February 23, 2014
Discussing a good death with Philip Nitschke
I speak at a writers festival about once a year. These festivals are always good fun, inspiring and mind-expanding. Last weekend I participated in a panel discussion at Perth Writers’ Festival on ‘A good death’. A panel of four members was deftly facilitated by Anne Summers, asking ‘What is to be gained if assisted suicide is legalised? What stands to be lost? Does society need a better approach to dying?’ I was the token ‘religious’ person on the panel, and the only one to express satisfaction with the status quo of Australian law which presently bans physician-assisted suicide and physician administered death. Predictably the audience was pro-euthanasia.
I was able to mix with other writers bemoaning Australia’s refugee policy including the confusion and obfuscation about the death of an asylum seeker on Manus Island and Julie Bishop’s latest diplomatic initiative asking Hun Sen to accept refugees from Australia for permanent resettlement in Cambodia. I came away wondering how passionate refugee advocates could be so sanguine about physician assisted suicide and doctor administered death even for children.
No doubt many of the audience wondered how I could be a refugee advocate while not extending the right of self-determination to any person wanting assistance to end their life, at a time of their choosing, in a manner of their choosing, and in the company of their choosing.
Despite my insistence on distinguishing personal moral beliefs, voluntarily embraced and espoused, from laws and policies imposed with sanctions on all citizens, I suspect many thought my views on appropriate laws and policies governing death and dying were really predetermined by my Catholic moral upbringing. I did point out that the 85-year-old Hans Kung, a leading Catholic theologian who is increasingly incapacitated with Parkinson’s Disease and macular degeneration, has written in the third volume of his autobiography: ‘I don’t want to go on existing as a shadow of myself. Human beings have a right to die when they see no hope of continuing to live according to their very own understanding of how to go on living in a humane way.’
After the session, a couple of writers expressed bewilderment how Tony Abbott and his fellow Jesuit alumni could espouse their refugee policy and still profess their Catholic faith. Law and religion, politics and policy are always a complex mix.
Dr Philip Nitschke was on the panel promoting his autobiography Damned if I Do. He spoke with some ambivalence about the policy objectives of reformers in this field. On the one hand, he agitates for the right of any person to control their life and to take their life regardless of their physical health or pain.
He suggests that the state should not impede the provision or availability of substances like Nembutal so that citizens might always be assured a simple, dignified way of ending their lives, even if they be simply sick of living. He gave the example of the Victorian couple who decided to consume Nembutal together because one did not want to go on living were the other to die of cancer.
On the other hand, Nitschke concedes that the only prospect of legislative change will be with the design of a law which contains stringent safeguards and preconditions. Presumably he thinks the safeguards can be removed over time once we cross the medico-legal Rubicon of ‘Do no harm’.
The focus of the discussion was principally on the needs of those wanting to end their lives. But Nembutal is better than hanging not just for the deceased, but also for those who are left behind. Concerns about others feeling pressured by relatives to consider death as an option were discounted. Many were dubious when I quoted UK research which showed that 35 per cent of persons with a significant disability were worried that a euthanasia law might put pressure on them to end their lives, and 70 per cent feared for others with disabilities.
Recalling the Northern Territory experience in 1997, Nitschke told us that Chief Minister Marshall Perron, who spearheaded the short-lived euthanasia law, did not want to put in too many hoops for people to jump through before requesting a doctor to administer a lethal injection. Many in the audience were dubious about my claim that Aborigines on remote communities were afraid about what doctors might do to them once this law was in place. There was a suggestion these fears were whipped up by the churches and other conservative groups.
I came away wondering why the perceived urgency for changing the law. With the internet and a patchy Customs service, people are able to import Nembutal fairly readily, keeping it on the shelf for their hour of need. Fellow panellist Lionel Shriver gave the salutary warning, ‘Don’t put it next to the baking soda.’
Attempts at legislative change have recently fallen over in Tasmania and New South Wales. Having failed on the same sex marriage front, the ACT Legislative Assembly this week will consider a motion on dying with dignity. Chief Minister Katie Gallagher reflecting on the recent deaths of her aged parents has said:
If I was ever in a position where I had to make a choice about supporting a proposed model of voluntary euthanasia, I would have to be convinced about a range of safeguards as part of any model. I’m overwhelmingly of the view that the debate about euthanasia should be refocused on improving end-of-life care, understanding the individual person’s wishes about their end-of-life care choices and how we as a community ensure that people are able to die with dignity.
Given that the number of Australians aged over 85 will quadruple in the next 40 years from 400,000 to 1.8 million, discussion about euthanasia will continue.
Even though Nitschke was accompanied by security guards, I thought it a good sign that we all engaged in a civil, good humoured discussion, and that there was room at a writers festival for one religious person happy to raise questions about the vulnerable and the common good, though being outnumbered by those who think that the issue should be primarily, if not exclusively, focused on the autonomy of the mentally able, resourceful, determined person wanting a death of their choosing. No doubt we will solve it all at the next writers festival.
Journalist: Frank Brennan