Assisted Suicide Bill Defeated in South Australia

South Australia's Parliament defeated a bill that would have amended an existing law to allow assisted suicide. While it's estimated that 80% of voters favor the amendment, parliament rejected it. From The Sydney Morning Herald:

But Family First MLC Dennis Hood said the bill was "dangerous" and he was relieved it was defeated.

"Parliament has spoken loud and clear. Voluntary euthanasia for SA has been soundly defeated and should be moved off the agenda," he said.

"I am grateful that members listened to my concerns and made the decision on conscience to oppose the bill."

Mr Hood said the bill would have allowed euthanasia for patients that did not have a terminal illness, left psychological referral of patients as an option only and offered a "toothless" Voluntary Euthanasia Board to oversee the practice.

In September this year, Ms Key announced she would introduce the bill into parliament's lower house while Greens upper house MP Mark Parnell will put the identical bill to the Legislative Council.

Mr Parnell had similar legislation defeated in the upper house last year.

At the time, Ms Key said it was time for the SA parliament to catch up with public opinion.

"Over 80 per cent of Australians support the right of the terminally ill and others living in intolerable pain and suffering to seek the assistance of a doctor to end their own lives at a time and in the circumstances of their choosing," she said.

Mr Parnell said the bill required a patient to be examined by two doctors, including at least one specialist and oversight by a Voluntary euthanasia Board.

But influential Port Pirie Catholic bishop Gregory O'Kelly was among vocal opponents of the plan, blaming the recent rise of minor political parties for "pushing death.

"It is a sadness that the first moves around our nation under our new political arrangement seem to be a promotion of death and abuse of marriage," he said in September.

Tasmanian Devils.

If you want a rational voice on end of life care and law, I can recommend some others than Wesley J. Smith who makes his money from the ultra-conservative Discovery Institute and books, blogs and articles (for the likes of National Review and First Things) on nebulous, bible-esque stuff like the "sanctity of life" and the "slippery slope" and the "culture of death" that's out to kill, you know, any body it can. The underlying groan of Smith's writing is anti-"socialist" -- whatever that means -- and yet strangely all for government telling us when and where we can die. It's an odd, potent mix of narrative that, thanks to a host of popular (but not truly populist) politicians and media celebrities, has tea party (hence, well-funded think tank) legs at the moment.

Australia has been debating assisted suicide for a while. Never one to lose a chance at the limelight, Smith's decided to weight in. From ABC News Australia:

Wesley Smith has been brought to Australia by the Right to Life lobby group to lobby in Tasmania, Queensland, Victoria, New South Wales, and Western Australia.

Mr Smith says Tasmanian politicians' backing for a private member's bill could end in a voluntary euthanasia law that will lead to a broader range of people being eligible for assisted suicide.

He says that in Belgium and the Netherlands legislation has been gradually eased to allow sick babies, people with mental illness and healthy spouses of terminally ill people to be euthanised.

Mr Smith says there can be no legislative roadblocks to restrict who would be eligible for assisted suicide.

"Once you accept the precepts of assisted suicide, that suffering is a just cause for helping someone to end their life, it's not going to remain restricted," he said.

"That's the argument I think we should have as a society."

In other words, Smith's not interested in dialogue, he's already laid out his argument and expects others -- despite the horrors of end of life care, four decades of technical advancements that have changed the definition of death, rampant futile care, and failing health systems across the globe -- like the Australian government to toe his line.

We can say that Smith has a right to his opinion here in the U.S. -- the First Amendment exists for a vital reason -- but he must adhere to facts, an area where he prefers to move quick and loose. But playing the ambassador to other countries, even at the invitation of religious groups that espouse broad imposition of ideological medicine on all citizens, is really offensive. Particularly when he purports to be an expert, touting the horrors of the Netherlands' and Belgium's laws and health care systems. From a man who still claims Terri Schiavo was murdered. His broad-strokes, black and white approach to bioethics is embarrassing. His use of the controversial subject and the politically, ideologically motivated "right to life" organizations to get the limelight is irresponsible. Take the "Made in America" sticker off that export.

Catholic Health Australia and Palliative Care.

A number of converging issues bring the below article about Catholic Health Australia's revision of palliative care materials to my attention: 1. Australia is in the midst of a fierce struggle over the legalization of assisted suicide (or rather aid in dying) and 2. The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops have recently revised the Ethical and Religious Directives that govern all care, including end of life care and the honoring of individuals' advance directives in the US. I wonder what role the Catholic church has in medicine in Australia. And I will have to do more digging to find out what this brochure says about individuals' advance directives.

In part, the article reads:

According to Professor Richard Chye, a palliative care specialist at Sydney’s St Vincent’s Hospital who worked on the guide, this is partly due to a range of misconceptions about palliative care that are still common among health professionals.

“We know that we not only have a death-denying society but we also have a large number of death-denying health professionals,” said Professor Chye.

