate Professor Arnold Gillespie (retired) who gave a talk entitled Voluntary Euthanasia: One Doctor’s Personal View. He discussed the inconsistencies revealed in the way society values human life. The notion that life is ‘sacred’ is now embedded in the fabric of society, even though this is generally only in respect of human life. Arnold discussed his work in the field of obstetrics and gynaecology over several decades. During the course of his career fetal viability was extended from 32 to 22 weeks gestation. Newborns weighing 750-1000 grams now have an 84 per cent chance of surviving, albeit with a significant number experiencing neurological, intellectual, respiratory or behavioral problems. While the value of these premature infants' lives is best understood as the intrinsic value to their parents and families, there is of course a much broader social value, including that which is expressed monetarily.

An average of $250,000 is expended in high level neonatal care in the first weeks of life for each of these very premature infants. However while heroic measures are undertaken to save the lives of newborns, generally within the same hospital therapeutic abortions are carried out for women facing a range of complex social and/or medical problems. The normal course of human gestation also results in 25 per cent of pregnancies ending in miscarriage, or what could be understood as the ‘natural thwarting’ of human life.

Arnold reminded the audience that while the value of human life may be couched in terms such as ‘sacred’, 23 per cent of the world’s population live in absolute poverty, in which life expectancy is severely curtailed, nutritional levels are unacceptable, children’s brains are unable to develop and mortality is high. However Australia is 20th on the list of OECD countries in its level of international aid; often in the form of ‘tied grants’ favouring Australia’s own economic outcomes. Notwithstanding private donations by many Australian citizens, this public gesture invites serious reflection on the expressed value of human life.

If we clearly accept deaths that are both avoidable and non-voluntary, why is it that death is denied when it is at the enduring request of an incurably ill person? In reflecting on this question Arnold spoke of his role in gynaecological oncology within women’s health, and of various forms of malignancy. He explained that cancer can be understood as spanning four stages, covering that which is confined to the lining of organs through to distant metastasis. If diagnosed early, between 75 and 80 per cent of vaginal, cervical and uterine cancers can be cured. A lower success rate is still the reality for ovarian cancer. However, when one is unable to be cured, why does society insist that human life, now in a wretched state, must be preserved? Why does society permit non-voluntary, but not voluntary death?

Professor Gillespie shared his personal view on valuing human life within the context of his professional role. This was one that saw him actively promote early diagnosis, aggressive treatment, rigorous follow-up and the expectation of a cure. However for the small minority for whom a cure was unattainable, and palliative care ineffective, under a more compassionate legislative framework his scope of practice would have included acceding to an enduring request for assistance to die in the face of suffering without hope of recovery. This would have been both a merciful act of clinical care and a final act of human kindness.

In response to Arnold’s informative discussion, and for answering the many questions from the floor, Dr Eric Gargett gave a vote of thanks in which he reminded the audience that it is important to ‘cross the divide’ between patient and doctor when it comes to voluntary euthanasia. While we might talk about having the ‘right to choose’, the reality is that when voluntary euthanasia legislation is eventually enacted what we will really have is the ‘right to make a request’ to a medical professional. Hopefully this would be someone with the same insight and compassion as Professor Gillespie.

Twenty one years ago Sir Mark Oliphant, SAVES founding patron and former South Australian Governor, gave an address at the (1985) AGM entitled ‘The Sanctity of Life’? A few excerpts follow:

Despite religion and mysticism which have pervaded human existence from our most primitive ancestors to the present, human beings do kill other human beings.

Abortion is legalized as an inalienable right of women.

Today throughout the world some 15 million people die each year of starvation, malnutrition and poverty.

The tobacco industry kills large numbers of people for profit, through cancer, emphysema, and other diseases induced by smoking.

We kill people on the roads, the speeding vehicle taking precedence over the lives of all within it, and of others on the road.

Above all, people are killed in civil wars within nations, and within wars within nations...Warships and bombers were blessed by priests of a variety of faiths, reaffirming that the killing of human beings was not only legal, but condoned by God.

The hypocrisy of opposition to voluntary euthanasia is made clear by the examples I have given. Where, oh where, is this mystical sacredness of human life?

Reference: The VE Bulletin May 1985