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

The South Australian parliament is once again poised to avoid debate on the issue of voluntary euthanasia. The Social Development Committee's report on its inquiry into the Voluntary Euthanasia Bill 1996, tabled on 20 October 1999, makes 11 recommendations. Nine refer to palliative care and were unanimous. Only two refer specifically to the Bill. They are that "active voluntary euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide remain criminal offences" and "the lapsed Voluntary Euthanasia Bill 1996 not be introduced" (in other words, should not be debated by our elected representatives). These recommendations were not supported by two of the six members.

This was a predictable outcome. The six members' position on voluntary euthanasia was public knowledge beforehand and it was not changed by the inquiry.

In a minority report the Hon Dr Bob Such MP and the Hon Sandra Kanck MLC. recommend that: "The criminal status of active voluntary euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide be removed and that these practices be regarded as the ultimate steps in palliative care, steps which a minority of people might wish to access" and: "The Voluntary Euthanasia Bill 1996 be reintroduced and subjected to full debate including the introduction of amendments which might address any perceived inadequacies."

It has since been moved in both Houses "that the Report be noted", but debate on the motions has been adjourned and can resume at the earliest on 27 March, after parliament reassembles. Owing to the limited time allowed for private members' motions, it is likely to be quite a while before a vote is taken.

The Committee's inquiry extended over a year. Over 4,000 written submissions were received, of which 52.7% were opposed to the Bill and 46.8% were supportive, the rest being indeterminate. More than 100 oral submissions were heard. It is stated that the majority of witnesses did not comment directly on the Bill, but were concerned with moral, ethical or religious issues, and medical treatments such as palliative care.

The Report is substantial, 191 pages in all, including100 pages of text in six chapters, and several appendices. Four chapters are devoted to the current situation and to the general debate on voluntary euthanasia - "Introduction"; "The Law Relating to Overseas Jurisdictions"; "The Law Relating to Active Voluntary Euthanasia in Australia"; and "Moral, Legal and Ethical Issues". Another chapter deals with "Palliative Care". The coverage of facts, issues and controversies in these chapters is good, appropriately illustrated by selected statements from witnesses on both sides of the debate. They contain useful background material, but the five chapters break no new ground and contain little if anything that has not already been publicly documented and argued. It is likely that those who read them will, like the members of the Committee, find nothing to change their previously held views on the desirability of a voluntary euthanasia law.

Of more interest to us is the one chapter where the Bill itself comes under scrutiny. Discussion was focussed on 'the definition of "hopelessly ill", advance requests, and the checks and balances needed to ensure that all deaths by euthanasia are voluntary and with informed consent.'

Representatives of the Law Society of Australia, Christopher Kourakis QC and Robyn Layton QC, commended the Bill for its simplicity. Layton stressed this pointing out that "It is easier to make modifications to simple legislation as practice evolves and social change occurs". The Law Society's representatives also proposed a number of constructive amendments. By contrast, other critics of the content or language of the Bill made no proposals for improvement, presumably because their objection was basically to voluntary euthanasia in principle and they would have found fault with any other Bill in the same unhelpful way. Their criticisms appeared to suggest that patients cannot be relied upon to know their own minds, and doctors cannot be trusted to make a sound assessment of their requests.

But the big question is why, on the basis of the evidence, did four members of the Committee condemn the Bill? Twenty-three arguments in opposition to the Bill are listed immediately before their recommendations and these presumably had their approval. There is no corresponding list of the responses that could easily have been made. For example, it is claimed that society's respect for human life would be diminished; that Australia's international obligations would be broken; that seeking to end one's life is prohibited by the Declaration of Human Rights; that "vulnerable people" would be placed at risk, (apparently because they would be pressured by others, or taken advantage of by doctors); that the criminal law principle that consent is no defence would be overturned; that the current protection for life would be removed; and other arguments of like quality.

Most disturbing is the claim that voluntary euthanasia is unnecessary because the provision for palliative care takes care of the needs of the great majority of terminally ill patients. The Report acknowledges that not all unwanted suffering and distress can be relieved, but argues that "the interests of the individual should not take precedence over those of society". So much for those who must continue to endure unwanted suffering. A voluntary euthanasia law would protect the interests of society well - and far better than the current futile prohibition. Such denial of the rights of individuals in the name of society is a reversal of democracy and a denial of compassion.