Australian Disability Advocacy group Lives Worth Living weighed in on the news, yesterday, concerning the medical board of Australia's decision to severely restrict Dr Nitschke's affilliation with the work of Exit International, by joining the call of an Inquiry. LWL Convener Craig Wallace said today, that, "LWL welcomes the heavy restrictions placed on Dr. Nitschke. They highlight the need to protect all Australians from coercion to commit suicide, especially people with disabilities. Australians with disabilities face a lack of support, including specifically designed suicide prevention programs." "Despite the decision, the threat is not over. There now needs to be a Parliamentary Inquiry into the actions of Exit International. The restrictions placed on Dr. Nitschke raise real questions about the role and work of Exit International in coaching people towards suicide through online forums as evidence in the tragic events reported last year", Mr. Wallace said. Continue reading

The Australian Health Practitioners Regulation Agency, the Medical Board, moved today (26th Oct) to curtail the suicide advocacy of Dr Philip Nitschke in creating an unprecedented 25 restrictions upon his licence to practice medicine. This action is the culmination of a dozen complaints the agency had received, dating back almost four years, including one by the author over three years ago about the promotion of hypoxic death methods utilizing nitrogen gas.Originally, the 12 complaints were to have been aired in medical tribunal hearings scheduled for Darwin (NT) in November. Nitschke admitted, in various news reports today that he had 'reached an agreement' with the medical board in September this year to accept the boards restrictions rather than facing 'four to six weeks of "costly" tribunal hearings.' He may have been concerned for the cost after recently incurring significant legal fees in successfully appealing an earlier suspension. Continue reading

Paul Russell, Director of HOPE: preventing euthanasia & assisted suicide welcomes the decision of the Medical Board, AHPRA to severely restrict Philip Nitschke's medical licence in respect to his relationship to the work of Exit International. AHPRA Media Release: Board imposes conditions on Dr Phillip Nitschke, ending legal process"The decision of the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (AHPRA) in response to a number of complaints about the activities of Exit and Philip Nitschke is most welcome." said Mr Russell. Continue reading

By Chris Hayes MP for NSW. Article first appeared in the Labor Herald With the Tasmanian state conference debating whether Labor should create a legal framework to allow euthanasia last weekend, Fowler MP Chris Hayes outlines why euthanasia preys on the vulnerable and why the debate needs to shift to palliative care and investing in the very best end-of-life care for the sick and their carers.For me, euthanasia preys on the marginalised and disenfranchised. Just as I oppose the death penalty, I oppose a measure that would say to patients that the best we can offer you is an end-of-life solution. Continue reading

News today that the Tasmanian State Conference of the Australian Labor Party endorsed a motion in support of a push for euthanasia has reignited the issue in the island state. Euthanasia was last debated in Tasmania on the 17th of October 2013 when the Voluntary Assisted Dying Bill was defeated 13 votes to 11 in the State's Lower House. Since that time, the State Election has changed the make up of the chamber offering, perhaps, the mover of the last bill, Lara Giddings MP, some hope that this time the outcome might be different.The ALP motion - now part of the party's Tasmanian platform - is subject to the normal provision of a conscience vote and is, we understand, not binding upon State ALP Members of Parliament. Continue reading

In a bizarre statement today (20th August 2015), NT Health Minister, John Elferink openly discussed 'canvassing support for cutting seniors' funding' in health that 'has been coming "at the expense" of children'. He told ABC News that 'the money would be better spent in the first year of a person's life.'"The fact is we've pretty much reached the limit of how old we can grow as a species," he told the ABC after the annual Australasian aeromedical conference in Darwin. Continue reading

