29 October 2017 Honourable Daniel Andrews Premier of the State Of

EOLC Sub 680B Rec'd 12/11/2017

29 October 2017

Honourable Daniel Andrews Premier of the State of Victoria Office of the Premier 1 Treasury Place MELBOURNE VICTORIA 3002

Dear Honourable Mr Andrews RE 1.SLAUGHTERGATE 2017 Cover Up Of Failure To Investigate Belgium 2.EVIDENTIARY REVIEW Of The Evidence Before The Committee 3.NO EVIDENCE Allegation for the Slippery Slope Assertion by The Majority 4.COMPETING EVIDENCE Being Comparatively Evaluated 5.EVIDENTIARY VEIL being lifted to see what the submissions really say 6.EVIDENTARY BASIS for the “WORD CLOUD” is misleading 7. EVIDENCE WITHHELD results in “trial by ambush” 8. Little Doomsday Book 2017 supplementing my big “Doomsday Book 2017” I refer to my letter to you dated 8 October 2017 (8 Oct 17 Letter)

Previous Correspondence In my 8 Oct 17 Letter I made plain that I strongly object to the whole of the majority of the Parliament of Victoria’s Legislative Council’s Legal and Social Issues Committee’s (Committee) majority report (Majority Report) in the Final Report (Final Report). The 8 Oct 17 Letter was mostly my research of materials I found on the internet and my comments directly in response to the contents of the documents which were produced by the Committee and the Minist4erial Advisory Panel (MAP). Further Research Since finalizing the 8 Oct 17 Letter, I have carried out further research. Focus Questions In this letter, I ask the following focus question: 1. When one considers the evidence (journals, oral testimony, written submissions, and “views” of sites in operation”) (Admitted Evidence) did the majority of the Committee:

(a) have sufficient evidence to support each of its reasons for making Recommendation 49;

(b) have sufficient reason to make an overall conclusion to make Recommendation 49;

2. When one considers the Admitted Evidence does the Parliament of Victoria:

(a) have sufficient evidence to accept Recommendation 49;

(b) have sufficient evidence to assert that:

(i) that the proposed assisted dying will be “safe”, “conservative” and “dignified” (ii) support the introduction of euthanasia in Victoria.

I must answer no to both Question 1 and to Question 2. The Ratio Deciendi In this letter, I have assessed the ratio decidendi for Recommendation 49 and asserted that the majority report does not sufficiently make out a case for their own ratio deciendi. Your Reponses to This Letter For the reasons set out in this letter, I ask that you do the following: 1. Withdraw the euthanasia bill; 2. Institute a joint house committee to investigate the majority report and the misuse of evidence; 3. Demand that the labour members of the Majority be refused pre-selection at the next Victorian general election; and 4. Never let another report be written so badly as this final report. Comparing and Contrasting Evidence As I am sure you will see from this letter, you will see how I have played off competing pieces of evidence off against each other and then formed a conclusion based on reviewing competing evidence. This is what the majority of the Committee should have done. In an ideal world, where I am not producing this document in my spare time after work and in to the early hours of morning, I would prepare additional research. I have focused on the concept of the slippery slope, to compare and contrast competing allegation and definitions of it. I choose this because the slippery slope is such a fundamental concept to the assisted dying/ euthanasia debate. Omitted Submitters I have formed a view that there may be a mathematical error in the counting of submissions for and against the introduction of assisted dying/ euthanasia into Victoria. I am not yet convinced that the 100+ doctor signatories on the submission of Dr Eamonn Mathieson were counted individually, when really there were 100+ doctor signatories who each put their names individually, rather than merely being faceless/ nameless members of an organisation. These should be counted as 100+ doctor signatories, in the same way that the majority appears to have counted a man and wife as two submitters. At the least an explanation is required. Thank you for considering my submissions. Kindest Regards

David R.A. Foletta BCME LLB GDLP Solicitor High Court of Australia Solicitor Supreme Court of NSW Justice of the Peace in and for the State of NSW

David R.A. Foletta BCME LLB GDLP JP Further Final Letter to Premier Daniel Andrews 2

Contents Chapter 1: Executive Summary ...... 4 Annexure 1.: Summary of Findings ...... 4 Chapter 2: Focus Questions, Methodology ...... 5 Annexure 2.: Focus Questions for the Parliament of Victoria to Answer ...... 5 Annexure 3.: Comment by Inga Peulich and Daniel Mulino ...... 6 Annexure 4.: Identification of the “Ratio Deciendi” for making Recommendation 49 ...... 8 Annexure 5.: Methodology and Relevant Case Law Regarding Using Evidence ...... 12 Annexure 6.: Reference to “No evidence” ...... 20 Annexure 7.: Statement of Independence ...... 21 Chapter 3: Ratio Deciendi Lacks Evidence ...... 22 Annexure 8.: Does the Admitted Evidence show there is a “slippery slope”? ...... 22 Annexure 9.: Does the Admitted Evidence show a proper weighting of evidence? ...... 42 Annexure 10.: Does the Admitted Evidence show correct use the “quotes”? ...... 45 Annexure 11.: Does the Admitted Evidence show community VALUES for euthanasia? ...... 48 Annexure 12.: Does the Admitted Evidence show COMMUNITY SUPPORT for euthanasia? ...... 52 Annexure 13.: Does the Admitted Evidence show that safeguards work perfectly? ...... 59 Annexure 14.: Does the Admitted Evidence show Palliative Care is insufficient? ...... 61 Annexure 15.: Does the Admitted Evidence show unlawful euthanasia needs legalising? ...... 62 Annexure 16.: Does the Admitted Evidence Show that Current Suicides Require Euthanasia? ...... 63 Annexure 17.: Does the Admitted Evidence show Choice should require euthanasia? ...... 66 Chapter 5: The Foletta Recommendations ...... 67 Annexure 18.: My Recommendations to the Parliament of Victoria (and NSW and elsewhere) ...... 67 Schedules ...... 69 Schedule 1: David Foletta’s Reconciliation of Count of Submissions Received...... 69 Schedule 2: Omitted submitters? ...... 94 Schedule 3 Personal Submissions and other documents reviewed ...... 97

David R.A. Foletta BCME LLB GDLP JP Further Final Letter to Premier Daniel Andrews 3

Chapter 1: Executive Summary Annexure 1.: Summary of Findings 1. That the details are important. “oh, dear, spare me the details” is not a sufficient attitude to hold.

2. That the “details” reveal a totally different interpretation of the evidence than presented by the majority of the committee.

3. The Final Report provided by the majority does little more than could be determined by a review of Wikipedia.

4. The Majority took statements at face value, and did not test the assertions made by the witnesses.

5. The majority did not test competing conclusions.

6. The reference to the whole of a document, particularly when that document is lengthy, does not:

a. Assist the reader;

b. Amount to a comparison of evidence;

c. Support a conclusion;

d. Show that the committee read it, it means that the committee knows about the existence of that report;

e. Show that the committee evaluated the merits of the allegations and assertions in the document, made by the author;

f. Show the committee considered the pre-disposed viewpoints of the author and evaluate that when making a conclusions when:

i. To accept the conclusions in the report;

ii. Reject the conclusions in the report;

iii. Assert that the conclusion is a valid prediction of what may happen, even if it has not happened or its occurrence is denied

7. The committee’s action of leaving the decision, asserting that the parliament is the best place to decide something, is an abdication of the responsibly to advise parliament. Parliament might as well read all the evidence for itself, and have merely paid a junior research assistant to research databases online.

David R.A. Foletta BCME LLB GDLP JP Further Final Letter to Premier Daniel Andrews 4

Chapter 2: Focus Questions, Methodology Annexure 2.: Focus Questions for the Parliament of Victoria to Answer 1. I have made plain my general and total opposition to all forms of euthanasia. In my previous works, I have examined philosophical, theological, legal and statistical issues. This required me to do original research of my own, locating information from around the world. My previous written submission were also a great chance for me to learn and self-educate myself about this issue of euthanasia, in Australia and around the world.

2. In this work, I am focusing only on examining the evidence that the Committee had before it, and, examining how they used, if they misused and how they should have applied the evidence which they had before them. Therefore, I consider it is very important for all members of the Parliament of Victoria to read this work in addition to my 8 Oct 17 Letter.

3. For convenience, and completeness, I set out Recommendation 49 (Recommendation 49) below:

Recommendation 49: That the Victorian Government introduce a legal framework providing for assisted dying, by enacting legislation based on the assisted dying framework outlined in this Report in Annex 1, Assisted Dying Framework Summary.

4. As with all good reports, is important to focus the reader/ user of the report on a focus question. This principle is not unknown to the rule of law, it is a standard technique in judicial determinations. Actually, parties and judges alike focus on questions and then the judge gives judicial determination on them. Often, later questions need not be answered given the outcome of the earlier questions on the list of questions in that particular case.

5. I have drafted the following focus questions:

1. When one considers the evidence (journals, oral testimony, written submissions, and “views” of sites in operation”) (Admitted Evidence) did the majority of the Committee:

(a) have sufficient evidence to support each of its reasons for making Recommendation 49;

(b) have sufficient reason to make an overall conclusion to make Recommendation 49;

2. When one considers the Admitted Evidence does the Parliament of Victoria:

(a) have sufficient evidence to accept Recommendation 49;

(b) have sufficient evidence to assert that:

(i) that the proposed assisted dying will be “safe”, “conservative” and “dignified”

(ii) support the introduction of euthanasia in Victoria.

David R.A. Foletta BCME LLB GDLP JP Further Final Letter to Premier Daniel Andrews 5

Annexure 3.: Comment by Inga Peulich and Daniel Mulino 1. In my review of the Final Report, I found that there was located two minority reports. In these two minority reports, there contains two very significant accusations made of the majority by each of the members of the minority, in their respective minority reports. These accusations are as follows:

(a) Mr Daniel Mulino’s accusation was:

CHAPTER 3 – THE FREQUENCY OF EUTHANASIA AND ASSISTED DYING IS RISING RAPIDLY

3.1 In all jurisdictions where euthanasia or assisted suicide is legal, there has been a sharp, sustained upward trend in the number of deaths – often over long periods of time

In all major jurisdictions where euthanasia or assisted suicide is legal, the number of cases has increased sharply ever since legalisation. This increase has been rapid and sustained. In no major jurisdiction is a plateau in numbers evident.

The majority of this increase is not due to the aging of society or to a growing awareness of end-of-life options. As will be outlined in Chapter 4, it is most likely to due to factors such as:

•An expansion in the categories of people eligible to opt for euthanasia or assisted dying either through formal legislative change or, sometimes less transparently, gradual changes in the interpretation and application of existing provisions.

•A “normalisation” of euthanasia or assisted dying in the medical system and across the broader culture.

•Systemic failures in safeguards.

The Majority Report sidesteps this issue. It provides no attempt to explain either why such persistent growth in cases is occurring or whether the risks associated with this trend can be managed.

(b) Mrs Inga Peulich’s accusation was:

Background

I opposed the establishment of this inquiry on the basis that Victorians had access to an outstanding program of palliative care available to terminally ill patients, and that the real intent of the motion was to work towards the establishment of a physician assisted dying regime. The Greens had unsuccessfully introduced this into the Victorian Upper House in 2008 which I opposed at the time on, personal, social and moral grounds.

From the outset, this inquiry was expected to deliver the recommendations which are contained in the report due to the strong predisposition of the committee to voluntary euthanasia, from the time of the inquiry’s establishment as well as the loading of the inquiry with pro euthanasia submissions.

David R.A. Foletta BCME LLB GDLP JP Further Final Letter to Premier Daniel Andrews 6

2. Given the gravity of these two accusations, and given my own admitted opposition to all forms of euthanasia, I had to ask myself the following questions about these two accusations:

(a) Was the committee’s opinion pre-formed at the outset of the inquiry?

(b) Was there a tendency to prefer evidence that the majority wanted to hear from?

