Rights of the terminally ill - a cause to fight for

What the Howard government and the Right to Life movement has accomplished in the last 10 years is not prolonging life but rather prolonging the process of dying.

I have not come across a reasonable, intelligent or reflective argument against voluntary euthanasia, but rather cheap rhetoric, religious platitudes or banal, slippery slope arguments. This comes often combined with an immoderate arrogance and confidence which both astonishes and concerns me.

The probability of misuse of medical assisted suicide is often used as a concerned and caring argument against voluntary euthanasia. But even when given a hypothetical guarantee which would rule out any misuse, the opposition against voluntary euthanasia still remains.

It is absolutely necessary that considerations and precautions are made to protect society from the misuse of voluntary euthanasia. However these are technicalities which could be easily solved and managed. Instead a hypocritical concern for the common good is used to mask personal and religious beliefs.

Politicians such as Kevin Andrews and Philip Ruddock, just to name two, are good examples. Their capacity and willingness to have a political discourse on subjects like Voluntary Euthanasia are governed and inhibited by their religious beliefs. It is acceptable, if not honourable, when private citizens stand up for their beliefs as long as they are not imposed on others. The same applies to a greater degree to politicians. When politicians start using their power and privileges to put their personal and religious beliefs against the common good and get away with it, then democracy becomes a commodity used by those in power.

In a free, democratic country one can expect and demand to be protected from the followers of all religions who try to impose their very personal view not only on individuals but also through legislation. The right to life is well entrenched in our system, but the right to hold different views from a particular moral majority (minority) seems to be severely under threat. But there are many Exit members who are not discouraged.

On the contrary, they have realised that it is more important than ever to continue to stand up and fight for what they think is their elementary right. They didn’t give in to the intimidation of the Howard government, and the countless attempts of Pro Life supporters to silence them.

Since the overturning of ROTI many voluntary euthanasia supporters decided to break the law in order to obtain options for ending their lives peacefully when their time comes. The decision of some to announce their Civil Disobedience nationwide on public television is a very political stance. They take a personal risk of being investigated and in the worse case scenario of being prosecuted for something they believe is their human right. This form of resistance is not new and was successfully used during the Pro Abortion and Gay/Lesbian Campaigns in Australia. It was and still is the very heart of any Human Rights movement.

But what is new and unique is the age group and the circumstances under which the supporters of voluntary euthanasia rebel. Many older than 60 brought up a family, fought in wars, helped to build and shape this country. Whether healthy, seriously or terminally ill they suddenly realise that they have been abandoned and sacrificed for political reasons.

While some make a very political and public statement through civil disobedience, others prefer to keep a low profile. Nevertheless all are prepared to ignore and break the existing law in order to obtain means and information about available options of self deliverance.

Many have never been in a demonstration and are not used to fighting for their rights. But patronised by government, religious groups and Pro Life advocates they rightfully demand “My Life, My Choice” and this has become more than a slogan. Behind this demand are human beings who have experienced love, joy, pain, grief and despair, who are reflective about life and death. Human beings also who have experienced the force of the assisted suicide law which is irrational and cruel in view of the suffering and pain it causes to themselves and their loved ones.

For many it becomes almost a moral imperative not only to be in opposition to such  legislation but also to deliberately disobey a law which brings harm rather than protection.

The majority of Australians are pro voluntary euthanasia, but in order to change existing legislation more than verbal support is required. What is needed is a critical mass of solidarity which forces the government to bring the issue of voluntary euthanasia back on the political agenda.

If the political fight for the re-instatement of ROTI is left to the elderly, seriously or terminally ill, then it is only a question of time when the last fight will be fought. Who then will stand up for the Rights of the Terminally Ill for the generation to come?