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

BY TOM MORTIER article first published on MercatorNet's Careful! blog. In May 2015 Paul Russell, of Hope, an Australian coalition opposing euthanasia and assisted suicide, invited me to come to Adelaide to speak about my experiences with the Belgian euthanasia law. It is now well known that my physically healthy mother was killed by a lethal injection given by the Flemish euthanasia practitioner Dr Wim Distelmans.At the conference, Paul told me that someone called Andrew Denton wanted to interview me. I had never heard of Mr Denton, but Paul told me that he was very famous and that it would be a good opportunity to talk with him. So I did. I don't remember much from the interview, but he did ask searching questions. Continue reading

Elderly people who die alone: what is the answer? Professor Margaret Somerville tells the story of a conversation she once had with a Dutch Doctor who admitted euthanasing an elderly woman who's most significant problem was that she was desperately lonely. "Didn't anyone think to buy her a cat?" was Somerville's reply.That might seem pretty obvious and, indeed it is; but it is also a reminder, in terms of this doctor and his decision to kill his patient, that the availability of euthanasia and assisted suicide as a legal option changes things.Recently in South Australia the Coroner, Mark Johns, called for a discussion about this issue of elderly people dying alone. The context was the death of an elderly Adelaide man.Johns told ABC News: "I have seen a number of instances where an elderly person makes a decision to end their life and the characteristics of these situations to me are loneliness, isolation, solitude."While stressing that he was not advocating for euthanasia he also added, "By necessity these people have to be alone when they carry the act to end their own life because of the law that we all live under."This is, of course, an unremarkable statement at one level. Yes, if anyone - not only the elderly â��have plans to end their own lives, including a third person puts that person in some jeopardy in regards to the criminal code prohibitions on assisting in suicide.Whilst the likes of Philip Nitschke are wont to observe a supposed anomaly that assisting in suicide is a criminal offence whereas the act of suicide is no longer a crime, this really misses the point. The law creates a natural pause: if we do 'x' then there are 'y' consequences. So, not only does it have a punitive function designed to protect people, it also has an educative role as what some might call a natural hurdle or roadblock. These roadblocks are meant to help us seek a safer, legal alternative; to make us think. Remove these roadblocks and there's no need to think as Somerville's interaction with the Dutch doctor demonstrates.The gentleman concerned is identified on the ABC article as Bob Brown; a member of the local pro-euthanasia lobby. (not to be confused with a former politician of that name) That alone would suggest that this gentleman had a settled view that when ailments beset him, he had chosen a course. Suicide will always retain a sense of taboo; something to be shunned, not encouraged. Again the prohibition on assisting supports this notion. That Mr Brown chose this course of action, whilst regrettable, is not at question here.What is a significant problem is the characterisation for a political end of these kind of stories as being about people who were 'forced' into taking such measures because of the law. It's an emotional bait and switch that is made even more poignant by the media in the way that they describe said person's life and achievements. Would the story work as well if the person was an 'average Joe or Jill' or a convicted criminal? Probably not.Frances Coombe, a senior member of the local pro-euthanasia lobby and friend of Mr Brown told the ABC, "The absence of euthanasia laws means people are acting earlier than they would otherwise, just to make sure they can go with dignity," she said. "It's shameful that Brownie (Mr Brown) was put in that position."What position was that precisely? We know he was losing his eyesight due to macular degeneration which we should acknowledge is very difficult to cope with. But he and, we assume, he alone, decided not to deal with it but to suicide instead. No one forced him into that 'position'; nature dealt him a blow as it does with us all, but none of us are forced into such a radical and final solution. If there's any shame to be noted here perhaps it is the reflection that in our modern world older people can still be desperately lonely.Given Mr Brown's membership of the euthanasia lobby, perhaps he had planned that his death would be used to push this cause. At the least, we can probably assume that he was happy that this might be the case. But, again, this betrays the two-faced nature of the euthanasia lobby that publicly supports legislation that has - at the beginning at least - limits to whom it applies, while their objectives are broader by far, because, in all the bills that have come before the South Australian Parliament, none would have included the possibility of Mr Brown's euthanasia death in his circumstances.And so, Mr Brown left a letter for the state Coroner. Lobbying the Coroners in various states has been one of the strategies of the pro-euthanasia lobby for some time now. I imagine the argument goes that if the suicide deaths of elderly persons in such circumstances are statistically significant that the lobby will have an additional arrow to fire in pursuit of their goal.Having noted that, we should have no objection to the collection of accurate data on suicide and its causes. The more we know, the more we can focus preventative measures. It would indeed be interesting to note just how many people are obtaining the means to suicide through certain internet sources.Over all of this, the use of the idea that Mr Brown or anyone else is 'forced' into suicide, or 'forced' to do it alone, or 'forced' to suicide early before a disease takes them, is nonsense. If someone were to say that they were 'forced' to move overseas because the Australian tax rates were too high, we would instinctively think that the word 'forced' did not apply and was being used to justify what is ultimately a personal decision. The pro-euthanasia lobby want you and me to consider this bluster effectively as a 'force majeure': an external unremitting force of circumstance that creates a necessary breach of contract (in this case, the Criminal Code). It's a 'blame shifter'. It's the kind of thing children say their parents: 'Daddy, he MADE me do it!' Parents know how frustrating this can be, but they also have the expectation that their children will grow up. Continue reading

On the 6th of December voters in the South Australian State seat of Fisher will go to the polls to elect a replacement Member of Parliament following upon the death of long-term incumbent, Dr Bob Such MP. This seat holds significant interest for phesologists and for both the Labor Government and Liberal opposition. Dr Such was, for many years, an independent MP leaving many to wonder at the true nature of the electorate vis-à-vis the major parties.This morning on ABC Radio 891 the four candidates considered to be 'in with a chance' in Fisher were interviewed live on air. As this website deals only with the issue of euthanasia, I will deal only with the candidate's comments in this regard. Continue reading

Regular visitors to this website and South Australians who have followed the euthanasia debates in our state over the years will be very familiar with the former Member for Fisher, The Hon Bob Such MP in his advocacy for euthanasia. Mr Such passed away over the weekend after being diagnosed with a brain tumour earlier this year. After winning his seat of Fisher and entering discussions about the formation of the South Australian Government as one of the two key independents, Mr Such became ill. He was only able to attend the opening day of this parliament where he was warmly greeted by all state MPs in what was clearly to be something of an emotional farewell to the chamber where he represented Fisher for nearly twenty five years.Mr Such had presented more euthanasia bills, I think, than any other individual MP, possibly anywhere in the world. He displayed his tenacity and determination over many issues - not just euthanasia. Continue reading