(d) Were these two accusations a self-serving accusation that are more dramatic than realistic?

3. For the reasons set out in this letter, I consider that these two accusations:

(a) are well made.

(b) needed to be made; and

(c) show that the Recommendation 49 should not have been made and that there is no entitlement to bring this issue before parliament.

David R.A. Foletta BCME LLB GDLP JP Further Final Letter to Premier Daniel Andrews 7

Annexure 4.: Identification of the “Ratio Deciendi” for making Recommendation 49 1. The first step in understanding the validity of the Majority of the Committee’s finding is the identification of the reasons for the decision that was made. This, at law, is called the “Ratio decidendi”, and is contrasted to commentary which is interesting but not reason for the decision, which is called “obiter dicta”. The quickest definition I could locate for Ratio Decidendi comes from that wonderful source of wikipedia.

Ratio decidendi (Latin plural rationes decidendi) is a Latin phrase meaning "the reason" or "the rationale for the decision".

The ratio decidendi is "the point in a case which determines the judgment" or "the principle which the case establishes".

We lawyers often argue against each other by asserting what was and was not “ratio” or “dicta” in judgments where this distinction has, by drafting, not been made plain.

2. The imperative that I assert, this this:

IF IT IS POSSIBLE TO DISPROVE THE MAJORITY’S RATIO DECIDENDI, THEN THEIR CASE HAS BEEN DEFEATED AND THERE IS NO BASIS FOR THE INTRODUCTION OF EUTHANASIA IN ANY FORM, AS RECOMMENDATION 49 IS BASELESS, NO MATTER ANY POLITICIAN OR ANY OTHER PERSON’S DESIRE OR PREFERENCE FOR PERMITTING EUTHANASIA.

3. In relation to Recommendation 49, I have identified the following issues and references in the Final Report as being the ratio decidendi of the majority of the committee.

# Issue Reference Statement (Committee’s words that form my view) 1 Palliative care insufficient P206 the Committee heard from health practitioners that not all pain can be alleviated 2 Choice P207 Some Victorians are dying terribly at the end of a terminal illness. They are spending the last days and weeks of their lives in pain which cannot be relieved. They are ready to die. They are determined to end their suffering. Some choose starvation or dehydration as their only option to end their life. These people want what we all want; a good death. Our current medical and legal system can provide this for most Victorians. But for some, it is out of reach.

In short, the current legal framework is not serving Victorians well. 3 Community support P308 The Committee’s research into international jurisdictions was informative in understanding what safeguards and oversight mechanisms work well and what could be improved. The Committee also observed that an assisted dying framework must reflect the values and culture unique to a particular jurisdiction. Certain elements of each framework are effective precisely because they reflect this uniqueness.

David R.A. Foletta BCME LLB GDLP JP Further Final Letter to Premier Daniel Andrews 8

4 Community values 9 A key message of this Report is that for a small number of Victorians, the current law inhibits good medical practice, and leads to outcomes that do not align with community values.

210 While each approach has its advantages and disadvantages to be taken into consideration, any Victorian response must also be tailored to best fit with Victorian culture and values.

210 Accordingly, the Committee has reached a decision which it believes best addresses the negative outcomes resulting from Victoria’s current law relating to assisted dying. This response takes into consideration the vast evidence provided to the Committee, and provides a positive step forward.

The Committee’s research into international jurisdictions was 217 informative in understanding what safeguards and oversight mechanisms work well and what could be improved. The Committee also observed that an assisted dying framework must reflect the values and culture unique to a particular jurisdiction. Certain elements of each framework are effective precisely because they reflect this uniqueness. 5 Exists now anyway P207 Some Victorians are being assisted to die by doctors. This is happening without regulation, without support, without transparency or accountability, and from the evidence received, sometimes without their consent.

P209 The Committee does not know what the precise outcome of more strict enforcement of Victoria’s current laws would be. However, outcomes the Committee can predict with relative confidence include: greater certainty of the consequences of breaking the law an increased climate of ‘defensive medicine’ as described by Professor Magnusson above incarceration of doctors and loved ones for crimes ranging from inciting suicide to murder812 continued lonely, horrific suicide by people who experience irreversible deterioration in physical health.

The Committee does not see fostering these outcomes as best serving Victorians 6 Current suicides P206 The evidence presented by the Coroner’s Court of Victoria was highly persuasive, and revealed some disturbing examples of the hidden damage that occurs. The evidence highlighted some of the horrific ways people are currently dying under our current law, particularly frail, elderly and vulnerable Victorians. 7 Safeguards work well P212 The evidence is clear that assisted dying can be provided in a way that guards against abuse and protects the vulnerable in our community in a way that unlawful and unregulated assisted dying does not. The Committee is satisfied, through its research into international jurisdictions, that assisted dying is currently provided in robust, transparent, accountable frameworks. The reporting directly from such frameworks, and the academic literature analysing them, shows that the risks are guarded against, and that robust frameworks help to prevent abuse.

David R.A. Foletta BCME LLB GDLP JP Further Final Letter to Premier Daniel Andrews 9

P213 The Committee travelled to jurisdictions that allow assisted dying to better understand how it operates in practice. In discussions with experts in the Netherlands, Canada, Switzerland and Oregon, the Committee developed a strong understanding of how and why these frameworks have, for many years, met the needs of those seeking another option at the end of life, in the context of robust medical systems.

P213 While their concerns about the safety of vulnerable people and the need for them to be protected are valid and should inform the design of any assisted dying framework, the Committee did not find evidence to support these concerns. P213 The Committee met with doctors, medical and legal experts, palliative care specialists and disability rights groups in jurisdictions where assisted dying is legal and who highlighted the rigorous safeguards, monitoring procedures and high levels of compliance in their jurisdictions. 4. I have identified as being the ratio deciendi for this Majority Report’s Recommendation 49.

5. I hold that the above are all able to be very easily overpowered by arguments to the contrary.

6. I firstly must say, that even the assertions contained in the above paragraphs defeat the whole ratio deciendi, because they contain one massive lie:

“The Committee travelled to jurisdictions that allow assisted dying to better understand how it operates in practice”

This is false, a falsehood, a lie, a fib, an act of misleading and deceptive conduct, an act of misleading Parliament. The majority of the committee: (a) did not go to Belgium; (b) did not ask tough questions of experts in Belgium; (c) consider evidence such was included in the affidavit of Etienne Montero, which I provided along with the 8 Oct 17 Letter. Therefore, any conclusion based on this assertion must be seen as being: (a) Invalid; (b) Inconclusive; (c) Suspect to being erroneous – and in this case it is; and (d) Reduce the credibility of the whole of the document provided by the majority of the Committee regarding Recommendation 49 and all forms of euthanasia.

David R.A. Foletta BCME LLB GDLP JP Further Final Letter to Premier Daniel Andrews 10

7. Personally, I cannot fathom the immeasurable depths of:

(a) deceit;

(b) misleading;

(d) lack of honesty

In the majority telling the Parliament of Victoria that they looked at all the evidence in all countries when they simply did not do. Further, I am equally concerned and at a loss to explain why members in the Parliament of Victoria in both the Legislative Assembly or the Legislative Council: (a) Are not objecting to having their intelligence insulted; (b) Are not rejecting the Final Report for the inherent falsehood that it contains; (c) Do not see that the report must stand or fall wholly on the validity of Recommendation 49; (d) Refuse to vote on a motion/ bill which has been supported on baseless evidence; (e) See that there is admissions of desire for more scope and application to euthanasia than is proposed; (f) Use real world knowledge that what the Final Report says and the real world says are two different things; (g) Why they are willing to allow this vote to be made on emotional grounds, effectively not even caring if there is a valid report or not, effectively setting aside the whole of the committee’s action; and (i) Are not telling the majority of the Committee to resign from the Parliament of Victoria.

David R.A. Foletta BCME LLB GDLP JP Further Final Letter to Premier Daniel Andrews 11

Annexure 5.: Methodology and Relevant Case Law Regarding Using Evidence Why I now focus on the evidence before the committee

1. To act judicially in assessing the evidence I have been presented with;

2. To be comparative with the evidence, as I have expected the Committee should have;

3. To test the assertions:

(a) Of the majority in their conclusions;

(b) Of the minority in their accusations of the majority;

4. To let the evidence speak to me;

5. To find out where the notion of

(a) Definitions of the slippery slope was derived;

(b) There being no evidence of the slippery slope was derived;

6. To find out what the lay witnesses (non medically) said and why they said that they said;

7. To find out what the professional (ie more akin to expert) witnesses said and why they said that they said;

8. To identify any “branch stacking” by organisations both pro and opposing euthanasia;

9. To identify if the debate was a respectful as alleged.

Judicial direction in reviewing the Admitted Evidence

10. In my 8 Oct 17 Letter, I highly criticized, and quite rightly so, the majority of the Committee for their misuse and absence of consideration of evidence in relation to euthanasia generally and especially in relation to the happenings in Belgium.

11. I hold the view that the approach of the majority in their report avoided so much reference that their avoidance of Belgium issues, as well as a lot of unfavourable evidence, was no better than the evidence avoided in the following case of Timwin Construction v Facade Innovations [2005] NSWSC 548 (1 June 2005) and the decision of Mcdougall, that there was so much avoidance that it could not be said that the majority turned their mind or acted in good faith.

41 In the present case, I think that an available, and better, inference is that the adjudicator did not consider, in the sense that I have just explained, the submissions for the parties in which the ambit of the dispute that was intended to be raised in relation to variations was explained. Had he turned his mind to those submissions, he would have known what it was the parties understood the dispute to be; what it was that they were arguing. Because he did not, as it appears, turn his mind to those submissions, he did not deal with the real dispute.

David R.A. Foletta BCME LLB GDLP JP Further Final Letter to Premier Daniel Andrews 12

42 It is of course apparent that the adjudicator turned his mind to the submissions for Timwin. However, did he so in the context of dismissing them (on this issue) because of s 20(2B). Had he read, and given consideration to, the submissions for Façade, he could not reasonably have done this. That, to my mind, supports rather than denies the drawing of the inference that the adjudicator did not have regard to, or consider, the relevant submissions.

43 I therefore conclude that the adjudicator did not attempt in good faith to exercise the power given to him by the Act because he did not attempt in good faith to consider the submissions put by the parties to understand what, in relation to variations, the real dispute was.

44 I will note that Timwin did not put its case on the basis of denial of natural justice, but it would follow from what I have said that, in disregarding Timwin's submissions for the reason that he gave, the adjudicator denied it natural justice.

12. Regrettably, the Parliament of Victoria’s rules on what is and what is not an acceptable report, do not impeach a report if it is falsely procured on hopeless basis – no matter the disastrous consequences of the report being enacted into legislation. If there was jurisdiction to make a declaration of “void” in relation to Recommendation 49 of the Majority Report, I would so make that declaration and for the same reason that McDougall did so in the case of Timwin, and probably for other reasons also.

45 I therefore conclude that the determination is void. It follows, no discretionary considerations having been advanced save for one to which I will turn, that Timwin is entitled to the relief sought in its summons.

13. Consistent with the principles I argued for in my 8 Oct 17 Letter, and for the sake of clarity I detail those principles in this letter, in this letter and the use of evidence I have been able to procure being evidence that the committee had in its’ possession, I will aim to strictly follow principles set out below, exhorted by no less than the New South Wales Supreme Court and the Victorian Court of Appeal.

