By Paul Russell: My colleague, Alex Schadenberg called Dr Rodney Syme 'a cowboy' last year in relation to Syme admitting to have supported the suicide deaths of approximately 100 people over a number of years.Syme seems either to have been beguiled by the cult of celebrity or maybe he truly wants to become a martyr for a cause. Either way, he seems comfortable appearing in the press from time to time making outrageous and unsustainable claims about having helped yet another ill person to take their own life. I say 'outrageous and unsustainable' because while seeming to be goading the authorities to arrest him and to make a test case out of his actions, he never provides enough (if any) evidence to them or to the public to back up his claims. Continue reading

by Paul Russell: Ever wondered how the 'celebrity' euthanasia cases become, well, celebrity cases? Some, I imagine are simply place and time occurrences; where a well-meaning person with a terminal illness decides for themselves to use their illness to 'further a cause'. For some, like UK man, Tony Nicklinson, it is simply about their own demise and, for the likes of Brittany Maynard in the USA last year, it would appear that the media attention can become a drug of addiction.So, clearly there are those who call up a journalist off their own back and want to tell their story. Some, I have observed over the years, have spoken to the media in such a way as to make it clear, to me at least, that they had been coached by pro-euthanasia and assisted suicide campaigners in the right things to say and how to say them. Continue reading

Senator Bob Day (SA) spoke today (3rd March) against Senator Leyonhjelm's (NSW) Restoring Territory Rights (Assisted Suicide Legislation) Bill 2015. This is the text of his speech:Like any piece of legislation, the sensible place to start is with the factsâ��the definitions. What is euthanasia? What is not euthanasia? Herein, I believe, lies great confusion in the community, particularly when asked to consider opinion polls. But before considering what euthanasia is, let us begin with defining what euthanasia is not. Continue reading

  The Federal Parliament of Australia doesn't have a great deal to do with euthanasia really. Given that, since Federation (and even earlier) the Six States each have had on their statute books their own criminal codes, matters to do with euthanasia and assisted suicide have been considered as 'states matters'. This is because such matters would create a variance in one way or another to those criminal codes.This division of powers could conceivably see any one or more states legislate for euthanasia. But not so the two Australian Territories with limited self-government. Neither of these territories existed at Federation in 1901. They were created and given limited self-government by the Commonwealth (Federal Parliament) and are, therefore, subject to the Federal Parliament. Yes, they have their own criminal code and other statutes but these exist in a manner that is subject to the Federal Parliament unlike to states who have no such dependent relationship. Continue reading

The on-again-off-again attempts by Tasmanian MP, Lara Giddings MP to introduce a new euthanasia bill jointly with an MP from the Liberal Party has clearly failed. The failure is evident in the news yesterday that Ms Giddings will now introduce a bill in 2017 jointly with the Greens Party leader, Cassy O'Connor.Ms Giddings introduced a failed euthanasia bill in 2012 when she was Tasmanan Premier. Now in opposition, Ms Giddings had been seeking formal support from one of the new Liberal MPs elected at the2014 election. The fact that this has not eventuated means that either the new Liberal MPs are reluctant to hitch their wagons to Giddings agenda or they, like their colleagues, oppose euthanasia. Either way, it leaves the possibility of a majority support for any euthanasia bill in the Tasmanian lower house extremely doubtful. Continue reading

  by Paul Russell: Since the Canadian Supreme Court overturned the protections in law that prohibited both assisted suicide and euthanasia in February 2015, the nation has been in something of a free fall. With Quebec going its own way to create its own permissive regime, which was suspended and then re-instated by the courts, with no consensus yet on the form of any national legislation to give voice to the will of the courts and with stakeholders both pro and con engaging in a tug of war somewhere on the spectrum between protecting vulnerable people, on the one hand, and open season on the other, euthanasia and assisted suicide will continue to be of great public interest for quite some time to come. Continue reading