“Many of my colleagues, both doctors and nurses have a number of misconceptions about palliative care.

“For instance, a lot of them think palliative care is just about administering morphine and that palliative care patients only have days left to live. But giving morphine is only about 15 per cent of what I do as a clinician and as many as five per cent of my patients are still alive after 12 months.”

Jim Wallace Says He Speaks For All Christians.

From ChristianityToday, a report on the debate over aid in dying in Australia:

The vast majority of Christians are opposed to euthanasia and would be deeply concerned about last night’s passing of the second reading stage in the South Australian Upper House of a bill to legalise voluntary euthanasia, the Australian Christian Lobby (ACL) said today.

ACL Managing Director Jim Wallace said reported claims by the group ‘Christians Supporting Choice for Voluntary Euthanasia’ that many Christians support euthanasia give a false impression regarding the true views of the overwhelming majority of Christians.

“ACL has battled strongly against euthanasia being legalised for years at both State and Federal levels and before numerous parliamentary inquiries. In consulting with churches and Christian leaders we have been left in no doubt that the vast majority of Christians are opposed to euthanasia,” Mr Wallace said.

“It has become a tactic by some groups to assume a representation that they don’t have. We saw this in the charter of rights debate and we are again seeing this in the current debate over euthanasia in South Australia. These tactics are clearly designed to confuse people about the true stance of the overwhelming majority of Christians on these matters.”

"Endorsing Suicides": The Assisted Suicide Debate in Australia.

Lest you think the US, Canada and Britain are the only countries struggling over the issue of assisted suicide, read up at CardinalPole for a conservative update of what's going on in Australia.

He is responding to an address given at The Sydney Institute and subsequently published in The Sydney Morning Herald by Ms. Susan Varga, an Australian novelist. Varga uses the address to cite the case of her mother's suicide as an argument for legalized assisted suicide (or euthanasia).

I may personally agree with Varga, that the choice to end one's life need not result from a mental condition that can be cured with drugs and counseling, but the commenters at CardinalPole, Varga, and indeed the blogger himself, are conflating terms. Depending on how the law in Australia is ultimately designed, those who rightfully choose to end their lives will be left with only violent means, as is the case in the US where Death with Dignity has been legalized.

I include the post not only because it shows the kinds of discussions that are occurring around the globe, but because it demonstrates this conflation of terms.

As well a number of points come out of this post that I have been all over of late regarding the discourse in the US:

*Death with Dignity, as legalized in Oregon and Washington, requires a mentally sounds, terminally ill patent to self-administer lethal drugs. The laws have safeguards to prevent violation. They have nothing to do with assisted suicide as the term is used by opponents.

*Pro-life groups are working to give more of their power, voice, money and resources to the second leg of their four-legged platform, "assisted suicide" - stem cell research, cloning and abortion being the other three legs. By muddying the language surrounding the issue, by claiming "slippery slope" arguments, by opposing the government and working to limit access, they are playing by the same book they have since 1973 and the legalization of abortion under Roe v Wade.

*Opponents to the legalization of Death with Dignity continue to confuse depression as a cause for suicide and depression as a cause for utilizing Death with Dignity. DwD users are already dying. In their cases, depression is a symptom

*"Pro-life" groups oppose choice in dying because it betrays what they call the sanctity of life, or rather, God's control over suffering. We have no choice, they say, an echo of their opposition to women who worked for choice in reproduction. Same argument, same play book, different end of the life spectrum.

To be clear, I strongly support treatment for depression. But depression is not an issue with regards to Death with Dignity in the US. I don't buy what many "pro-life" groups call the "culture of death," nor arguments that erosion of one "pro-life" issue will lead to a "slippery slope." Choice is a right, not a slippery slope.

Legal to Decline Treatment in Australia.

Britain is certainly not the only country grappling with assisted suicide at the moment (see prior post). From Singapore to China, Britain to the US, assisted suicide is proving to challenge courts and public opinion around the globe. As populations age, life-prolonging technologies develop and health care becomes a juggernaut in many national budgets, countries are being forced to grapple with how they can legally provide citizens with the death they choose without subjecting doctors to prosecution. Most often these challenges are legal.

In Australia, the case of Christian Rossiter, a quadriplegic who won the right to deny life-prolonging medical treatment from the home where he was a resident. Rossiter died of a chest infection after winning the legal right to not receive nutrition and hydration. Australians who support Mr. Rossiter's petition fear that the government and the medical profession are not representing public opinion on the matter.

While Mr Ray hopes Christian Rossiter's story brings legal reform one step closer, he believes politicians will continue to stand in the way.

"It is a rather sad situation that while euthanasia has been supported by over 80 per cent of the population, it is the parliamentarians who are holding it back," he said.

"It is the parliamentarians' fright of what a small minority of the electorate will do to their future electoral prospects [that is] stopping this legislation from going through.

The story does not identify that small minority of the electorate demographically.