(a) Firstly, demonstrate a process of logic that is an application of my mind. See the case of Xuereb v Viola (1988) 18 NSWLR 453, Cole J said at 469:

“Quite apart from Pt 72, r 11(c), natural justice requires that a referee give reasons for his opinion. This is not just to permit the court better to exercise its functions under Pt 72 r 13. The deeper reason is that it enables the parties and the disinterested observer to know that the opinion of the referee is not arbitrary, or influenced by improper considerations but is the result of a process of logic and the application of a considered mind to factual circumstances. I adopt, with respect, the passage in the judgment of Samuels JA in Strbak v Newton (Court of Appeal, 18 July 1989, unreported), in speaking of the requirements for reasons in the judgment of a District Court Judge, as being an appropriate statement of principle applicable to the statement of reasons required by a referee: (Emphasis mine)

David R.A. Foletta BCME LLB GDLP JP Further Final Letter to Premier Daniel Andrews 13

Cited by McDougall J in A and P Parkes Constructions Pty Ltd v Como Hotel Holdings [2004] NSWSC 588 (8 July 2004)

(b) Secondly, give reasons which led me to my conclusions which I assert should be adopted by the Parliament of Victoria. See the case of Xuereb v Viola (1988) 18 NSWLR 453, Cole J said at 469:

... “it is going too far to suggest that in every case a judge must submit the material before him or her to the most meticulous analysis and carry into judgment a detailed exposition of every aspect of the evidence and the arguments. What is necessary, it seems to me, is a basic explanation of the fundamental reasons which led the judge to his conclusion.

(Emphasis mine)

Cited by McDougall J in A and P Parkes Constructions Pty Ltd v Como Hotel Holdings [2004] NSWSC 588 (8 July 2004)

(c) Thirdly, by providing an explanation based on reasons and avoiding making unsupported conclusions, and giving quality reasoning which can be understood. See In Hughes Bros Pty Ltd v Minister for Public Works (unreported) per Rolf J, Cited by Cited by McDougall J in A and P Parkes Constructions Pty Ltd v Como Hotel Holdings [2004] NSWSC 588 (8 July 2004)

14 In Hughes Bros Pty Ltd v Minister for Public Works (55011/1991, 17 August 1994, unreported; BC 9402885), Rolfe J said (adopting the BC pagination) at 13-14:

“In my opinion the Court must be able to see and follow a reasoning process. That does not, in my view, impose an unnecessary burden upon the Referee. The nature of what is required is that a reasoning process be disclosed, or sufficiently disclosed, to satisfy the Court that the finding was one based upon such an intellectual exercise. The performance of that task is not fulfilled by ultimate conclusions unsupported by reasoning. ...

(d) Fourthly, by ensuring that I “turn my mind” by doing the following:

(i) Must Be An Effort To Understand And Deal With The Issues:

38 There has not been any decision to my knowledge elaborating the requirement of good faith to which Hodgson JA pointed in Brodyn. Clearly, I think, his Honour was not referring to dishonesty or its opposite. I think he was suggesting that, as is well understood in the administrative law context, there must be an effort to understand and deal with the issues in the discharge of the statutory function: see, for example, the speech of Lord Sumner in Roberts v Hopwood [1925] AC 578, 603, where his Lordship said that a requirement to act in good faith must mean that the board "are putting their minds to the comprehension and their wills to the discharge of their duty to the public, whose money and locality which they administer.”

David R.A. Foletta BCME LLB GDLP JP Further Final Letter to Premier Daniel Andrews 14

Zhang v Canterbury City Council [2001] NSWCA 167; (2001) 51 NSWLR 589 at 602 (Spigelman CJ, with whom Meagher and Beazley JJA agreed).

(ii) by demonstrating good faith in the review of evidence.

39 That construction of the requirement of good faith is supported by the provisions of s 22(2), requiring an adjudicator to "consider" certain matters. A requirement to consider, or take into consideration, is equivalent to a requirement to have regard to something: see Zhang v Canterbury City Council [2001] NSWCA 167; (2001) 51 NSWLR 589 at 602 (Spigelman CJ, with whom Meagher and Beazley JJA agreed).

(e) Fifthly, having regard to the evidence by giving proper weight to the specified considerations as a fundamental element in the determination

40 As his Honour emphasised, the requirement to “have regard to” something requires the giving of weight to the specified considerations as a fundamental element in the determination, or to take them into account as the focal points by reference to which the relevant decision is to be made. His Honour relied on the tests expounded in The Queen v Hunt; ex parte Sean Investments Proprietary Limited [1979] HCA 32; (1979) 180 CLR 322 (Mason J) and in Evans v Marmont [1997] NSWSC 331; (1997) 42 NSWLR 70, 79-80 (Gleeson CJ and McLelland CJ in Eq). Ciciwill Pty Ltd v Consumer Claims Tribunal (1997) 41 NSWLR 737, Hulme J

(f) Sixthly, I will deal give reasons why I have rejected evidence, which will necessitate me identifying the evidence, and even if I reject it. See Conder v Silkbard [1999] NSWCA 459, a lack of reasons was reasons for concern.

22 …. However, it was incumbent for him to deal with the central contentions advanced by the parties and indicate, even in general terms, whether and why he accepted or rejected those matters.

(g) Seventhly, I will avoid rejecting that is avoiding or side stepping, the whole body of evidence in order to achieve an outcome which would be jeopardized if that omitted evidence was admitted and considered. See again, His Honour Justice McDougall in the case of Timwin Construction v Facade Innovations [2005] NSWSC 548 (1 June 2005):

37 The adjudicator referred to none of this. Insofar as one can gather from reading the determination, he appears not to have read the submissions at all. He certainly does not indicate that he has gained any enlightenment as to the argument in relation to variations from Façade's submissions. Further, when dealing with the other reasons given by Timwin in support of its claim that it was not liable to pay, he dealt only with the arguments raised in the payment schedule.

David R.A. Foletta BCME LLB GDLP JP Further Final Letter to Premier Daniel Andrews 15

(h) Eighthly, I will avoid a miscarriage of justice by giving reasons. See the case of SZDCJ v Minister for Immigration [2004] FMCA 1050 (20 December 2004) at paragraphs 10 – 12 per Jacobson J citing Wiki v Atlantis Relocations Pty Ltd [2004] NSWCA 174 ("Wiki"). There, at [56] – [59], Ipp JA, with whom Bryson AJA and Stein AJA agreed:

10. The duty of a Judge or Magistrate to state reasons was recently described by the NSW Court of Appeal in , held that a miscarriage of justice can arise where what is and is not disclosed in a judge's reasons is a breach of the principle that justice must not only be done but must be seen to be done, citing Beale v Government Insurance Office of NSW (1997) 48 NSWLR 430 at 431 (per Mason P).

(i) Ninthly, I will give the necessary amount of reasons that is fit for the circumstances of this case. See the case of SZDCJ v Minister for Immigration [2004] FMCA 1050 (20 December 2004) at paragraphs 10 – 12 per Jacobson J - Citing Mifsud v Campbell (1991) 21 NSWLR 725 at 728 (per Samuels JA, with whom Clarke JA and Hope AJA agreed).

“The extent of the duty to give reasons depends upon the circumstances of the individual case”

(j) Tenthly, I will ensure that the people on both sides of the euthansaisa argument can know that I have canvassed the evidence in my decision as to why I prefer one case over the other. See the case of SZDCJ v Minister for Immigration [2004] FMCA 1050 citing Ipp JA quoted, with approval, the observations made in Archibald v Byron Shire Council [2003] NSWCA 292; (2003) 129 LGERA 311 per Sheller JA (with whom Beazley JA agreed) at [54]:

"Where a dispute, such as this one, involves something in the nature of an intellectual exchange with reasons and analysis advanced on either side, the parties are entitled to have the judge enter into the issues canvassed before the court and to an explanation by the judge as to why the judge prefers one case over the other."

(j) Eleventhly, I will avoid using cliché as an unfounded reason and catch all phrases. See the case of Shell Refining (Australia) Pty Limited v A J Mayr Engineering Pty Limited [2006] NSWSC 94 (6 March 2006), Her Honour, Justice Bergin of the New South Wales Supreme Court:

27 It is perhaps understandable that some adjudicators whose determinations have been the subject of administrative law challenge may regard it as appropriate to utilise a catch- all statement, similar to the one used in the Determination, to fend off an allegation that they have failed to consider a relevant matter. Notwithstanding the somewhat pressure cooker environment in which adjudicators provide their determinations, it seems to me that it would be unhelpful for adjudicators to develop such a practice

David R.A. Foletta BCME LLB GDLP JP Further Final Letter to Premier Daniel Andrews 16

(k) Finally, I will seek to comply with Fletcher Construction Australia Limited v Lines MacFarlane & Marshall Pty Ltd [2002] VSCA 189 (29 November 2002), this is from the Victorian Supreme Court of Appeal.

The nature and content of the judge's obligation to give reasons

101 In any case in which reasons are required, the necessary content will depend upon the circumstances of the particular matter. In Beale, Meagher, J. suggested[44] that while reasons need not necessarily be lengthy or elaborate, there were three fundamental elements of a statement of reasons, as follows -

"First, a judge should refer to relevant evidence. There is no need to refer to the relevant evidence in detail, especially in circumstances where it is clear that the evidence has been considered. However, where certain evidence is important or critical to the proper determination of the matter and is not referred to by the trial judge, an appellate court may infer that the trial judge overlooked the evidence or failed to give consideration to it ... Where conflicting evidence of a significant nature is given, the existence of both sets of evidence should be referred to. Secondly, a judge should set out any material findings of fact and any conclusions or ultimate findings of fact reached. ... [W]here findings of fact are not referred to, an appellate court may infer that the trial judge considered that finding to be immaterial. Where one set of evidence is accepted over a conflicting set of significant evidence, the trial judge should set out his findings as to how he comes to accept the one over the other. ... Further, it may not be necessary to make findings on every argument or destroy every submission, particularly where the arguments advanced are numerous and of varying significance ... Thirdly, a judge should provide reasons for making the relevant findings of fact (and conclusions) and reasons in applying the law to the facts found. Those reasons or the process of reasoning should be understandable and preferably logical as well."

102 In Sun Alliance, Gray, J. identified two criteria for determining the adequacy of reasons saying[45] that the reasons will be inadequate if -

"(a) the Appeal Court is unable to ascertain the reasoning upon which the decision is based; or (b) justice is not seen to have been done."

Later, Gray, J. turned to consider whether justice was seen to have been done, and stated his view that it was not, saying -

"The defendant, having led a weighty body of incriminating evidence was entitled to have the evidence weighed by the Court and, if rejected, the grounds of its rejection expressed in reasoned terms. To have a strong body of evidence put aside without explanation is likely to give rise to a feeling of injustice in the mind of the most reasonable litigant."

David R.A. Foletta BCME LLB GDLP JP Further Final Letter to Premier Daniel Andrews 17

103 The failure of a judge to refer to particular evidence has drawn attention in a number of cases. In Yendall v. Smith Mitchell & Co. Ltd.[46] Sholl, J. said -

"The true principle, I think, must be, not that everything relevant which a magistrate does not refer to is to be taken to have been overlooked, or on the other hand, that it is to be taken to have been considered but that, if something which should have been considered is not referred to, and the nature of the decision suggests some error, which may have been due to the matter not having been considered as it should have been, or if the magistrate's observations indicate, on a comparison of what is said with what he did not say, that the matter in question has not been considered as it should have been, the appellate tribunal may properly draw that inference, and the magistrate will have no cause to complain if it does so."

In Sun Alliance Gray, J. said[47] of the omission in that case that -

"The failure to make a single reference to evidence of such importance to the defendant leads to a strong suspicion that it was overlooked or ignored."

Then in Mifsud v. Campbell[48] Samuels, J.A. said -

"... it is an incident of judicial duty for the judge to consider all the evidence in the case. It is plainly unnecessary for a judge to refer to all the evidence led in the proceedings or to indicate which of it is accepted or rejected. The extent of the duty to record the evidence given and the findings made depend, as the duty to give reasons does, upon the circumstances of the individual case. Accordingly, a failure to refer to some of the evidence does not necessarily, whenever it occurs, indicate that the judge has failed to discharge the duty which rests upon him or her. However, for a judge to ignore evidence critical to an issue in a case and contrary to an assertion of fact made by one party and accepted by the judge ... may promote a sense of grievance in the adversary and create a litigant who is not only `disappointed' but `disturbed' ... it tends to deny both the fact and the appearance of justice having been done."

