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

Over 40 members and guests were welcomed to the July meeting by Frances Coombe who spoke about a most important aspect of the voluntary euthanasia debate, and one often overlooked; that of Christian support of choice for voluntary euthanasia. Despite common misconceptions and misrepresentations there is majority support by nominal Christians, and more support than opposition from active church members.

This is despite strong opposition by many church hierarchies, especially fundamentalist churches. Two Family First (Assemblies of God) MPs have been elected in the Upper House of the SA parliament, and this greatly hinders the chances of a voluntary euthanasia bill being passed. Overall it’s a minority of Christians opposing legislation, hiding behind secular arguments, making unsubstantiated statements to the effect that it’s not possible to enact sound voluntary euthanasia legislation.

One common tactic is embarking on a ‘fear and smear’ campaign against jurisdictions where assisted dying is a legal possibility. Religious obstructionism was highly visible in the religious lobbying for the recent Lord Joffe assisted suicide bill in the UK. A British Humanist Association paper ‘In Bad Faith’, reported on in the last VE Bulletin, details the sway of the religious lobby and the extent to which they will go to stymie legislative change. It also discussed how the churches are ideally geared to garner support.

Frances stated how important it is that Christians who support choice for voluntary euthanasia get active, write letters to the newspapers, visit or write to their MPs, engage in talkback radio; stating their convictions, and openly state that their faith supports choice for voluntary euthanasia out of care and compassion for the suffering. This has always been claimed to be a hallmark of the Christian faith. ‘Liberal’ Christians can make an important contribution to law reform by stating that church hierarchies do not speak for them on this issue, if that is their conviction.

Christians have always been active in the modern voluntary euthanasia lobby, including the founders of the American Euthanasia Society in 1945 including Henry Sloans Coffin, President of the Union Seminary, and Harry Emerson Fosdick of the Baptist Riverside Church.

Frances reported that one of the United Kingdom’s leading medical ethicists, Emeritus Professor Len Doyal, has called for the legalisation of voluntary and non-voluntary euthanasia in Britain, saying assisted deaths are taking place on a regular and recurring basis in the UK, and they should be better regulated. When doctors withdraw life-sustaining treatment such as feeding tubes from non-competent patients, it should be recognised for what it is - euthanasia where death is foreseen with certainty. Doctors may not want to admit this and couch their decision in terms such as the alleviation of suffering. Professor Doyal stated that withdrawal of life sustaining treatment from non-competent patients is morally equivalent to active euthanasia. He asked if doctors can already choose to not keep uncomprehending patients alive because they believe that life is of no further benefit, why should their dying be needlessly prolonged? Withdrawing feeding tubes, ventilators or antibiotics from non-competent patients may result in a slow, painful and incomprehensible death that could be avoided through the legalisation of non-voluntary active euthanasia. Professor Doyal argued that proponents of voluntary euthanasia should support non-voluntary euthanasia under appropriate circumstances and with proper regulation. If doctors are now allowed control over the deaths of these patients, why should competent patients not be able to control the circumstances of their own deaths if this is what they wish?

On the international scene Michigan’s Governor Granholm has ordered an independent medical evaluation of assisted suicide crusader Jack Kevorkian who, as reported on in the last VE Bulletin, is in failing health in prison. Kevorkian, 78, is serving a 10 to 25-year prison sentence for second-degree murder in the 1998 death of Thomas Youk, who had Lou Gehrig's disease and had asked for Kervorkian’s assistance to die. Kervorkian did so, televised his action, and challenged the authorities to prosecute him which indeed they did. Kevorkian, convicted in 1999, is not eligible for parole until June 2007.

Turning to the state scene, SAVES’ recent media opportunities included a full page interview with Mary Gallnor and a large ‘opinion piece’ in The Advertiser. Frances read out a letter from SAVES’ Task Force member Arnold Gillespie who responded to comments by parliamentary members Martin Hamilton-Smith and Nick Xenophon who both oppose law reform. Professor Gillespie made the point that neither member had witnessed the appalling ravages of gynaecological cancer that he had during his professional life that has led him to speak out in favour of choice for voluntary euthanasia.

Frances also had a letter published in the Sunday Mail in response to Margaret Tighe, President of Right to Life Australia, who was denouncing the fact that people are now travelling to Switzerland for assistance to die. Frances agreed with Ms Tighe that it is tragic, but also firmly stated ‘not only that; it is shameful and cruel that our law forces people to such action by prohibiting choice for a quick and peaceful death through voluntary euthanasia’…Our right to life is not an obligation to live with horrendous suffering.

