Friday, January 12, 2018

A great word from Jack Havill


In today's Herald, an excellent article from former End-of Life Choice President Jack Havill refutes opposition arguments in economical and very readable prose.

He has more patience than I have with people who choose to make absolutely ridiculous claims about issues which they have evidently never critically examined and then proceed to shoot down their own scarecrows.

Just two days ago a friend said to me, "But what about this awful provision for an 18 yr old to ask for assisted death?" He didn't know about all the required conditions... Just saying I don't want to live isn't in them.  I emailed him the relevant text of the Bill today.

This debate will need patience and a dedicated passion for truth and justice. We have to get past the technique of distorting what the other side says and then cleverly shooting down our own distortion. Havill's article provides significant illustrations of this style of argument. It has a sense of grace which I covert for the submission which I have to make in the next couple of weeks.


Thursday, January 4, 2018

Now the A.C.T.


Image result for end of life choice

The legislative assembly of the Australian Capital Territory has just opened an inquiry into End of Life Choices in the A.C.T.

With the example of Victoria before them, they seem to have moved smartly to follow suit, with a comprehensive terms of reference and a full year before they have to report.

Included in their terms of reference is the provision where Federal Government some years ago withdrew the right of States and Territories to write their own law on this matter. This was prompted by a Northern Territory decision to legalise voluntary euthanasia for its people. This Federal law will have to be overturned before progress can be made in any State or Territory - another big challenge for the movement.

However, in Australia, as in New Zealand, it is becoming clear that new law is no longer a matter of if, but when. The mood of our communities and the opinions of broad samples of our societies seem to be making that clear.

It is right that every jurisdiction should investigate its own needs thoroughly. If NZ is dragging its heels in what some see to be a liberal rush to respond to perceived community needs, let it be because the matter will be thoroughly and impartially investigated, not because some powerful minority groups are exercising undue influence in slowing down the decision-making.


Wednesday, January 3, 2018

A Challenge to Hospice

 Three or so years ago our local hospice ran an appeal based on the claim that some of their patients were dying in pain because there was not enough money to buy effective medication. The appeal letter could not be found when I asked for a copy a few months later. And, of course, it was not entirely factual. A year or so later the then Prime Minister asserted that “We don’t need Voluntary Euthanasia; we have hospice”. 

That, too, was a bit naive. We know now—as I personally found out after surgery a few years ago— that not all pain can be controlled. Indeed the World Health Organisation suggests that up to 25% of pain may be untreatable. So the palliative care movement cannot be expected to deal with all pain. And the dilemma for the hospice movement is what can they do with patients who unhappily fall into that category?

My answer would be that hospice should think about embracing the medical aid in dying movement for such patients as wish to avail themselves of it. I know all the traditional Hospice arguments against such a course. It would involve a sea change of thinking. But studying the values and aims of the hospice movement I can now point to a lot of hospice principles that could be honoured by taking palliative care to its logical conclusion in every case, instead of only in five out of six patients.

Respect, dignity and compassion are values that apply as well to a good programme of medical aid in dying as they do to palliative care. And, perhaps, at the end, for some people for whom pain is uncontrolled and who choose for another option, they apply more to the former than the latter.

Where could we find a more appropriate organisation to offer the qualities of nursing and pastoral care, support and judgment that will be required when Parliament has passed an appropriate law?