104 Fletcher placed particular reliance, in this regard, on the decision of the New South Wales Court of Appeal in NRMA Insurance Ltd. v. Tatt[49], where the Court held that the trial judge's failure to take into account a number of aspects of the evidence also vitiated his findings as to the credit of the witnesses. Samuels, J.A.[50] stated -

"Certainly it cannot be said that the learned judge gave no reasons; but in my judgment he failed to provide those findings and reasons which enable `a proper understanding of the basis upon which the verdict entered has been reached'. That point is to my mind sufficiently taken by grounds of appeal which complain that the judge failed `to give any

David R.A. Foletta BCME LLB GDLP JP Further Final Letter to Premier Daniel Andrews 18

sufficient or any consideration to', amongst other things, the evidence of Mr Carmody and Mr Dowling and the cause of the fire and `failed to take into account' a number of aspects of the scientific evidence. By recording only one side of the judicial equation he has deprived this Court of the opportunity of assessing the weight to be given to the finding on credit, which might thus be accorded far greater cogency than in the whole of the context it properly deserves. It is, to my mind, impossible for a judge to make a finding on credit in a vacuum, as it were, without relating the witness' evidence, demeanour and particular circumstances to the other material evidence in the case."

(Emphasis mine)

David R.A. Foletta BCME LLB GDLP JP Further Final Letter to Premier Daniel Andrews 19

Annexure 6.: Reference to “No evidence” 1. The Final Report contains multiple references to the words “no evidence”. These words used by the majority of the committee, including a Chairman who is a Barrister and who’s day job outside parliament is the consideration and application of evidence, and in four of the six instances do not have qualification words such as “none”, “nil”, “zero’.

2. “next to no evidence” is stated in the case in item 2 and item 3 in the table below and that qualification is accepted.

3. The references to “no evidence” are also repeated in the “Final Report: Summary Booklet” as a key selling point for the whole scheme of euthanasia – legalized killing.

4. Clearly, the first item in the table below is the most serious of all the “no evidence” assertions (and is rejected).

# Reference Comment 1 Chair’s foreword While these jurisdictions differ significantly in their assisted dying models, what they all have in common is robust regulatory frameworks that focus on transparency, patient-centred care and choice. We found no evidence of institutional corrosion or the often cited ‘slippery slope’. Indeed, the regulatory framework has been unchanged in Oregon, the Netherlands and Switzerland for many years. 2 Executive summary – Chapter While several submissions suggested that all pain and suffering can be alleviated 8 through the provision of better palliative care, the Committee heard from health practitioners that not all pain can be alleviated. Palliative care cannot always be the solution to managing pain and suffering at the end of life.

The Committee considered three options for addressing the issues of Victoria’s current end of life care legal framework: 1. maintain the status quo 2. enforce the current legal framework 3. change the law.

The Committee rejects maintaining the status quo as an inadequate, head-in-the-sand approach to policy making and the plight of the Victorians discussed in this Report. The Committee also heard next to no evidence in favour of increasing efforts to enforce the current law. Accordingly, the Committee believes that the end of life care legal framework must be changed. 3 1.4.4 Assisted dying is It is important that laws are applied and enforced, but for assisted dying, in an occurring in Victoria effort to achieve just outcomes, this is not occurring. The Committee heard next to no evidence that a lack of prosecutions for assisted dying is a failure of the current legal system. 4 Box 4.1: The code for ethical 11. A substitute decision maker should only base his or her decision on best interests practice for advance care when there is no evidence of the person’s preferences on which to base directives … substituted judgement. 5 5.4.1 Enforceable advance Although there is no evidence to suggest that health practitioners will be care plans prosecuted under the current system, it is nevertheless important that they are expressing these concerns. 6 8.3.2 The Committee heard next to no evidence in favour of increasing efforts to Enforce the current legal enforce our current law. The majority of arguments against legalising assisted framework dying did not engage with the fact that the current law is not being enforced, or indeed why this is the case.

David R.A. Foletta BCME LLB GDLP JP Further Final Letter to Premier Daniel Andrews 20

Annexure 7.: Statement of Independence 1. I have acted independently in the preparation of these submissions

2. I am not, and I have never been a member (however described) of the following organisations:

(a) Right to life;

(b) Patients’ Right’s Council;

(d) HOPE; or

(e) Dying with Dignity or any pro-euthanasia organisation.

3. The designs, thoughts, attitudes are my own unless they have been expressly referenced to another author;

4. I am grateful and indebted to the various experienced and learned opinions to which I have referred, I am appreciative of the wisdom they have provided to me;

5. Where an organisation may be classified, by some, as being “right wing” and arch conservative, I have done so on the basis that they are likely to record and detail non-compliances with legislation. In relying on those accounts of non-compliances I have made attempt to remove all hints of emotion and drama to hold only to the facts of “yea” or “nay” of compliance; and

6. I have not taken any dictation, direction or any other form of mandatory influence from any politician, person or individual.

David R.A. Foletta BCME LLB GDLP JP Further Final Letter to Premier Daniel Andrews 21

Chapter 3: Ratio Deciendi Lacks Evidence Annexure 8.: Does the Admitted Evidence show there is a “slippery slope”? 1. As set out above, the Majority of the Committee found that there was “no evidence” of there being a “slippery slope”. To find out this this is the correct conclusion and if the Parliament of Victoria, and all people around Australia, can rely on this conclusion, I need to consider the following:

(a) How did the majority define the “slippery slope”?

(b) Was the majority’s definition of the “slippery slope” correct and reasonable?

Note: this questions is asked this way, because even if the ultimate answer was not correct, was the finding reasonable and therefore “within jurisdiction” – as by analogy to administrative law may possibly be one assessment that some may try to apply.

(d) How was the lay evidence as to the “slippery slope” was received?

(e) Was the majority of the committee’s conclusions from the lay evidence correct and reasonable?

Note: see the above “note”.

(f) What expert/ professional evidence as to the “slippery slope” was received?

(g) How was the expert/ professional evidence as to the “slippery slope” was received?

(h) Was the majority of the committee’s conclusions from the expert/ professional evidence correct and reasonable?

(i) Is there really a “slippery slope”?

(j) If there is there really a slippery slope then what does that mean of Euthanasia in the State of Victoria and Australia?

How did the majority define the “slippery slope”?

2. As set out above, the majority of the committee used the phrase “institutional corrosion” however, that term was not defined.

3. At the risk of making a case for the majority which they have not themselves considered or determined or argued, I suspect that this term “institutional corrosion” may mean either or both:

(i) actual registered institutions such as hospitals, governments; and

(ii) social values, social norms etc such as sanctity of human life

David R.A. Foletta BCME LLB GDLP JP Further Final Letter to Premier Daniel Andrews 22

Again, there is precious little to assist us, and I wonder if a less inquisitive mind than mine may be relied upon by the majority of the Committee and therefore the lack of detail was deliberate.

4. There is however a definition of some sort given in

A7.5.2 The slippery slope

Legalising assisted dying will create a slippery slope, particularly to involuntary euthanasia, in which safeguards are eroded and people beyond the initial scope of assisted dying law will die as a result.

The slippery slope argument overlaps with the concern that vulnerable people will become victims of assisted dying. Both suggest that assisted dying will extend beyond its initial scope, either through further legislative change, or practice outside of legal safeguards, including:

to people for whom assisted dying is inappropriate, such as children

to people who lack capacity to make an informed medical decision.

Once assisted dying is morally acceptable, such extensions will be difficult to resist. Assisted dying should not be legalised because it is impossible to guard against these risks.

5. In another sense, it relates to the stability of legislation over a period of time. See chair’s forward

While these jurisdictions differ significantly in their assisted dying models, what they all have in common is robust regulatory frameworks that focus on transparency, patient-centred care and choice. We found no evidence of institutional corrosion or the often cited ‘slippery slope’. Indeed, the regulatory framework has been unchanged in Oregon, the Netherlands and Switzerland for many years.

6. In the definitions included to describe the words in the word cloud against euthanasia, the following definition of slippery slope appeared.

Slippery slope Legalising assisted dying will create a slippery slope, particularly to involuntary assisted dying, in which safeguards are eroded, either in practice, or by further changes to law. People beyond the initial scope of assisted dying law will die as a result.

Once assisted dying is morally acceptable, such extensions will be difficult to resist. Assisted dying should not be legalised because it is impossible to guard against these risks.

Was the majority’s definition of the “slippery slope” correct and reasonable?

7. I repeat that I said in the

1 For anyone who is a graphical learner, not a words learner, I have prepared a graphic to summarise the complex issues in this annexure and the complex issues regarding the “slippery slope”/

David R.A. Foletta BCME LLB GDLP JP Further Final Letter to Premier Daniel Andrews 23

2. This graphic is what Mr Denton, Mr Francis, the Honourable Stephanie Key, the Honourable Mark Parnell and others would call “FUD” (or use words of their own to the same effect). I disagree with them.

3 This graphic is what the majority of the Parliament of Victoria said that there was “no evidence” as to the existence of – without looking at Belgium and without considering all of these issues simultaneously.

A Graphical Representation of the “Slippery Slope” – for Picture Based Learners. Stage Graphic Substantive Slippery Slope Administrative Societal Slippery Slippery Slope Slope Staying 1 Doctors not permitted to No laws exist to Society rejects at the practice medical killing. kill anyone. euthanasia and sees top pain as party of dying and not worth the risk of legalising killing.

Top of 1 Adult (18+) only Laws changed to Society allows the 2 Voluntary only introduce new euthanasia. Slope 3 Death imminent categories. Society expects 4 Doctor administered only Reporting is 100% doctors to be 100% compliant (never compliant (never achieved to date). achieved to date). Non compliance is murder. Descend 1 Adult (18+) only Laws changed to Society allows new ing 2 Voluntary only introduce new categories. down 3 Death imminent categories. Protestors are the 4 Doctor or nurse administered Judges give liberal criticised. slope 5 Children 11 - 17 interpretations to Omissions from 6 Non-curable disease 6 laws. compliance are months left to live. Government accepted if not too 7 “Suffering” is considered a departments give major/ many. reason. Suffering is considered wide definitions to Technical non- narrowly at first. killing. compliance are not Reporting not seen as murder. audited so rigorously.

David R.A. Foletta BCME LLB GDLP JP Further Final Letter to Premier Daniel Andrews 24

Bottom 1 Adult (18+) only Laws changed to Killing seen as good. of the 2 Voluntary an option. introduce new Killing seen as slope 3 Death imminent categories beneficial to society. 4 Doctor or nurse administered Judges give liberal Killing seen as 5 Children 11 - 17 interpretations to beneficial to the 6 Non-curable disease with laws. deceased. years left to live. Government The living who are 7 “Suffering” is interpreted departments give “haves” determine more widely to include lower wide definitions to that people who are thresholds to qualify as killing. “have nots” do not suffering entitling euthanasia. have a happy life 8 Non voluntary: Babies 0 – 1 and deserve to die. year/ others without capacity No one cares about 9 Depression compliance with the 10 Alcoholics law. 11 Prisoners life sentence 12 “Completed life”

13 Tired of living 14 Free choice All these three (3) aspect of the slippery slope work together and are simultaneous. What lay evidence as to the “slippery slope” was received?

8. Lay witnesses, for and against, euthanasia mentioned the slippery slope. These are some of the comments which were made:

(a) I have located one lay witness, Janine Gosbell, in “Submission 377”, who made an observation about the “slippery slope” who said the following:

“ I am 66. Please do not insult my intelligence with the slippery slope argument that is always aired by desperate opponents. Old people do not become stupid. They are not going to feel pressured to take themselves off by an uncaring society and greedy relatives anymore than they are now. That those elements exist in some places is a separate issue entirely. This is a matter of age discrimination. ”

How was the lay evidence as to the “slippery slope” was received?