Pressure has been mounting for the practice to be more tightly controlled, partly because Switzerland has gained a reputation for "death tourism" with increasing numbers of foreigners coming to the country specifically to die with the help of Dignitas. Frances told the audience that the Swiss government has recently ruled that laws governing assisted suicide in Switzerland are not in need of reform. It is legal in that country to help someone to die provided the person providing assistance has no selfish motives. Interestingly, the cabinet stated that monitoring the activities of Exit and Dignitas would lead to too much bureaucracy and would have the effect of legitimising such groups. The only measure the cabinet would consider was whether to make it more difficult to obtain drugs used in assisted suicide. It will consider whether to revise the law in this regard by the end of the year.

Frances advised the audience that she will be a SAVES delegate to the World Federation of Right to Die Societies Conference in Toronto during September. She expressed her appreciation of a personal donation from Sandra Kanck towards expenses. Frances also stated support for Sandra, affirming her integrity, honour and deep commitment to working for sensible governance. There is no doubt at all that Sandra’s introduction of bills in parliament has progressed the debate and understanding of VE to a level unmatched in Australia.

SAVES has proposed a motion for the conference - "The South Australian Voluntary Euthanasia Society (SAVES) proposes that the accommodation, venue, meals and social events for the World Federation conferences be as inexpensive as possible." As Frances pointed out, this is not a criticism of past conferences which have been thoroughly enjoyed by SAVES delegates. Our sincere thanks and appreciation go to past hosts. The importance of conferences lies in the learning and networking that takes place. Many member societies work on tight budgets and find it difficult to finance delegates’ attendance. Societies that would like to host a conference are similarly constrained. In order to attract both attendance and offers to host conferences, costs need to be minimised.

In a move to further publicise our cause shopping bags carrying the SAVES logo will be available for a small charge. Further information will be available in a later bulletin. T shirts are still selling well and are available for $25.00 (postage paid). Offers of general assistance are still sought for SAVES activities, including re-stocking of pamphlets in doctors’ waiting rooms and help with ‘awareness’ days on steps of parliament.

SAVES’ range of activities has been acknowledged by Marshall Perron, who stated recently:

SAVES activities, as revealed in the latest newsletter are commendable. I applaud your initiatives and determination. In my humble opinion SA is still the state most likely to succeed if SAVES outstanding energy level can be maintained…regards to all who contribute.

His positive comments were very much appreciated. Frances then invited guest speaker Dr Rosemary Jones to address the audience, stating that she is ‘one of our strong supporters who along with Dr Roger Hunt, publicly and courageously stated support for choice for voluntary euthanasia over 10 years ago’.

By way of introduction Frances read a brief outline of the life and work of Dr Jones, who in her own words, was ‘born a boy in England, educated in Dorset, took a medical degree at Bristol University, moved to South Africa and then to New John Radcliffe Hospital in Oxford before migrating to Australia’.

Dr Jones practiced in New South Wales and in 1979 took up positions as a Senior Visiting Specialist at the Queen Elizabeth and Queen Victoria Hospitals while starting a private practice. Dr Jones was happy to finally acknowledge his true nature in commencing full time living as a woman in March of this year, and now takes pleasure in being addressed as ‘she’, considering it a ‘special honour’.

Dr Jones spoke of the 20 year campaign to persuade the Australian Medical Association (AMA) to adopt a policy of neutrality on voluntary euthanasia, arguing that they reached a position of neutrality on therapeutic abortion, so why not voluntary euthanasia? Although the AMA is the official representative body for medical practitioners, it represents only a minority of doctors. In 1992 a survey of 1000 doctors, found that 57% supported the first voluntary euthanasia bill brought before the South Australian parliament. What was also revealed was that 25 per cent of doctors had acceded to requests for voluntary euthanasia. Seven Australian surveys since 1985 show ample evidence of a diversity of opinion within the medical profession, also doctors’ practice of illegal assisted dying. Over the last two decades hundreds of letters have been sent to federal and state branches of the AMA on the issue of neutrality. A group known as ‘Doctors for AMA Neutrality on Voluntary Euthanasia’ has been corresponding with the federal AMA over the past four years.

Dr Jones speculated on why there is opposition in the medical field, because it is important to understand the objections in order to address the issue. Her view is that perceived interference in professional autonomy, additional paperwork and legislation may lead doctors to feel pressured. Also some doctors may want to intervene immediately to assist patients in severe distress, rather than wait the mandatory 24 or 48 hours as designated by legislation. She also considers that some doctors may feel coerced or face negative feedback in the same way as ‘abortion doctors’ did when laws were changed around termination of pregnancy.

Particular interpretations of the Hippocratic Oath and the World Medical Association’s opposition to voluntary euthanasia ‘also have statements that doctors can hide behind’, according to Dr Jones, and all are reasons why some doctors may prefer to maintain the status quo, even with all its failings. However she considers change to be inevitable.

Dr Jones stated that it was her early training that had formed her attitudes and deepened her compassion. She maintains that, as is the case with doctors who assist women facing difficult reproductive choices, those who respond to patients’ pleas at the end of life must have a strong sense of identity, ethical framework, strength of conviction and compassion.