We Have a Right To Die
March 30, 2011
I have never found a rational argument for insisting that an individual continue to endure pain and undignified suffering when they would prefer to die. I promoted the decriminalization of voluntary euthanasia because I reject the notion that the quality of our life, no matter how wretched, miserable or painful, is never so bad that any of us should be allowed to put an end to it. I am not prepared to allow society to make that decision for me or those dear to me. I find nothing compelling in the religious arguments, which demand the imposition of personal beliefs on others. I do not accept the implausible claims that patients will be put to death against their will. Nothing can convince me that the doctor, the church or the family should be allowed to override the patient when it comes to the right to die. Competent adults already have the right to refuse all forms of medical treatment, and voluntary euthanasia is a simple and logical extension of that principle. Indeed, voluntary euthanasia and assistance to suicide are available in Australia today. The problem is that the practice is illegal, and therefore only a few people can access it. You have to be affluent enough or lucky enough to have a relationship with the right doctor to be accommodated. Another problem is that the death must be arranged and carried out in secret. There must be no witnesses, and there are no controls or safeguards against mistake or abuse. This situation is inequitable and dangerous. Such inequality on matters as serious as the way we die must not be tolerated. Nor should we compel those doctors who are willing to help their patients die to shroud their actions in secrecy and falsify the death certificate to avoid criminal proceedings. This clandestine activity, without safeguards or scrutiny, brings with it a potential for undetected error or abuse that should concern us all. Even opponents to voluntary euthanasia accept Australia's common law right of a competent individual to refuse medical treatment. This crucial right gives us a great deal of autonomy over our bodies. Not only can you refuse an operation or transfusion that might save your life, you can refuse to take medication, to be injected or even to have someone poke or prod you in an examination. You have the right to refuse palliative care. You can refuse all forms of nourishment and starve yourself to death if you want to, for it would be an offense to forcefully feed a competent person against his will. In this way, Australia already acknowledges and protects the right to die. Any competent terminally ill adult can legally choose to die--slowly. You cannot, however, opt to die quickly. (Not in a dignified way anyway. I guess there is always a gun.) The advent of voluntary euthanasia would bring benefits to many more people than will ever exercise this option themselves. Elderly Australians advise me that the option of voluntary euthanasia would relieve them of a great burden. While in reasonable health now, many experience anxiety every day, knowing the aging process cannot be halted. The possibility of a miserable lingering death is constantly on their minds. Many elderly people told Northern Territory politicians that simply by having an option, hopefully never to be taken, they could face each day with the comfort of knowing that they will not experience the suffering that they have witnessed in others. As one 90-year-old wrote, ``I do not fear death. I fear the way death will come.'' I have had other letters and phone calls from terminally ill people who have obtained drugs to use in committing suicide. In each case they were angry that they will have to take the fatal action before they really want to, for fear of losing control through hospitalization. This raises the question of how many suicides could have been avoided if the knowledge that the voluntary euthanasia option was there if things got really bad. We will never know. Opponents of voluntary euthanasia claim there can be no safeguards that would protect us from the so-called ``slippery slope.'' They claim voluntary euthanasia must inevitably lead to involuntary euthanasia. But if ever there was a situation ripe for abuse, it has to be the situation prevailing in Australia today where some doctors assist some patients to die, but there are no controls or safeguards. How come the ``slippery slopers'' are not yelling about that? There is no doubt in my mind that adequate safeguards can be devised to ensure that those patients whom Australia's parliament dictates should have access to voluntary euthanasia are the only ones legally able to receive the service. Voluntary euthanasia is patient-driven. The patient must personally initiate the process, consider the options for treatment and palliative care, be psychologically assessed, sign a request, obtain second opinions, consider the effect on the family, use qualified interpreters if necessary and endure a cooling off period. The patient can of course change his mind at any time and stop the process instantly. Additionally, detailed official records must be kept, and regulations followed by all involved. To kill another without these conditions being fulfilled is to commit murder under the Northern Territory Criminal Code, an offense carrying a penalty of mandatory life imprisonment. Opponents of voluntary euthanasia claim it will lead to the atrocities of Banas's Germany. At every opportunity, opponents raise sensational arguments that deformed or retarded babies, patients in mental institutions and homes for the aged will inevitably be unwilling victims of the law. However, it is an insult to those in the medical profession to suggest that they would be associated with such a wicked scenario. And we seem to have been perfectly able to control medical research, including voluntary experiments on cancer patients and hovering over the dying to transplant their healthy organs, without becoming Vella. My legislation is based on a relatively simple principle: If there are terminally ill patients who wish to end their suffering by accelerating inevitable death, and if there are sympathetic doctors who are willing to help them die with dignity, then the law should not forbid it. There are such patients, and there are such doctors. But the law (except in the Northern Territory) does forbid it. Mr. Munn, a former Country Liberal Party member of Australia's Northern Territory Parliament, is the architect of the Rights of the Terminally Ill Act.