9. It appears to me that the majority of the committee did not go into any depth of analysis of the lay evidence for and against the “slippery slope”.

10. The sheer lack of direct references by the majority to lay evidence, both for and against so that the reader could see how the majority of the committee:

(a) steered a logical course through the competing evidence;

(b) defined criteria to assess the competing evidence and applied that criteria;

(c) reasoned why certain lay witnesses should be considered more informed, more understanding and therefore more reliable and their evidence given more weight than other witnesses;

David R.A. Foletta BCME LLB GDLP JP Further Final Letter to Premier Daniel Andrews 25

(d) reasoned why certain lay witnesses should be considered to be preferred over professional/ expert witnesses;

All goes towards a belief that the majority of the committee did not consider the lay evidence against the majority of the committee’s own presumption that there was no “slippery slope”.

Was the Majority of the Committee’s Conclusions from the Lay Evidence Correct and Reasonable?

11. This is a clear “no” as to the majority’s conclusions being “correct” because this is one witness who has merely stated that she did not want to be insulted.

12. This is a clear “no” as to the majority’s conclusions being “reasonable” because there is not enough informed lay evidence to justify a positive action of inducing a new risk into Victorian society.

What Expert/ Professional Evidence as to the “slippery slope” was received?

13. In contrast to the lay evidence, there is a lot of strongly argued expert/ professional witnesses, for and against, euthanasia mentioned the slippery slope.

14. The majority, in the Final Report, did not reason to the detail that I have set out in this part of this letter, and, I therefore reserve the right to a reply to the Committee upon discussion and hearing from them with their “submissions-in-chief”.

Arguments Against the “Slippery Slope”

15. These are some of the comments which were included in the material before the Committee but not identified by the Committee by people who asserted that there is no “slippery slope”:

(a) Firstly, Professor Margaret Otlowski University of Tasmania, in “Submission 841”

4. Countering Arguments Against Legalisation

4.1 Concerns about the effects of legalisation: Fear of the 'slippery slope'

The most commonly cited objection to the legalisation of active voluntary euthanasia is the 'slippery slope' argument: that the legalisation of active voluntary euthanasia would lead to widespread involuntary euthanasia and the termination of lives no longer considered socially useful. This is, however, a completely unsubstantiated argument. The 'slippery slope' argument is typically made without regard to the risks of abuse or other problems involved in retaining the present law. As outlined above, an objective assessment of the available evidence suggests that the practice of euthanasia already occurs in Australia, and that it is, in some cases, performed other than at the request of the patient - indeed, from the mid 1990s figures referred to earlier - 3.5% of all deaths in Australia involved active assistance without an explicit request from the patient (almost twice as often as voluntary euthanasia) and which is much higher than the equivalent figure for the Netherlands (0.7% of all deaths). There are strong arguments to suggest that if the

David R.A. Foletta BCME LLB GDLP JP Further Final Letter to Premier Daniel Andrews 26

practice is legalised in carefully defined circumstances, and opened up to scrutiny, there would be less risk of covert and improper conduct than is presently the case. It stands to reason that if doctors are given the option of gaining the protection of the law by performing active voluntary euthanasia in accordance with strict safeguards, they would take this course rather than running the risk of serious criminal liability.

The experience in the Netherlands, where active voluntary euthanasia has been given de facto legal recognition and performed relatively openly by the medical profession and more recently has been legalised,20 provides evidence to suggest that openness on this issue is likely to protect the interests of patients and minimise the risk of abuse.

Data is now also available from Belgium and there are a number of authoritative peer reviewed papers which collectively debunk fears of a ‘slippery slope’ and in fact have demonstrated that legalisation of the practice of active voluntary euthanasia with appropriate safeguards has reduced the number of unrequested killings.21

21 B. Onwuteaka et al, ‘Trends in End-of-Life Practices Before and After the Enactment of the Euthanasia Law in the Netherlands from 1990 to 2010: A Repeated Cross Sectional Survey’ (2012) 380 Lancet 908-915;

K. Chambaere et al, ‘Characteristic of Belgian ‘Life Ending Acts Without Explicit Patient Request’: A Large Scale Death Certificate Survey Revisited’ (2014) 2(4) Canadian medical Association Journal Open;

K. Chambaere et al ‘Physician-Assisted Deaths Under the Euthanasia Law in Belgium: A Population-Based Survey’ (2010) Canadian Medical Association Journal 182; 895-901;

J. Bilsen et al ‘Medical End-of Life Practices Under the Euthanasia law in Belgium’ (2009) 361 New England Journal of Medicine 1119-1121,

T. Smets et al ‘Legal Euthanasia in Belgium: Characteristics of all Reported Euthanasia Cases’ (2009) 47 Medical Care 1-6. – SEE EXTRACT BELOW

(b) Secondly, Dr Doug Gaze, who did not mention slippery slope in his written submissions (Submission 801). In his oral submission to the Committee at Mornington on 29 October 2015, he allegedly said:

Just briefly, in summary, my personal belief is that the relief of suffering is the highest priority. I accept that many people have very vocal opposition to any change in this area, but I think suffering is the highest priority. I do believe there are solutions and safeguards to most of the arguments that are put up against law reform. I think we can learn from other jurisdictions. I do not see this as a slippery slope, but rather a compassionate response of a progressive and caring society to a very difficult issue.

David R.A. Foletta BCME LLB GDLP JP Further Final Letter to Premier Daniel Andrews 27

Prof. SAVULESCU

The reason for that is that, first of all, many individuals seek this choice. It is available in other parts of the world. We have seen that it can be very safely regulated. The predictions of abuse and a slippery slope simply have not been borne out by the evidence that has just been released from the Netherlands, Belgium and Switzerland. This affords people with options that they see as fundamental to controlling their life

The CHAIR — Thanks very much, Professor, for those opening remarks. I wonder if I could ask you to

expand on your comments about examples from other jurisdictions, because we have heard some evidence thus far about the slippery slope argument, and we have heard some evidence from others about the different models that exist in other jurisdictions. You mentioned Belgium, the Netherlands, Oregon and others. Could you perhaps give some further detail about which one of those models may be analogous to Victoria, or if Victoria is to go down this path, how you see this being implemented?

Prof. SAVULESCU — My interpretation of the evidence is that there is no evidence of an undesirable

slippery slope. Sometimes you will hear the sort of data that says, ‘Increasingly this is being used for people with mental illness’, or, ‘In Belgium it’s now available for children’, or in Holland for neonates, for non-competent individuals. The argument is, ‘Look, it starts off as euthanasia, or assisted suicide, for a terminal disease, but look, in these countries it extends to involve mental illness, the incompetent and children’. In each of these jurisdictions these are very carefully thought-through extensions and, in my view, entirely appropriate.

When it comes to one ground for assisted dying — a life not worth living — probably the worst disorder you could have is intractable, prolonged, untreatable depression. It absolutely saps everything that is valuable in life. So the slippery slope to the administration of euthanasia or assisted suicide to depression is, in my view, not a slippery slope at all; it is a quite inappropriate extension. Likewise for neonates — the sorts of conditions where neonatal euthanasia has been performed have been for unbearable, untreatable suffering, such as with epidermolysis bullosa in the neonates. It is a blistering condition where the skin continually blisters off. The infant dies

David R.A. Foletta BCME LLB GDLP JP Further Final Letter to Premier Daniel Andrews 28

within a year, excruciating pain, death is inevitable. Parents have requested euthanasia, and it has been performed.

So, in my view, there is no evidence of an undesirable slippery slope from the performance of these practices in any of the jurisdictions I am aware of. In each of these countries they are enormously proud of their assisted dying laws, and they continue to support them despite perennial reviews. Probably the greatest scrutiny of any kind of medical practice has occurred around euthanasia in the Netherlands. It is simply not true that it has led to some sort of undesirable slippery slope.

Mr MULINO — Thanks for your evidence, Professor. You have argued that based on notions of autonomy and liberty, if one were to take that to the point of justifying an active euthanasia regime, that would lead one to argue for quite a broad set of arrangements for competent people and that should not be viewed as a slippery slope. It is just applying that ethical framework to each situation. I am just wondering whether you would worry about situations such as somebody, for example, having a horrific accident and being blinded or becoming a quadriplegic, where there are well-documented cases of people going through potentially quite prolonged periods of depression and there being a degree of uncertainty around how long that might last. Would you have concerns about safeguards around, for example, two doctors signing off on something not being sufficient to protect against the reversibility of what somebody might be feeling?

Prof. SAVULESCU — I think that is a very good point. Adaptation is a human regular. If you look at how badly people think paraplegia is, they think it is very bad. Once they become a paraplegic they rate their life very low, but then some years later their ratings come back almost to normal. I think that is a good argument for having a cooling-off period — perhaps a year, perhaps two years — after a major accident, where the person does not have a terminal illness but has a severe deficit in their quality of life.

There was a case in the UK a year or two ago of a young man — I think he was 18, 19 or 20 — who was

rendered a quadriplegic in a rugby accident, and after nine months as a quadriplegic his family took him to Dignitas in Switzerland, where he had an assisted suicide.

Prof. SAVULESCU — I believe — but you would need to check this — that has been done in the

David R.A. Foletta BCME LLB GDLP JP Further Final Letter to Premier Daniel Andrews 29

Netherlands. Again you will hear that there has been a slippery slope to non-voluntary euthanasia involving people who are incompetent. It is usually in the case of previously expressed wishes about that. I think you would need to check that.

(d) Andrew Denton, Melbourne — 18 November 2015

Having said that, I do think that the opponents ask the right questions, and the questions are these: who are the vulnerable, how do we protect them, are the laws as they stand overseas — are the safeguards — adequate in doing so? They are the right questions, and I believe they have been thoroughly and effectively answered by voluminous research and experience from overseas — in the Netherlands, Belgium and Oregon. This is substantiated by the most detailed inquiry ever done into this issue by Canadian judge Lynn Smith from British Columbia, supported unanimously by the Canadian Supreme Court, inquiring into this very question — assisted dying: is there a slippery slope, can safeguards be created, do they work? Having taken evidence from around the world — the most exhaustive inquiry ever held, for and against — she found that there was no credible evidence for a slippery slope. More to the point, she said there is very strong evidence that safeguards can be created and do work.

Mr DENTON — I have a very limited perspective on Switzerland. I really wanted to look at these three countries in depth. The only comment I have to make on Switzerland is that Switzerland is fascinating. It is rarely mentioned by opponents as an example of something that has gone wrong even though the Swiss laws you could write on the back of a beer coaster. They have almost done nothing. It is like an historical anomaly these laws exist, and it can be summarised as, ‘As long as you’re not doing it for personal profit, we are not going to prosecute you’. You would expect therefore, if logic followed, in a country with almost no safeguards, if logic followed from the opponents and this thing of the slippery slope, Switzerland should be a slippery crevasse. There should be tens of thousands of people falling down it, but there is not.

David R.A. Foletta BCME LLB GDLP JP Further Final Letter to Premier Daniel Andrews 30

(e) Andrew Denton, Melbourne — 18 November 2015 (Denton Further Comment).

Mr MELHEM — What I understand you are saying is about someone basically about to die with a chronic disease. Using the model you talked about, would you extend that to mental illness — for example, a 30-year-old, physically healthy, all the plumbing is good, but there is that mental illness? Would we go that far,or would you suggest that we should consider that?

Mr DENTON — Yes, I would, and I came to this after a lot of consideration. Most of my time in Belgium was spent on this very issue. Initially I found it extremely confronting, because I did not understand then what I understand now, which is that psychiatric suffering — long-term what they call therapy-resistant psychiatric pain — can be equal to or in excess of any known physical pain.

