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

SAVES President Frances Coombe welcomed a large audience to the November general meeting, which featured palliative care specialist Dr Roger Hunt as guest speaker. Frances spoke of the latest developments on the Dignity in Dying Bill 2001. She advised that it has become clear after the Upper House debate of 3^rd October 2001, when the Objects of the Act were debated, that some parliamentary members are merely intent on dismantling the bill, as they personally oppose voluntary euthanasia. For instance the Hon Trevor Griffin, when voting against the objects, stated

'..the real problem is not that objects are proposed for this bill but that the objects actually embrace the principles of what the legislation is seeking to do'.(1)

The Hon Caroline Schaefer had serious reservations about people's self-assessment on when their life becomes intolerable, and she considered that 'hopelessly ill' may possibly encompass situations such as a piano player losing the use of a hand, a musician who has become deaf, or an artist who has become blind. (2) Trevor Griffin maintained that he was vigorously opposed to active euthanasia, and considered it to be a form of 'legalised homicide'. (3)

The Hon Ron Roberts showed a remarkable lack of knowledge when he claimed that the Consent to Medical Treatment and Palliative Care Act 1995 negates the need for voluntary euthanasia legislation. He showed weariness at having to debate the bill and was ' keen to get this off the Notice Paper, as we are just prolonging the agony.' (4)

These speakers were obviously not considering the safeguards or even the terms of the bill; neither did they seek to introduce alternative Objects of the Act. By seeking to dismantle the bill instead of amending it constructively they are arrogantly ignoring the wishes of the vast majority of South Australians and arguably neglecting their parliamentary duty.

The following list shows those members who voted for and against the Objects of the Act:
 

However there was a tiny 'ray of sunshine' in the debate when the Hon Terry Cameron stated

'First I again congratulate the Hon Sandra Kanck for making what I consider to be an excellent case, notwithstanding the criticism that it has come in for at times.'

'this has a fair bit to do with listening to the Hon Sandra Kanck for six, seven or more years of making contributions on this matter…'

However a different initiative which will hopefully attract some support is a 'telephone tree'. This can be a good way of gaining publicity for different activities within the movement, and involves members contacting between three and five other nominated people by telephone. This form of dissemination of information or requests for assistance is certainly not an onerous undertaking. Members who would be prepared to become involved can do so by contacting the society.

The Health Expo 2001 to be held on November 22 was next on the agenda. Frances, Mary Gallnor and Gerry Versteeg will be taking the large display to Gawler to participate in this event organised by the Gawler Neighbourhood House. Last year approximately 250 people attended this function and we hope this will be a good way of informing people about SAVES. Frances asked that if anyone hears about any similar initiatives to please contact any committee member. SAVES considers this to be another valuable way to gain publicity and hence further the society's aims.

The next items of interest raised concerned news from around Australia. In a recent trial in Western Australia Dr Daryl Stephens, Warren Hayes and his sister Lena Vinson were acquitted of wilful murder, and the alternative charge of aiding the suicide of Freeda Hayes, a patient terminally ill with kidney cancer, who died at Perth's Murdoch Community Hospice. A Magistrate had dismissed a previous charge of murder last November due to lack of evidence, but the WA Director of Public Prosecutions reinstated the charge and added an alternative one of assisting a suicide. The jury took only ten minutes to dismiss the charges and the trial was reported to be an embarrassing rebuff to the prosecution. It is important to note that the trial did not concern the issue of voluntary euthanasia, but reports do state that Freeda Hayes had claimed she wanted to die. Also in WA Greens MLC Robin Chapple is preparing a voluntary euthanasia bill for introduction into state parliament. Premier Geoff Gallop has ensured that it will get proper debating time, whereas Norm Kelly's bill had been ignored.

In Queensland Independent MP Peter Wellington, from Nicklin on the Sunshine Coast, is proposing the Care for the Terminally Ill Bill, which is based on the Consent to Medical Treatment and Palliative Care Actin SA. In effect it would give protection to doctors who give pain relief in doses that can hasten death.

In New South Wales Greens MP Ian Cohen is proposing the Rights of the Terminally Ill Bill which would allow physician assisted suicide, and has been backed by Dr Philip Nitschke.

In Victoria Dr Nitschke mounted a campaign in the federal election against MP Kevin Andrews in the seat of Menzies. Kevin Andrews was responsible for the repeal of the Northern Territory Rights of the Terminally Ill Act. Dr Nitschke did not stand against Mr Andrews in the election, but instead promoted the other four candidates who had indicated their support for a bill to repeal the Euthanasia Laws Act (the Andrews Act).

Turning next to international news Frances advised that Belgium is set to become the second place in the world to legalise voluntary euthanasia. The Senate decided by 44 votes to 23, to allow competent adults this choice, after making specific, voluntary and repeated requests in writing that their lives be ended. Another person may be nominated to act on their behalf, but requests will only be approved if the patient is terminally ill and in constant suffering. There is also provision for patients who are not in the final stages of a terminal illness to choose voluntary euthanasia. In such cases the patient's doctor must arrange a second opinion - from a psychiatrist or a specialist in the disease, and one month must elapse after the written request. Each case must be registered with a special national commission, which is charged with ensuring that doctors follow strict guidelines. The new law is to be approved by the Chamber of Deputies, and the vote is expected before the end of the year.

In England the Dianne Pretty case is proceeding to the House of Lords, after failing in the High Court. Ms Pretty is terminally ill with motor neurone disease and is requesting permission for her husband to assist her suicide. This is a particularly interesting case because of its challenge under the auspices of the Human Rights Act under which there are three key rights. Article Three refers to the right to not be subjected to inhumane or degrading treatment, while Article Eight refers to the right to privacy and personal autonomy over one's body, free from state interference. Ms Pretty is arguing that under Article 14 she is being discriminated against due to her disability, as this prevents her taking her own life.

Certain findings by the three judges were quite extraordinary. These included the view that the country is not ready for assisted suicide, and that public opinion is not ready for change. Also the right to human dignity enshrined in the new act is not the right to die with dignity, simply the right to a dignified a life as possible. The judges stated that no -one has the right to procure their own death. It is anticipated that the appeal to the House of Lords will be unsuccessful as it has already ruled against voluntary euthanasia legislation, claiming that it is not possible to ever have sufficient safeguards.

In Oregon the anti-choice movement in the United States, boosted by the conservative Bush presidency appointment of Attorney General John D Ashcroft, is one again attempting to dismantle the physician assisted suicide law in Oregon. The Attorney General has directed drug enforcement agents to identify and punish doctors who prescribe federally controlled drugs. The doctors are not to be criminally prosecuted, but face the probability of losing their license. The Attorney General has stated that assisting suicide is not a legitimate medical purpose under federal law, thus reversing the decision of the previous Attorney General Janet Reno. This is reminiscent of Australian federal intervention in overturning the Northern Territory Rights of the Terminally Ill Act.

Finally Frances argued that we must be determined and vigilant in our fight for law reform. The power that each and every one has in contributing to this fight cannot be underestimated, and we must not sink into apathy. SAVES members and the general public should write to their local members of parliament. A few lines is all that is needed to state the point. Participating in 'talk back' shows and volunteering for the 'telephone tree' are other avenues by which to promote the right to choose. The SAVES committee cannot do it alone.

Julia Anaf

References:

1. Hansard Wed. 3^rd Oct p. 2344
2. Ibid p 2343
3. Ibid. p. 2338
4. Ibid p. 2342