Rights of the terminally ill - a cause to fight for

Since the overturning of the Northern Territory’s Rights of the Terminally Ill Act (ROTI) in 1997 by Kevin Andrew’s Private Member’s Bill in the Australian Parliament, Australia’s seriously ill and elderly people have been stripped of an elementary human right: the right to die peacefully and with dignity at a time and place of their own choosing.

The Northern Territory Parliament enacted ROTI on July 1, 1996 and it was overturned on March 25, 1997. The death of ROTI in 1997, was, so to speak, the birth of Exit International. In the same year, 1997, Dr Philip Nitschke, the first doctor in the world to administer legal, voluntary euthanasia, founded Exit International in response to the overturning of ROTI.

Exit International is unique world-wide in that it provides members with practical information about end-of-life options. Exit’s mission statement, that every rational adult should have the right to a dignified, peaceful and reliable death at a time and place of one’s choosing, immediately attracted thousands of like-minded members.

As a Chapter Co-ordinator of Exit I am constantly confronted with the hardship and desperation of many members who, seriously or terminally ill, do not have the legal right in Australia to die peacefully, with dignity and at a time of their own choosing.

It is not enough to have good, reliable information about the options for self deliverance. Many other issues must be taken into consideration, not least the uncertainty about the legal ramifications for loved ones if they want to be present at the time of self deliverance. Also the fact that family members may or may not approve of the decision, however rational it may be, make it a difficult and often very lonely decision to make.

Those seriously or terminally ill who have decided to end their life at a time of their own choosing do not feel that they have an obligation to continue living under all circumstances. When their physical suffering is all consuming, when hardship, absence of quality of life and sadness is the rule and not the exception in their daily life, then it is absolutely inhumane to deny them a dignified and peaceful death of their own choosing.

The Right to Life movement maintains that the right to life is an elementary human right and needs to be protected. I heartily agree, as do the supporters of voluntary euthanasia, but in their opposition to self deliverance the Right to Life movement equates the right to life with the obligation to life. Obligations to life, even influenced by cultural, ethical, political or religious upbringing, needs to been seen in the context of being voluntary.

To make it clear, in a democratic society everyone has the right to join a political party, choose or change a religion, and so on, but no one has the right to force an individual to do so.

And likewise the decision, for example, to join a political party or choose a certain religion is a democratic right but it is not an obligation one has to follow. In this context the right to life is undoubtedly a human right, but it is not an obligation and certainly not for those whose life contains unbearable suffering and wishes to end their life.

This is obviously not a view the Right to Life movement shares or supports, nor did the Howard government. Even though suicide is not a crime in Australia the Howard government introduced legislation which criminalises assisted suicide, meaning that the seriously or terminally ill have to rely on themselves to find reliable and peaceful options for self deliverance. In the majority of cases this is an unbelievably difficult, if not impossible task, often ending with disastrous consequences.

The recently published Peaceful Pill Handbook by Philip Nitschke, which provides the reader with a range of practical and useful strategies to end their life peacefully and with dignity, had only few weeks on book store shelves before it was totally banned in Australia. This was applauded by the Right to Life movement, and criticised by those who saw it as a blow for freedom of speech and democracy in Australia.

The banning of the Peaceful Pill Handbook signals not only further de-democratisation in Australia; it also documents clearly that suicide, although legal, is a rhetorical freedom if there is no access to information on how to accomplish a peaceful death.

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?