(f) The Bibliography in the Final Report, mentioned this following journal article (see page 322 of the Final Report), however, I do not stand convinced that it was actually read by the Majority of the Committee: “Chambaere, K, et al., ‘Age-based disparities in end-of-life decisions in Belgium: A population-based death certificate survey’, BMC Public Health, vol. 12, no. 1, 2012. “ When I read this article, I noticed the following quotes:

“…it was classified as euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide (EAS). If there had been no explicit request from the patient, the act was classified as a life ending act – by administration of drugs – without explicit patient request (LAWER). An end-of-life decision is thus defined as a medical decision at the end of a patient’s life that has a potential or certain life shortening effect.

What emerges clearly from our findings is that there is no evidence to support the slippery slope hypothesis [24,25] in elderly patients, let alone in general. Life ending acts without explicit patient request have not risen in incidence since the enactment of the euthanasia law; to the contrary, LAWER incidence has decreased significantly since 1998 in the age groups below 80 years though in the oldest patients the rate has remained the same. Also elderly patients are not more at risk of LAWER than younger patients in 2007. Our findings thus do not confirm the ‘slippery slope’ hypothesis either in general or in elderly patients.

Comparison with data from before Belgian euthanasia regulation yielded no evidence of a ‘slippery slope’ as fewer LAWER cases were reported since the euthanasia law. Nonetheless this needs to be monitored closely in the future.

(g) In the article T. Smets et al ‘Legal Euthanasia in Belgium: Characteristics of all Reported Euthanasia Cases’ (2009) 47 Medical Care 1-6. Which is relied upon by Professor Margaret Otlowski University of Tasmania, I suspect that the relevant quote is as follows:

David R.A. Foletta BCME LLB GDLP JP Further Final Letter to Premier Daniel Andrews 31

Based on these reported cases, we can conclude that euthanasia is most often chosen as a last resort at the end of life by younger patients and by patients with cancer. Developments over time do not show any indication to support the slippery slope hypothesis. Furthermore, requests for euthanasia from nonterminal patients, some suffering from nonsomatic diseases, can and are being granted under the Belgian euthanasia law, albeit in small and not increasing numbers and under the same strict due care criteria as for terminally ill patients. Further research should focus on estimating the notification rate for euthanasia and should give attention to the unreported practice as well.

(h) The position/ definition held by Dying with Dignity – Tasmania, written Submission 946. They do not define the slippery slope, they merely say that everything that is used as an example is not a valid example. (i) E.g. – they rely on Professor Udo Schuklenk;

(ii) reject the Groningen Protocol as being slippery slope example – and complain that the error made is that it is without consent, and that since it has consent (from parents not the one to die) it is therefore not slippery slope; and

(iii) They argue that the slippery slope does not apply as the laws requiring terminal illness have never been in place, therefore no new development therefore the slippery slope does not exist:

“This is particularly the case in relation to the concept of the ‘slippery slope’. For example, ‘terminal illness’ is not and has never been a requirement in the Netherlands and Belgium, whereas it is and has always been a requirement in Oregon and other US States.

(i) The position/ definition held by Dying with Dignity – New South Wales written “Submission 676”

The “Slippery Slope” Opponents of PAD adduce the experience of the Netherlands and Belgium to argue that once you allow PAD for terminally ill people, it is soon extended to other categories, such as people who are “tired of life”, those with debilitating but non-terminal illnesses, the mentally ill, the handicapped and children. But this is a specious argument. There is no automatic slippery slope. Any change to a regime of PAD could not be introduced at the whim of the doctors. A regime with strict safeguards, such as those that have been envisaged in Bills introduced in both the Tasmanian and NSW parliaments in recent years, would not permit any automatic extension to new categories of cases. Any changes would have to be debated in the community and introduced by legislation after rigorous examination by the relevant parliament.

“This represents 22.5 DWDA deaths per 10,000 total deaths or a bit less than 1% of all deaths. This is slightly higher than the The Netherlands’ physician-assisted suicide rate of around 0.2%,

David R.A. Foletta BCME LLB GDLP JP Further Final Letter to Premier Daniel Andrews 32

but note that voluntary euthanasia is available in the Netherlands, and that is the more popular choice. In other words, the higher rate of self-administered suicide in Oregon is likely to be in lieu of the non-availability of euthanasia. But still, it is a very low figure. “

(j) The position/ definition held by Dying with Dignity – New South Wales Central Coast, written submission

6. COMMON ARGUMENTS AGAINST LEGALISING PHYSICIAN‐ASSISTED DEATH:

The “slippery slope”:

The countries where death with dignity is legal keep detailed, audited records. The opposition has never been able to produce such statistics. These statistics have proved that there has been no massive increase in death rates; far from it, some of those who have obtained the means for a voluntary death do not use them. For many the comfort of knowing that final relief is available if things get too bad, allows them to live out their natural life span, often in Palliative Care. Consequently, the demand for Palliative Care is growing, despite general acknowledgement that such care is not always enough to conquer pain. Here again the danger is that growing demand will overstrain the resources available.

(k) The position/ definition held by Dying with Dignity – Australia Capital Territory written submission does not mention the slippery slope.

(l) The position/ definition held by Dying with Dignity – Dr Rodney Symes, testimony evidence he allegedly said:

Other claims by opponents, such as sufferers changing their minds, slippery slope arguments and religious concerns, are covered by our recommended safeguards that I mentioned previously. On the issue of religion specifically, we would note that not only do most people of faith support voluntary assisted dying, even if their church leaders do not, but in a secular society we do not consider that a faith-based opinion should determine legislative outcomes.

And that is all he said, he did not define the “slippery slope”

Arguments agreeing that the “Slippery Slope” exists

16. These are some of the comments which were included in the material before the Committee but not identified by the Committee by people who asserted that there is indeed a “slippery slope”:

(a) Professor David Kissane, Melbourne — 15 October 2015 Head, Department of Psychiatry, Monash University:

Point 7: I believe that the slippery slope does exist, and I would not dismiss it, as Julian Savulescu did before you in his recent presentation. The steadily increasing number of young people dying from barbiturate overdoses, as they copy exit information about how to die, is an example of a slippery slope —

David R.A. Foletta BCME LLB GDLP JP Further Final Letter to Premier Daniel Andrews 33

one referred to by Dr Dwyer from the coroner’s special prevention unit. Over the past two decades euthanasia of thousands of non-consenting adults in the Netherlands is another example of the slippery slope. Dr Savulescu went on to tell you that in his opinion intractable depression develops into a life not worth living, which he argued becomes suitable then for euthanasia. In my view that is a slippery slope. A number of patients in the Netherlands now receive euthanasia for mental illness. That is a slippery slope.

The disabled and vulnerable in our society need to be protected from such legislation. The state of Oregon in the US does not release case details, to avoid scrutiny about such issues. But there ought be no doubt in your mind as legislators that once you open the door, the mentally ill with suicidal ideas will find their way to use this legislation. For every 100 subjects that you permit to autonomously control their dying with physician-assisted suicide, another few hundred will be vulnerable individuals pressured by their families or non-voluntary patients whose families request that their life be terminated. The Netherlands has acknowledged over many years that as many patients die from non-voluntary euthanasia as die from voluntary euthanasia. That is a slippery slope.

(b) I also cite, Mr Paul Russell, on his comparison of competing arguments in the submission made by HOPE submission 926.

But more than that, one can easily imagine doctors being pressured to ‘bend the rules’ out of compassion; even if only a little at first.16 The lines on parameters such as a prognosis of six months or less are indistinct at the best of times; as is a determination of the terminal nature of an illness.17 It would not be at all difficult for any doctor to make the criteria work for his or her patient. This is what Professor Margaret Somerville and Donald Boudreau call, ‘The Logical Slippery Slope’.18

In her contribution to the debate that established this inquiry, the Hon Colleen Hartland MLC gave her personal views on euthanasia type legislation:

“On a very personal note, I have pursued this issue over the last eight years because I think every competent adult should have the right to decide when they will die and how they will die.”19

Ms Hartland had previously advocated for a limited regimen for only those who were terminally ill, citing her party’s policy20 when speaking to her earlier motion on this same question.

We have no issue with this difference but simply observe that the ‘every competent adult should have the right to decide when they will die and how they will die’ is a logically consistent approach to this issue if one, indeed, is inclined to support the idea. It is virtually the same position as Exit International’s head, Dr Philip Nitschke. If one accepts our argument about ‘rights’ then this approach is the inevitable extension of any limited legislative regimen.

David R.A. Foletta BCME LLB GDLP JP Further Final Letter to Premier Daniel Andrews 34

(c) In her submission, being Submission 1010, titled “Final report on my study tour to undertake research into legislation, and the regulation and administration of euthanasia in Switzerland, the Kingdom of the Netherlands and Belgium” Mary Porter AM MLA ACT Government, her travel report dated “19/08/2013”, wrote as follows:

Tuesday 25 June

9.30 am Meeting with Ms Carine Brochier, European Institute for Bioethics.

Wednesday 26th June

11.00 am Meeting with Etienne Montero, Dean of the Law faculty of the University of Namur, and

Belgium

In Belgium the legislation is very similar to the law in the Netherlands, introduced in 2002. Belgium legalises euthanasia on similar criteria, which again is approved by the family’s general practitioner. I was told that if the family GP is unhappy to carry out the procedure, as in the Netherlands, the GP is morally obliged to refer on to another Doctor.

Again nurses are not obliged to be present if they do not want to be party to the procedure. The procedure can be carried out in the person’s home with family present or just carried out by the family Doctor, at the person’s request, with no one else present. The Doctor’s decision to be able to approve and carry out euthanasia is also reviewed and verified by an independent Doctor, who is not the person’s usual Doctor. Belgium has one review committee to which all reports must go, these reports must also go to the Coroner as well as the regional review committee. Again all irregular reports are referred to the Public Prosecutor.

It is interesting to note that there have been no prosecutions in any of the countries. The impetus for the introduction of the laws, to allow assisted suicide in Switzerland and euthanasia it the Netherlands and Belgium, grew out of a concern about people wanting to ‘die with dignity’, to have control over the way they die and to regulate “illegal acts” of assisted suicide and euthanasia which were believed to be being carried out in these countries anyway, under the radar (based on anonymous surveys of members of the medical profession).

I was informed that initially the introduction of this legislation was resisted by the political parties with strong Christian foundation, particularly Catholic. Note: Belgium is basically two countries in one, for example there is a Flemish speaking part, closest to the Netherlands, and the French

David R.A. Foletta BCME LLB GDLP JP Further Final Letter to Premier Daniel Andrews 35

speaking part which has a strong connection to France and the Catholic Church. There is also a small German speaking area.

Later the more conservative members of parliament backed the legislation which has strict criteria’s and safeguards, but some conservative members tell me they are unhappy with regards to current moves to amend the laws to allow for greater access by groups not currently covered by the legislation.

How was the expert/ professional evidence as to the “slippery slope” was received?

17. If the amount and detail of the references to the expert/ professional evidence opinion, that is, direct quotes both for and against the existence of the “slippery slope” are to be barometer of acceptability of the majority’s use of the expert evidence to ascertain if the “slippery slope’ exists, then, one can only determine it was not used very well. This is evidenced by the following:

(a) there is only the one quote regarding the “slippery slope”, a positive quote for the majority of the committee’s case;

(b) indirect references are tantamount to saying:

“this is the name of the article, go read it in your own time and form your own opinion”

knowing that no politician is going to have an easy time to find the time to locate and read all of extrinsic material required to make an informed decision.

(c) It is reasonable for an ordinary person acting reasonably to assume that this issue of the “slippery slope” being so important to both for and against arguments, would receive an additional amount of attention and discussion, including references to both lay and expert evidence as testimony to the assertion of there being “no evidence” and therefore no concern and therefore, the result that the process of euthanasia being as safe as asserted. The near total lack of references to evidence is a question mark of great note over the:

(i) The assertion of there being no “slippery slope”

(ii) Recommendation 49;

(iii) The merits of the Inquiry; and

(iv) The safety of Victorians should euthanasia be introduced.

Was the majority of the committee’s conclusions from the expert/ professional evidence correct and reasonable?

