EUTHANASIA » DO YOU REALLY UNDERSTAND IT?
Recently a Federal law was passed to make euthanasia illegal in the Northern Territory, the Australian Capital Territory and Norfolk Island. This law received a lot of criticism in the media, which have since described fresh attempts to get around the law in the Territories and attempts to legalise euthanasia in some States. This leaflet seeks to point out some of the reasons why our society has always opposed euthanasia.
What is Euthanasia?
Euthanasia is the deliberate killing of a human being; it is, therefore, homicide.
Voluntary euthanasia involves the patient requesting or consenting to it. Non-voluntary euthanasia involves deliberate killing although the patient did not ask for or consent to it. Involuntary euthanasia is when euthanasia is done in defiance of a request that it not be done. The method of Killing encouraged under the former Northern Territory law and under other proposals is by a lethal dose of drugs, the same method used to kill criminals convicted of murder in America.
But didn't the NT law permit only voluntary euthanasia?
Yes, but on account of its faulty definition of terminal illness, a doctor could take some patients' lives by ceasing their medical treatment, even though they may only have been suffering a treatable chronic complaint, such as diabetes, or heart or kidney disease.
The doctor did not require permission to perform euthanasia from a court or other independent body, and his or her actions were not supervised.
In the Netherlands, where doctors have practised euthanasia for more than 20 years, an official study found that, once voluntary killing is allowed, many people also die from non-voluntary euthanasia. At least 1,000 patients were killed in a year without any request or consent, while the overall incidence of euthanasia was over 20% of all deaths reported.
The extension from voluntary to non-voluntary euthanasia is not the result of carelessness or malice - it is simply a logical step. When taking life on request to relieve suffering is seen as a benefit, it is logically inconsistent to deny that benefit to others in a similar plight, just because they have not asked or could not ask. Every one of the impartial inquiries into the results of legalising euthanasia has warned against legalisation, because no guarantee could ever be given that this extension would not occur at some time, perhaps years later.
What's the alternative?
Palliative Care is concerned to reduce or eliminate if possible, the physical pain and mental anguish associated with dying, and to provide emotional support for families as well as patients. It requires some different skills from those in ordinary medical use, and involves at least two people, a doctor and a nurse working as a team, and sometimes others also. This is to ensure that everything possible is being done to provide whatever the dying person needs.
At present, the quality of palliative care available throughout Australia is very variable. Too many patients die in distress that could have been, and should have been, relieved by better care, and in some instances, this distress is used to justify the taking of their lives. Euthanasia because of inadequate care should be unthinkable. Regardless of one's views on euthanasia, high standards of care for the dying must be given priority.
It will not be cheap or easy to correct these deficiencies in care, and success will require unwavering commitment from both the government and the community. Whether or not there were any threat of euthanasia, this is the proper course to follow, in the name of compassion for all our fellow citizens who are dying.
'Where patients themselves request that their life be ended, we must bear in mind that such requests are often an expression of their desperation, and are, in fact, an appeal for human support and attention. Real love and compassion mean tat we give all the Support these patients need in order to overcome their anguish and desperation. People who request euthanasia often suffer from a lack of human relationships and understanding. Shouldn't 'mercy killing" be considered the final rejection in a series of "abandonments" they experienced through a lack of real human attention and understanding?"
Professor W. J. Eijk Hilversum, The Netherlands June 1996
To find out more or make a donation to fund our work, please contact us:
Right to Life Association (NSW) Inc
GPO Box 3612
SYDNEY
NSW 1007
Telephone: 9299 8350