I had heard it described as the 'clash of the titans' and other similarly grand claims evocative of gladiatorial contests of one kind or another.But for those who have known or observed Sydney Archbishop, Anthony Fisher and Professor Peter Singer in any previous forum, a titanic battle was never really on the cards.Marketed simply as 'The Euthanasia Debate: Singer v Fisher' the event at the Sydney Town Hall last week was, as described by one journalist, an event where: 'arguments flew in both directions but rarely met'. It was a respectful exchange from two well-credentialed people whose views were never really expected to coalesce upon common ground.Fisher's was a straight forward approach. In his opening remarks he drew moral distinctions between killing in response to suffering and actively supporting and engaging in answering the needs of the sufferer until death summarizing that the latter 'demands more from us' endorsing, as it does, the intrinsic value of human life. He went on from that point to discuss the effect upon humanity of accepting the view that some lives would be worth less than others.Singer's approach, by contrast, was anything but straightforward. He began by framing the debate on his own terms. For some, his assertion that he accepted a definition of 'voluntary euthanasia' as put by Archbishop Fisher in a debate some years ago will have seemed conciliatory, perhaps even charitable. It was, in reality, a slight of hand. "An act or calculated course of omission intended to shorten life with a supposedly merciful motivation."Singer said that he accepted this definition, 'so we don't have to argue'. However, after then making some entirely unremarkable comments about what 'voluntary' means, he moved immediately to argue that physician assisted suicide is included in the above definition. Certainly, there are similarities and certainly, as he later observed, there may be little in the way of 'ethical significance in the distinction' but there's a little devil in the detail here and 'method in the madness'.Physician Assisted Suicide (PAS) as is practiced in certain places, involves the provision of the means by which a person can commit suicide. In states in the USA where it is practiced it is normally about a doctor prescribing a lethal substance that the person later ingests. (By the way, he was wrong to say that PAS is legal in Montana) The distinction between PAS and euthanasia is essentially about who actually does the killing.Fisher's definition is a definition for euthanasia. If it were about 'voluntary euthanasia' it would require an additional phrase relating to consent. In thinking about the 'agreed definition' however, it is, at the very least, a very large 'stretch' to include PAS. PAS cannot be by omission and, normally understood, it is an act intended to provide the means to shorten life - a short and intrinsically connected step, certainly, but one that should not be overlooked. As it happened, making this 'fudge' allowed Singer to focus almost exclusively on the US experience with PAS and to virtually ignore talking about the European 'Low Countries'. Making a great deal about the use of the word 'voluntary' meant that Singer could also avoid discussion about euthanasia where evidence of request or consent was notably absent. Surely, if we are talking about legislation that has such grave and irremediable outcomes, we must discuss all aspects including whether or not the law will function as intended and, therefore, whether saying it is 'voluntary' is an effective safeguard against abuse of consent?Evident throughout his words, this became most obvious in question time where he refused to answer a question from Daniel Pask (pictured) related to the euthanasia deaths of infants in The Netherlands who were born with spina bifida (except to note that only about 20 such deaths had occurred) and the Belgian law change in 2013 that allows euthanasia for children, saying that these cases are 'not voluntary' (and therefore, somehow, beyond the tems fo the debate).The Groningen Protocol (under which euthanasia for disabled infants has been allowed in Holland since 2005) and the Belgian law change in 2013 both require informed consent by the parents. The principle of parents making decisions for minors in their care is well understood and fulfils even Singer's definition of 'voluntary' as being by way of an 'informed and considered request'.All of this 'fudging' allowed Singer to claim that there was no evidence of a 'slippery slope' going so far as to rebut Fisher's claims to the contrary by calling it a 'wilful refusal to look at the evidence' and citing only the data from Oregon USA in his defence.In one of his very few references to Europe (cited as additional evidence of 'no slippery slope here'), he curiously claimed that because the Dutch had experienced in recent history a government by the Christian Democrats (who did not move to overturn the euthanasia laws) and that the Dutch people think the law works well, that there is no slippery slope. This is hardly 'evidence' as he or even any non-academic person would understand it.Singer did admit that he sees necessary limits on the exercise of autonomy, saying that he was, 'not an absolutist'. He gave the example of a love-sick younger person who might later see that he or she had much to live for in a life where 'on balance' there might be more good than bad. But what if this putative 'person on the ledge' were to have had some degenerative condition that subjectively, in Singer's terms might tip the 'balance' the other way?And that, ultimately, is the problem with Singer's thinking and the problem with euthanasia and assisted suicide: it's all about a subjective, utilitarian view of the value of life. Singer's problem is fundamental. He tried to define the reasons why killing is wrong (traditionally) as the loss of a person's future autonomous decision making capability and the loss of possibility of future 'good experiences'. He then flipped the argument over by saying that these concerns are reversed with euthanasia. If the value of life is not intrinsic and unalienable, then Singer's views, which include, by the way, the killing of infants with disabilities, are at least logically consistent.But society offers continuous commentary in a myriad of ways that stands against Singer's views. We don't support suicide prevention only for those whose lives and experience fits with our own subjective values. We don't offer care only to those who live exemplary lives. We sympathize with those grieving the loss of a loved one making no distinction about misadventure, lifestyle choices etc. In other words, we recognise that life has intrinsic value not affected and not diminished by anything external. Certainly, we will often think in terms of a 'life cut short', but we do not define that life solely nor primarily in those terms.Archbishop Fisher observed: 'Once you accept some people are better off dead a moral line is crossed.' He is right; this is unavoidably a matter of moral significance. It cannot be simply waved away. Nor can we ignore the legitimate concerns of those whose lived experience makes them fearful of the advent of patient killing. Singer may well have kicked the question about the relationship between disability and euthanasia into the long grass. It suited his presentation to do so. But the reality remains.Disability Advocate, Craig Wallace, was critical of Singer, his philosophy and views on disability in a published response on Crikey.com. Observing that, 'if proponents of voluntary euthanasia were looking to reassure us that legalised suicide would, in fact, be voluntary and not about people with disabilities, they chose the wrong standard bearer.'He went on to make the connection crystal clear: Continue reading

By Dave Andrusko Michael Caton (pictured) plays Rex McRae in "Last Cab to Darwin"I believe it's fair to say that if anything qualifies for the "you can't make this stuff up," it comes from the mouth of Philip Nitschke, aptly and correctly known as Australia's Jack Kevorkian, aka "Dr. Death." Continue reading

Many a comedian will comment, in a serious moment, about their fear of a 'death on the stage'. Though history records the actual death of performers in such circumstances, comedians know it as the moment when a joke or a line 'bombs'; when they lose the audience. The Guardian UK newspaper has been following the story of Philip Nitschke and his foray into comedy at the upcoming Edinburgh Comedy Fringe Festival in Scotland. Journalist, Jenny Kleeman, recently compiled a series of interviews into a short video preview (available on the Guardian website).Much of the background vision for this video story is from a 'workshop' in London where Nitschke is 'road testing' the show in front of an audience of Exit members ahead of its opening later this month. Continue reading

There seems to me to be a cognitive dissonance in the suicide prevention arena that seems to set aside concern about suicides that are related to advocacy networks such as Exit International. This happens at a number of levels and in a number of ways; some perhaps understandable but none excusable. Australia has one of the highest incidences of youth suicide in the western world. It makes good sense to focus resources in this critical area of prevention. But there's something missing in the public discussion that should have become crystal clear from recent media coverage in the Fairfax press.Journalist Craig Butt reports on suicide deaths using Nembutal and highlights its use by young people: Continue reading