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

Last year the Social Development Committee of the Tasmanian Parliament published a substantial (46pp.) report on its inquiry "into the need for legislation in Tasmania to allow for voluntary euthanasia or assisted suicide for the terminally ill ...". The Committee recommended against legalising voluntary euthanasia, advocating only improved provision of palliative care.

The inquiry was undertaken after a public opinion poll revealed that 54% of Tasmanian people were in favour of legalising voluntary euthanasia "as the Northern Territory has done". In the event the inquiry was conducted without reference to the Northern Territory's Rights of the Terminally Ill Act, or to any particular legislation. This made it easy for opponents to claim without a shred of evidence that any such legislation would be unworkable.

The report starts with an overview of the voluntary euthanasia debate, followed by consideration of the ethical, legal and social issues involved, and a final section on advance directives and legislative reform. Not surprisingly, it contains mainly material that we have heard or read many times in recent years. There is no new material and no analysis. Far more space is given to the views of witnesses opposed to law reform, than to contrary statements. Perhaps the Committee hoped in this way to add credibility to its decision to reject what the majority of the people regarded as needed law reform.

The following are the main reasons given for rejecting voluntary euthanasia legislation (in bold), followed by the author's comments.

Although "individual cases may present a strong case for reform", the "subjective moral choice" involved runs counter to the state's obligation "to protect the right to life of all its citizens equally". Legislation "would have to be based on a general principle that treated all individuals equally". As a VE law could only be accessed by a free, informed and persistent request from a person suffering intolerably from an irremediable condition, moral subjectivity is appropriate. All citizens would have equal right of access. The denial of that right to persons who "present a strong case" cannot be said to treat all individuals equally.

While recognising that "abuses of the current system do occur", the legalisation of VE would not be "an appropriate solution" as it "could not adequately provide the necessary safeguards against abuse. The so-called "abuses" are actually the response of compassionate doctors to patients whose condition cannot be remedied, who either ask to die, or are no longer capable of expressing a wish. The current system obviously does not provide adequate (or any) safeguards and no foundation is offered for the allegation that a VE law could not do so. A statement by a witness that doctors would be the abusers and could not be trusted not to kill patients unnecessarily, or for wrong motives, may have carried too much weight. For if this were true, their opportunities are greater under the current system than they would be when regulated by a voluntary euthanasia law.

" ... the legalisation of VE would pose a serious threat to the more vulnerable members of society ..." This is an old furphy. The "vulnerable" have been variously identified as people with disabilities, the frail elderly and the seriously ill. Their vulnerability is attributed to the desire of relatives, or "society" (!), to dispose of them and their inability to withstand such pressures. This degraded view of humanity is disheartening. If true, it would be more alarming under the current system of prohibition which encourages covert behaviour.

So why did Tasmania's Social Development Committee decide against legalisation? Opposition takes many forms. There is a religious objection based on doctrine; a "gut feeling" related to our instinctive aversion to taking life; misconception of what the law would say and how it would operate; and an assumption that voluntary euthanasia is not a vote-catcher, but might lose a marginal seat through the campaign of a vociferous minority.

Objections voiced in principle enjoy so little support that opponents have turned to speculative assertions that however well-meant or worthy the law may be, it will have disastrous effects. This did not happen in the Northern Territory before the untimely end of its law, nor has it happened in Oregon - nor, despite desperate attempts to demonstrate otherwise, is it so in the Netherlands.

Let us hope our Social Development Committee will not tread the same sorry path as its Tasmanian counterpart.