True to her word, South Australian Labor backbencher and Member for the seat of Ashford, Steph Key has tabled yet another bill in yet another attempt to see euthanasia become law in an Australian state.The exact number of bills tabled in the South Australian Parliament over the Last decade or so varies depending on whether or not you would count identical bills introduced simultaneously in both chambers as one or two and whether or not other defeated measures - claimed by supporters not to be about euthanasia - were, well, euthanasia and/or assisted suicide bills in disguise (which, by the way, they were!). My reckoning puts the number at around a dozen.Normally when an MP introduces a bill in short succession after another failed attempt; he or she will often make mention of the fact that they had heard their colleagues' concerns about inadequacies in the previous bill and that this new bill was actually a 'new-and-improved' version. Some spruiking in recent years has added the term 'robust' to safeguards (no doubt safeguards made especially for tough Australian conditions!). The Hon Bob Such MP, who passed away after a short illness in October 2014, was a great one for spruiking his latest bill. And why not? Like much of life, getting a bill to a majority vote is as much about selling the message as it is about anything else.The focus of the argy-bargy is usually about the 'safeguards'; the clauses by which a regimen seeks to protect vulnerable people from risk of abuse under said law. Some deny that risks of abuse exist. Others, like Bob Such and now Steph Key wisely acknowledge the risk and have sought to mitigate against such risks or at least address the matter. In her Second Reading speech earlier this month on the matter of safeguards, Key mentions how, at a forum in 2015, the former Chief Minister of the Northern Territory Marshall Perron (architect and mover of the Rights of the Terminally Ill Act - the only successful bill ever in this nation), observed that, 'moves to include more safeguards had the effect of making the law so complex and contradictory that it was unworkable.' SA Upper House MP, Mark Parnell made similar observations in summing up a debate in 2010. And it's true: any move away from the status quo involves some level of risk and the further we move away from that starting point, the more risk we would need to accept. Key goes on to assert that, in her bill, the Voluntary Euthanasia Bill 2016, 'The safeguardsâ�¦are captured in the definitions 'unbearable' and 'hopeless' and their careful application to each request for voluntary euthanasia.'There are a few 'out-of-the-ordinary' clauses in Key's latest bill that I will address later. At this point I would simply observe that the normal understanding of safeguards are about creating checks and balances, reporting obligations and limiting who might qualify for euthanasia and/or assisted suicide and not so much the meaning of adjectives or adverbs such as 'unbearable' and 'hopeless'. As Key admits, only the individual person seeking to be made dead can say what is 'unbearable' and what is not.Here's how the bill expresses it: 4â��Unbearable and hopeless suffering (1) For the purposes of this Act, a person will be taken to be subject to unbearable and hopeless suffering ifâ��(a) the person is suffering from a medical condition (whether terminal or not); and (b) the person is subject to mental or physical suffering or both attributable wholly or in part to the medical condition; and (c) the suffering is unbearable to the person, determined in accordance with subsection (2); and (d) the suffering is hopeless, determined in accordance with subsection (4). Continue reading

New Euthanasia Bill to be tabled in South Australian Parliament. The Private Member's Business Notice Paper for the House of Assembly in the South Australian Parliament lists, as number one, the latest bill by backbencher, Steph Key MP. The listing says she will, 'introduce a Bill for an Act to provide for choices at the end of life.'She is not talking about choices but, rather, about one choice: to be made dead. Under Ms Key's bill, this will be either by euthanasia or by the 'self-administration of voluntary euthanasia'; a clumsy and inaccurate description of assisted suicide. Continue reading

A few days ago I reported on two articles that appeared in the pro-euthanasia/assisted suicide Melbourne newspaper, The Age that attempted to 'rationalise' suicide.In short, it was a sales pitch. There's nothing redeeming at all in suicide or self-killing. Certainly, we should grieve for the lives lost and remember the person and comfort the family. But there's no sense at all in glossing over what took place. As bleak and as painful as it is and without any sense of judging the motives or state of mind of the person concerned and, while we may even come to understand something of what lead to that death, we must not make it seem that it is all somehow okay.But that's precisely what The Age article on the death of the Victorian couple Pat and Peter Shaw focussed upon. While the vaulted ideal of 'choice' in one sense demands that we accept what they did, to condone it from that same ideal and then justify it with a false appeal to supposed rationality is something entirely different and inherently dangerous. Continue reading