18. This is a clear “no” as to the majority’s conclusions being “correct”. I reach this conclusion for the following reasons:

David R.A. Foletta BCME LLB GDLP JP Further Final Letter to Premier Daniel Andrews 36

(a) The Majority of the Committee are in error for not relying on the latest evidence and therefore relied on outdated evidence:

(i) They appear to have relied on journal articles dated in 2009 – 2012;

(ii) They appeared to have ignored Mary Porter’s evidence dated in 2013;

(b) The Majority of the Committee were clearly on notice of the changes to the law in Belgium to allow minors to die by way of euthanasia – this is a dramatic change in the law:

(i) This was predicted as still being in the future in the submission of Mary Porter 2013, but the majority had a copy of her report, which spelled out what was at the time of her report still to happen,

(ii) The oral evidence from Professor Savulescu should have put the majority of the committee on notice of the changes in the law that had happened since Mary Porter’s investigation.

“My interpretation of the evidence is that there is no evidence of an undesirable slippery slope. Sometimes you will hear the sort of data that says, ‘Increasingly this is being used for people with mental illness’, or, ‘In Belgium it’s now available for children’”

Indeed, this reference is included in the definition proposed by the majority of the committee. The majority of the Committee simply made no effort to consider this evidence of change in law despite that they had actual knowledge of this very fact. This is almost unforgiveable in terms of producing a competent, quality report.

(c) Professor Savulescu actually admits that there is a slippery slope. He only talks about an “undesirable slippery slope”. He acknowledges that the slippery slope has occurred, but he considers all slippage as being “desirable” not “undesirable”. Quite clearly, one viewing his evidence can justifiably conclude that this professor is hoping to have euthanasia legalized and once it is, proceed to lobby for an expansion of the outer limits of permissible medically induced deaths.

(d) The majority of the committee did not consider the biases in the evidence from those who seek greater expansion of the outer limits of permissible medically induced deaths, this includes:

(i) Professor Savulescu as stated above;

(ii) Andrew Denton; and

(iii) possibly numerous witnesses if asked who say that they were suffering immeasurably.

(e) The majority appear to have failed to separate out the above quotes, and any other quotes that they may have up their sleeve and not wanting to reveal until they need to, whether there the lack of additional deaths are evidence of:

David R.A. Foletta BCME LLB GDLP JP Further Final Letter to Premier Daniel Andrews 37

(i) “flood gates” – which specifically relates to more and more people within existing permissible categories taking up the option of euthanasia; and

(ii) “slippery slope” where new categories of people being euthanasia are being permitted, and that greater number of categories resulting in a greater number of deaths.

Before being able to rely on any authority, a journal, a written submission or testimony of someone who appeared in person, this above difference must be understood. The comments received considered or rejected on that basis.

(e) There seems to be a really, really, really strange phenomena in relation to the notion of “slippery slope” which I can honestly only akin to a “justification by way of a set off” – and the majority of the Committee appear to have failed to avoid this error. This “justification by way of a set off” appears to work as follows:

“The increase in the number of deaths is acceptable as overall, we are saving lives by legalising and preventing the greater number of deaths through undisclosed illegal euthanasia”

This is an argument that goes towards the claim for validity of euthanasia, it is not an argument for asserting that there is no such thing as a “slippery slope”.

I detect this attitude, this outlook in the majority of the Committee where they have appeared to make a justification in their majority report in the Final Report for euthanasia by saying the following:

A7.6.1 Refuting the slippery slope and risks to vulnerable people argument

The slippery slope has not eventuated in permissive jurisdictions.

The argument refuting the risks to vulnerable people of legalised assisted dying is linked to the argument against the slippery slope. The slippery slope scenario has not materialised. Studies in jurisdictions which permit assisted dying have shown that vulnerable people are not more likely to receive assisted dying and suicide rates have not increased.

The slippery slope argument applies to a full range of issues where public policy and laws are nonetheless made. Accepting this argument would lead to stasis.

Using the slippery slope argument to justify maintaining the status quo overlooks the fact that there are costs and risks in the status quo.

The argument that people with disabilities are vulnerable to coercion is paternalistic. Anyone with capacity should be trusted to make decisions on their own behalf.

An effective legal framework and guidelines can prevent against abuse of assisted dying. Additionally, without the safeguards and monitoring that assisted dying legislation entails, unregulated assisted dying is occurring.

David R.A. Foletta BCME LLB GDLP JP Further Final Letter to Premier Daniel Andrews 38

This false setoff argument is raised by Professor Margaret Otlowski University of Tasmania, in “Submission 841” where she attempts to assert that there is no such thing by referring to irrelevant material about the numbers of Australians and others who are dying at the hands of doctors and that we can ignore any slippage as a lesser of two evils. She sets out in her submissions, the following:

“This is, however, a completely unsubstantiated argument. The 'slippery slope' argument is typically made without regard to the risks of abuse or other problems involved in retaining the present law. As outlined above, an objective assessment of the available evidence suggests that the practice of euthanasia already occurs in Australia, and that it is, in some cases, performed other than at the request of the patient - indeed, from the mid 1990s figures referred to earlier - 3.5% of all deaths in Australia involved active assistance without an explicit request from the patient (almost twice as often as voluntary euthanasia) and which is much higher than the equivalent figure for the Netherlands (0.7% of all deaths). There are strong arguments to suggest that if the

(f) In response to Dying with Dignity – New South Wales, Submission 676, I must say the following:

(i) just because society discusses and approves the law, it does not mean that there is no “slippery slope” – society has still fallen down the hill and are doing things not originally planned and people who object will be over ridden and new opportunities for abuse, usury and coercion created.

(ii) the “completed life” concession to die is a development no matter what they try to say and is a big step down the hill;

(iii) the lack of ”automatic” appears to be a bit of a front so that it all “appears safe” so to speak, but it is no reason to not categories changes as a slippery slope.

(iv) the reference to euthanasia not being available in Oregon is rank untrue, it is done inferentially but never admitted. In Holland, the statistics are 18% of deaths have an intervention to finish off the patient due to complications, As I said in my 8 Oct 17 Letter, no one who is medically trained and honest believes a perfect track record.

(g) In response to Dying with Dignity – Australian Capital Territory, does not mention “slippery slope” – I guess they did not want to touch it as it not honest to say it does not exist and they knew that.

(g) In response to Dying with Dignity – Tasmania, Submission 946

(i) This style of argument misleading because what they are trying to build the impression of is that since opponents are wrong on this issue, then opponents are wrong on all issues as to slippery slope and therefore cannot be accepted;

(ii) Groningen Protocol is a slippery slope item, clearly, it was not there originally.

(g) In response to Dying with Dignity – new South wales central coast I say:

David R.A. Foletta BCME LLB GDLP JP Further Final Letter to Premier Daniel Andrews 39

(i) the mere act of record keeping alone is not the sum total of the definition of “slippery slope” that is very simplistic and narrow;

(ii) Oregon and Washington State produce data and there has been numerous “holes” and unexplained deaths so the comment of record keeping being perfect is false.

(iii) Oregon claims a 100% perfect track record – but no credible medial practitioner believes this, but the noncompliance are never recorded there is no record keeping of those.

(iv) Never been able to produce alternative statistics – that is false. The governments never admit they are accurate.

(v) Sometimes the medicines are held on to, more longer than 6 or 12 months by which time the patients was supposed to be dead from the underlying illness.

19. This is a clear “no” as to the majority’s conclusions being “reasonable”.

(a) The above errors of fact are so significant, and oblivious, there was no scope of the majority of the Committee having acted reasonably.

Is there really a “slippery slope”?

20. Yes, there is a slippery slope. The fact of the slippery slope existing is implicit in the comment of the majority itself, where they assert the stability of legislation, but leave out Belgium from that definition of “slippery slope”. The changes in the law in Belgium have been brought to the majority of the committee and the conclusion of the being no “slippery slope” not existing simply ignored these.

21. The Etienne Montero who was interviewed by Mary Porter is the same Etienne Montero who I provided parliament with an affidavit of in relation to what is actually happening I Belgium.

If there is there really a “slippery slope” then what does that mean of Euthanasia in the State of Victoria and Australia?

22. If there is a “slippery slope” then the direct consequences for the final report, the Inquiry, and for the Parliament of Victoria are as follows:

(a) The assertion that there is “no evidence” of the “slippery slope” is wrong;

(b) All other assertions of “no evidence” or “near to no evidence” must be brought into doubt as the is shown to be a lack of credibility on the part of the people who are making this assertion;

(c) The “safeguard” reason included in the ratio deciendi is not made out by the majority of the Committee and therefore the reasoning for Recommendation 49 is faulty.

David R.A. Foletta BCME LLB GDLP JP Further Final Letter to Premier Daniel Andrews 40

(d) That the parliament of Victoria will be putting people at risk if they vote for euthanasia being introduced into Victoria, and likewise around Australia if Victoria is used as an example like it is in New Sotuh Wales and Western Australia; and

(e) The Final Report is wrong

(f) The “Final Report: Summary Booklet” is wrong;

(g) Daniel Andrews, Premier of Victoria is wrong; and

(h) Jill Hennessy, Health Minister for Victoria, is wrong.

Doctors and Nurses the Winners

23. I suggest that at this point in time, it is quite relevant to say that it is of no surprise that some doctors would like the protection of euthanasia being legalized – and it is no wonder that Dr Rodney Symes and some doctors and some nurses want legalisation of killing, why:

(a) they want to know what they can get away with; and

(b) they want to know what they cannot get away with; and

Really is that simple.

David R.A. Foletta BCME LLB GDLP JP Further Final Letter to Premier Daniel Andrews 41

Annexure 9.: Does the Admitted Evidence show a proper weighting of evidence? Some Agreement with the Majority of the Committee

1. I commend the Majority of the Committee for excluding late submissions. This is fair and reasonable.

2. Having read as many of the written submission as I have, I can agree that some of the submissions were incoherent to the point of it not being safe to say if the person making the submission was for or against the introduction of euthanasia.

3. I agree that there were a lot of personal stories about one’s own suffering and the suffering that the person making the written submission saw in others.

What do I Look for When I Consider Weighting of Evidence

4. When I consider the issue of the correct allocation of weight to the various competing evidence, I am considering the following issues:

(a) Did a one line “request” for euthanasia to be legalized or to not be legalized have the same status as a reasoned argument for or against euthanasia’s introduction;

(b) Did a personal submission that was not accurate, and clearly not accurate though heartfelt, get equal or lesser weight with a personal submission that was correct, and was it corrected by expert/ professional submission – and said to have been with a reason included in the majority of the Committee’s report;

(i) for one person on their own; and

(ii) for more than one named person, in a joint submission

Have their weight in the final decision on issues included in the ratio deciendi and the ultimate answer reflect that the differential

(d) Did more recent evidence have greater weight than evidence that is older and outdated by:

(i) changes in the law

(ii) recent research that contradicted or clarified older research

(iii) the provision of new evidence about issues which were not previously known by researchers in previous times.

(iv) were alternative solutions to the introduction of various forms of euthanasia given sufficient weight;

(vi) were submissions with connections to members of the Committee:

(1) disclosed;

David R.A. Foletta BCME LLB GDLP JP Further Final Letter to Premier Daniel Andrews 42

(2) discounted or at the least so recorded and their evidence qualified by as being connected to a Committee member.

(e) Did the submissions that covered more sub-issues, given greater weight when counting the tally of merely overall for and against than merely other than for the recording, as was done by the Majority of the Committee, of instances where a personal story or key aspects of the reasoning of the committee’s preferred reasons for introduction of euthanasia into Victoria were expressly included and therefore so described by the Majority of the Committee

(f) Did the submission from individuals, as opposed or organisations whose stances either for or against euthanasia are both known and predictable, come from people who:

(i) expressly identified themselves as a member of a pro-euthanasia organisation (or more than one such organisation as some people are)

(ii) from the language of the submission, was it reasonably possible to infer that, that person is a member of a pro-euthanasia organisation (or more than one such organisation as some people are).

