Liberal candidate for Bass Michael Ferguson today called on all members of the House of Assembly to reject the Greens’ proposed euthanasia legislation as an ill-conceived attempt to condone assisted suicide.
Mr Ferguson said this was his strong personal view and noted that the Parliamentary Liberal Party had adopted a conscience vote position on the matter.
“Mr McKim is trying to create the impression that people are not being allowed choices in their treatment. Current systems do give people choice. Medical interventions can be withdrawn.
“What Mr McKim is really talking about here is not ‘dying with dignity’ – it’s assisted suicide.
“The term ‘dying with dignity’ has long been associated with palliative care, pain management and compassionate end-of-life care. Sadly, this new debate is being held when there are unaddressed gaps in Tasmania’s palliative care services – including the availability of dedicated, publicly funded, palliative care beds in Northern Tasmania.
“This week is Palliative Care Week (24-30 May;Â www.palliativecare.org.au). It’s quite disgusting that Mr McKim is shamelessly hijacking Palliative Care Week with a bill quite contrary to the policies and values of Palliative Care Australia.
“I know that many palliative care practitioners feel upstaged and disappointed that their opportunity to advocate for better services and support has been taken from them.”
“Instead of advocating for improved palliative places and services he’s opened an ill-conceived debate on assisted suicide.
“Surely that is at the heart of many peoples’ fears – that instead of improved health services this is all going to be about dying quickly and not being a burden. There is simply no avoiding the difficult fact that dying is a normal but distressing part of the human experience of life.
“People like me who have a strong belief in the sanctity of life will always fight harder for improved health services.
“I have no problem with medically-sanctioned withdrawal of interventions when life is being artificially and painfully prolonged by medicines and machines. However, this is current medical practice and involves family discussion.
Michael,
Your characterisation of ‘dignity’ is right on the money. Having observed two family members receive outstanding care in the last few years of their life, the value of professional palliative services, effective pain management and shared decision-making with family cannot be underestimated. It’s a shame that efforts to promote palliative care this week have been gate-crashed by the Greens ill-time proposal.
Andrew Nikolic
Michael,
You have not actually addressed the specific reason for the call for assisted euthanasia by Nick McKim. Sadly, for some palliative care patients, there remains no medication that can provide analgesia for unbearable pain. In the latter stages of terminal illness, some individuals have such a high receptor site tolerance to even the more powerful synthetic opiates, that nothing can ease their suffering. To not assist these people by providing euthanasia is nothing less than an act of cruelty. If anything has been ‘highjacked’, it is Nick McKim’s call for human compassion where it is most needed. Whitewashing this carefully worded bill with hackneyed calls for the need to preserve human ‘dignity’ and the ‘sanctity’ of life, shows that you do not understand the legal prescriptive conditions in the bill that are necessary for euthanasia to be given consideration.
regards
Jon Ayling
G’day John,
It’s a great attack line to dismiss someone as “…you do not understand…”. But it certainly doesn’t make your case mate. I think if you take the time to contemplate the tone i struck in my very short article you will see that I acknowledge that this isn’t a 0 or 1 argument. And I for one do hope and pray that i never find myself wishing myself away. Noone is saying that there aren’t any individual very compelling cases where any kind person would want to help.
That’s not the point.
The point is that McKim’s bill changes the current protection enjoyed (and taken for granted) by every Tasmanian that noone else is entitled to end their life.
To start meddling with that protection opens the way for massive abuses of people’s dignity. Imagine feeling that opting for assisted suicide is the ‘right thing to do’ to relieve stress on family.
And how will we maintain the line to our young people that suicide isn’t ever ok? They are smart enough to see through that double standard. It’s not a long stretch for a young person to see that having a terminal illness can be equated to being very despairing about life for other reasons. In my teaching career, I lost several students and I’ll never forget them.
This isn’t an easy issue. So why is Nick McKim so opposed to a proper parliamentary enquiry into the matter? I think that is a bad sign.
And finally Jon, I will not back off from my comment that it is quite disgusting for McKim to hijack palliative care week with this mis-named ‘dying with dignity’ bill. Dying is a tragic but unavoidable part of life for every human being. Quality and properly-resourced palliative care is a far better way to show love, care and upholding the true and unique dignity of a fellow traveller. It isn’t about articially lengthening or shortening a life – it’s about care, comfort, pain management and providing time for family to say goodbye. Any nurse or doctor will tell you that ‘dying with dignity’ has always referred to the special and unique provision of care called palliative care.
Like I said, imperfect. But the alternative is a political win for some at the shameful expense of protection for the vulnerable and a precedent for future broadening of suicide options.
No, we can’t.
Michael
Yesterday the peak organisations representing doctors and nursing homes urged the parliamentary committee which is examining the (deceptively misnamed) Dying with Dignity Bill to reject the bill. The main reason given by the AMA is the bill would “poison the doctor-patient relationship”, creating fear and distrust.
He said palliative care was becoming more effective in minimising suffering.
The Royal College of Nursing gave evidence euthanasia could lead to exploitation of older Tasmanians by relatives looking to gain financially.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/08/25/2665886.htm
Aged care providers have also voiced strong opposition to the bill.
Chairman Ray Groom told the committee the bill is bad public policy which endangers the weakest and most vulnerable and puts enormous pressure on health care workers.
He said resources should instead be put into improving palliative care services.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/08/24/2664946.htm