In October 2015, an elderly couple from the Melbourne suburb of Brighton were found dead in their own home. Sad to say, the news story was the third couple or double suicide in the media within a few short weeks, the other two being in my home town of Adelaide.The Australian news media has a reasonably good reputation for sensibility and consideration when reporting on such matters as news. Unfortunately, at least one major Australian newspaper network seems to disregard those same sensibilities when the story is no longer news but, rather, an opportunity to push their editorial line in support of euthanasia and The 'Nitschke line' on so-called 'rational suicide'.Pat and Peter Shaw both committed suicide in their own home. Their three daughters, who knew the date, time and intention of their parents were away from the house at the time. It was common knowledge that Peter Shaw, at least, was an enthusiastic member of Exit International; the article suggesting that he killed himself in his shed using Exit-type equipment.Sadly, as alluded to earlier, these kinds of double suicide pacts are no longer the isolated cases that they once were. There have even been recorded instances of double euthanasia in Belgium where the partner who was not ill could not imagine living without the other. From The Age article, it seems that this Victorian case was different. Both had deteriorating health - but nether were terminal and, from the report, neither could be said to be suffering unbearably.In other words, neither would likely have qualified under the normal form of euthanasia and assisted suicide bills.The article expends a great deal of effort and column space in painting the picture of a vivacious and loving couple with stellar intellects and interests, including trekking, mountain climbing and hiking to exotic places. Even so, as a biography I can't imagine it would hold the same interest for The Age's readers if it were not for the suicide angle. In fact, I doubt that it would have been published at all. So, how does it serve the pro-euthanasia cause? Quite frankly, it doesn't. But, then again, if it is emotion and not logic nor ethics that we are relying upon, then perhaps I'm wrong.Short version folks: Sad as it is, and as much of a problem you or I or anyone else might have with what the Shaw's did, they did not, as far as we know, commit any offence. They killed themselves with apparent ease. Their children were sufficiently removed to be appropriately beyond suspicion of assisting. There was a proper investigation. Case closed.The three children told The Age that they respected their parents' choice and feel strongly that suicide can be rational. They also said that, 'their parents should not have had to risk prosecution to die together at the time of their choosing. Nor should they have had to be alone for the legal protection of their family.' The criminal code prohibition on assisting in suicide is not about protecting the family, it is about protecting vulnerable people from being coaxed or coerced to their suicide death. Sometimes it may be a protection from the family (though that is clearly not the case here).Daughter Kate belled the cat: "It shouldn't be so difficult for rational people to make this decision," she said. The whole reason for the article is to promote the idea that suicide can be rational; perhaps even desirable. A loving, smart and vivacious couple serving as poster folk to normalise what has for millennia been rightly stigmatised for the protection of fragile and vulnerable people: suicide - self-killing.Even if some people kill themselves supposedly rationally, The Age and the likes of Philip Nitschke have failed to answer the obvious objection: what about those who are not rational but whose mental state is such that they think that they are and who therefore find an imprimatur for their suicide in this argument? No suicide hotline at the end of the article can absolve responsibility.Moreover, I do not accept the inference that, because the Shaw's were intelligent and learned or because they left notes saying so, that their decision to suicide was, indeed, rational. The article provides some clues. They were clearly scared witless of deterioration, decrepitude and the loss of independence that those early aches, pains and memory problems of advancing age can sometimes presage. Peter Shaw in a 2007 letter to the editor of The Age said, "Our reason for suicide may be anticipation of pain and incompetence, but quite likely just a sense of a life accomplished and coming to a conclusion." The article screams the former which makes the idea of a 'finished life' seem more like an apologia.Shaw's letter went on: "We are not interested in palliative care, and strongly resent do-gooders placing obstacles in or way." The article qualified the 'do-gooders' as 'religious' people, 'with the superstitions of medieval inquisitors.' Cue Monty Python! What obstacles? The only real obstacles are the laws that prohibit the importation of lethal substances and the law prohibiting people from assisting; both make complete sense and both ae maintained by the states variously and not the churches.As if that were not enough, Fairfax published a follow up piece by the same author only day's later, surprise, surprise, based on a fulsome endorsement of rational suicide by none other than Nitschke himself.Thankfully, on this second occasion, a contrary voice is included in comments from Professor Ian Hickie, a psychiatrist and mental health campaigner, who said he thought it was tragic that people wanted to "check out" of life because of myths and negative stereotypes about ageing, pain relief, hospitals and how the health system treats elderly people. 'He said while some people may not have a mental illness when they end their own life, Exit International's approach to teaching people about suicide was reaching vulnerable people who could, with further assistance, live a longer, enjoyable life.'Professor Hickie, of the Brain and Mind Centre, said Australian authorities needed to work on policies and resources to promote healthy ageing with a focus on getting the right care and support to people so they do not feel like a burden and live as well as they can in their later years. He said people considering suicide or families discussing the issue should examine what is underpinning people's motivation. Is it fear of being a burden? Is it fear of a lack of care?' Continue reading