(g) Did the Majority of the Committee’s reliance on individual people’s personal submissions:

(i) place too much emphasis on people’s own wishes;

(ii) divert attention away from what is really happening overseas instead giving undue weight to people’s arguably false:

(1) belief of safeguards overseas;

(2) belief in the acceptability of the models of euthanasia overseas;

accepting lay requests based on erroneous impressions as to what is think is the reality of what is happening overseas.

(h) Did the Majority of the Committee place too much weight on lay and expert requests rather than asserting that the better evidence says that the lay and expert requests are not well founded.

(i) Did the Majority of the Committee place too much weight on the issue of euthanasia currently happening and not enough emphasis on other measures to combat the euthanasia which is currently happening?

(j) Did the majority of the committee take the point of Mr Neil Francis’ submission that the people who are members of pro-euthanasia organisations and people who have had a strong belief in euthanasia are more likely to make a submission than others for whom euthanasia is not a topic of daily discussion and so interpret the tally of “for and against” accordingly;

(k) The ultimate issue as to weight must be, did the majority of the committee give sufficient weight to the issues in Belgium.

David R.A. Foletta BCME LLB GDLP JP Further Final Letter to Premier Daniel Andrews 43

Lack of Reasoning Makes Determining the Weight Actually Given Difficult

5. As is a systemic problem with all of the Final Report’s conclusions, the lack of supporting reasons makes it difficult to show how and why the weight of evidence was done. In answering the above questions as to weight, I will determine what I consider has and has not happened and then seek to determine what relative weight was given.

6. I expect that my task is made a little easier by virtue that the answer to much of the evidence will be, “none” or “very little”. If so, then so I will assert.

Emotional weighting

7. I expect the ultimate weighting is that to be done by the Parliament of Victoria, that is the weighting of arguments:

(a) based on hard facts of: and

(i) oppression,

(ii) non-compliances,

(iii) painful deaths under euthanasia,

(iv) under reporting

(v) changes in the law:

(vi) the disproportion between the need and the potential abuse wrought into existence by legalising euthanasia; and

(vii) recovering from fatal illness which are wrongly diagnosed

(b) the alleged hard time people have without euthanasia where everyone thinks that their loved one’s illness or death is cause for euthanasia being legalized – most of which were never cross examined or the of the person making the submission’s membership of one or more pro-euthanasia organisation tested.

David R.A. Foletta BCME LLB GDLP JP Further Final Letter to Premier Daniel Andrews 44

Annexure 10.: Does the Admitted Evidence show correct use the “quotes”? 1. The are numerous quotes included in “Chapter 8 Victoria should legalise assisted dying” included in the Final report. This annexure examines some of these in more detail than what was actually quotes by the Majority Report. The reason why I have not answered all of these is due to a lack of time to do so.

(a) Quote No. 8 by Professor Julian Savulescu, Director, Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, public hearing 19 August 2015, which says as follows:

It is available in other parts of the world. We have seen that it can be very safely regulated. The predictions of abuse and a slippery slope simply have not been borne out by the evidence that has just been released from the Netherlands, Belgium and Switzerland. This affords people with options that they see as fundamental to controlling their life.

I have refuted this professor elsewhere in this letter.

(b) Quote No. 9 by Prue and Max Beck, personal submission on page No. 215 of the Final report, which says as follows:

It is that person’s choice – to be able to pass away peacefully, maybe surrounded by loved ones and at one’s own choosing, is the kindest act society could allow for someone in unmanageable pain.

(i) I have the following criticisms of the majority’s use of this quote:

This is this more of what they said:

If laws are written clearly and with compassion then no one has anything to fear, no one is “forced” into accepting such an end. Those that say we risk a sudden increase in deaths of the elderly or infirm, that we increase the risk of "irritating elderly uncles" being "popped off", are talking nonsense and must not be allowed to influence this debate. Only rational debate should be heard.

(1) Such idealists, non lawyers always think that laws can be written clearly;

(2) They do not understand that a call for rational debate is the opposite to that of an emotional argument like the Premier, Mr Daniel Andrews is running,

(3) They are rude;

(4) They are inferring a slippery slope is ridiculous thing to say, but they are not saying it and not giving rational reasons to believe that there is no slippery slope.

(5) The clear implication of this submission is quite plain, if the laws cannot be written clearly, then people will be popped off and people will be abused, so the support that max and prue may give may be withdrawn.

David R.A. Foletta BCME LLB GDLP JP Further Final Letter to Premier Daniel Andrews 45

Giving people the right to choose, or not choose, maintains our dignity and humanity. It allows some to avoid some very, very terrible end of life situations. It is the greatest kindness when facing death.

(i) I have the following criticisms of the majority’s use of this quote:

(1) Alana is not even from New South Wales,

(2) What Alana said in her submission was:

My father died slowly and in terrible pain from terminal cancer. He would have chosen to make the call to die several days (or perhaps weeks) prior had that option been available.

He found it unbearable wearing a nappy in the final days as he couldn't control his bowels or bladder. He waved his hand weakly every time and was suffused with shame

(3) This is the last few days only, it is not 12 months, and therefore the notion of 12 months is too great an expanse of time.

(d) Quote No. 12 by Anne Kotzman, personal submission on page No. 220 of the Final report, which says as follows:

I am now almost 86 years old and I want the peace of mind that the knowledge of a legal option of medically assisted dying would give me and my family, if my dying were to become too distressful and prolonged.

(i) I have the following criticisms of the majority’s use of this quote:

This is what she said in full:

In other countries where this option is available, very few people actually make use of this choice. However, knowing that medically assisted dying is available lessens anxiety and would provide reassurance to the terminably ill and elderly people fearing an uncertain death.

It would be very comforting for me to know that I could be in control of my life's ending. My doctor should be able to be involved with me and my family in this compassionate process without fear of breaking the law.

David R.A. Foletta BCME LLB GDLP JP Further Final Letter to Premier Daniel Andrews 46

(1) When people have the lethal drugs and people know that they do, there may be pressure to take the lethal drugs.

(2) The lethal drugs may be being prescribed too early, when death is not likely within 12 months, or 6 months in Oregon, which has been the case, several times.

(3) This woman appears to have a fear and anxiety of death and pain, which can be over blown in some situation;

(4) This appears to be protecting family and the doctor, such as Dr Rodney Symes, more than it protects her.

David R.A. Foletta BCME LLB GDLP JP Further Final Letter to Premier Daniel Andrews 47

Annexure 11.: Does the Admitted Evidence show community VALUES for euthanasia? Interstate Influence on Victorian Values

1. I have noticed that there is a substantial proportion of submitters who reside in the state of Victoria. This appears to be Victorian private citizens, corporations and Victorian public statutory authorities (however described).

2. I have also noticed however, and to the detriment to the assertions that:

(a) euthanasia (however described) is wanted by Victorians; and

(b) euthanasia (however described) is what Victorians see as some of their values.

A substantial amount of the submissions, including personal submissions, are originating from outside of the State of Victoria, and then being used as evidence that this is what Victorians need and want.

3. In this regard, I note the following examples:

From: Inquiry into End of Life Choices POV eSubmission Form

Sent: Wednesday, 29 July 2015 11:56 AM

To: LSIC

Subject: New Submission to Inquiry into End of Life Choices Inquiry Name: Inquiry into End of Life Choices

Ms Margaret Opie

End of Life Choices Enquiry

Although I am not a Victorian resident I believe that any policy which concerns Assisted Dying or

Voluntary Euthanaesia is of great importance to all Australian citizens. The wishes of individuals, who may be experiencing the loss of quality and enjoyment of life because of permanent disablement or painful suffering, should be given consideration and their choice to end their life is they wish should be respected.

In Switzerland, Netherlands and Oregon State USA this practice has been working successfully and without exploitation. The argument that the situation may be exploited by relatives or the medical profession is spurious.

And another

Voluntary Euthanasia

to:lsic 30/05/2015 01:50 PM

Hide Details From:

David R.A. Foletta BCME LLB GDLP JP Further Final Letter to Premier Daniel Andrews 48

To:

To Whom it May Concern

Do you want my vote???

Sadly I don't live in Victoria where this issue appears to be under

consideration. I live in Queensland. However, I wanted to express my views on the subject.

4. Whilst I do not say that people who reside outside of the State of Victoria should be excluded from having their say (after all, I am one of those notwithstanding I was born in Melbourne and I am a member of the Carlton Football Club), the majority of the committee should have revealed the following:

(a) the actual number of Victorian individuals who responded broken down further to show:

(i) the percentage of that to the overall number of individual submitters;

(ii) the for and against split of individuals from Victoria

(b) the actual number of Victorian organisation who responded broken down further to show:

(i) the percentage of that to the overall number of organisations who made submissions;

(ii) the for and against split of organisations who made submissions from Victoria

The Overall Number of Submissions is Low an Argument for validity of the survey needs to be made.

5. I have not seen any reasoning from the majority, or for that matter from the minority reporters either (although the two minority reporters are probably happy to scuttle the whole inquiry, indeed Mrs Inga Peulich expressly states in her minority report that she voted against the whole inception of the inquiry), as to any of the following:

(a) What was a suitable number of written submissions to quality that the inquiry has met it’s “reserve price” or a “quorum” of submissions – for want of better words. That is, the number of submissions it feels it needs before it can say it has a representative sample size:

(i) in total; and

(ii) from Victoria specifically

that is substantial enough to draw valid conclusions.

(b) A “sign off” by the Chairman of the Committee that the number of submissions was sufficient to meet the required minimum set by the Committee:

6. I have seen quite a substantial amount of copy/ pasted submissions, on both sides of the argument, and I wonder if this was done because the overall number of submissions was low, and would have been embarrassing for

David R.A. Foletta BCME LLB GDLP JP Further Final Letter to Premier Daniel Andrews 49

what eventually turned out to be the majority, and the result would have been of little merit without additional submissions.

7. In my 8 Oct 17 Letter, I made strong criticism about the value of public sentiment, and that this was being considered by small samples – with the exception of the “vote compass” which is was online and us subject to the lack of thinking before clicking that online surveys always are. This is part of what I said in my previous letter to Mr Daniel Andrews:

Australia Institute

27 Whilst I believe that the Australia Institute does do a lot of valuable work, this report must be viewed with suspicion for the following reasons:

(a) The Australia Institute has only 1400 respondents to its survey

(b) This survey was produced by an organisation who was founded by Mr Clive Hamilton;

(c) The Council of Australian Humanist Societies, Australian Humanist Convention 2017 will be held in Melbourne - April 7-9, and Mr Clive Hamilton will be speaking at this event;

(d) Mr Peter Singer will also be speaking at this same conference; and

(e) The Council of Australian Humanist Societies have awarded Mr Rodney Symes the award of Australian Humanist of the Year for 2017, for his euthanasia campaigning.

28 I do not say that it is certain that Mr Hamilton and the Australia Institute have skewed the results, however, I view these results with suspicion. Given that the pro-euthanasia lobby is looking for reasons for justify the new legislation based on community support, one needs to be additionally careful when looking for possibly bias survey results. The Australia Institute and Mr Hamilton are certainly entitled to a defence, and, it may be that the philosophy of Mr Hamilton has pervaded all parts of the Australia Institute, so he may influence the result even without directing the result. That is just how easy it is to influence a result.

2012 Newspoll survey

29 7 I have not been able to find the actual published results for the 2009 Newspoll survey. I have only been able to find a summary of the result from a publication by the organisation called “Your Last Right”. This article says

The primary data reported in this whitepaper was collected via a national public opinion poll conducted by Newspoll on behalf of YourLastRight.com Limited. Residents of all states were included in the sample of 2,521 people. Interviews were conducted by telephone late October through mid-November 2012.

(Emphasis mine)

David R.A. Foletta BCME LLB GDLP JP Further Final Letter to Premier Daniel Andrews 50

30 This raises the following issues:

(a) It is a small sample size, 2,521 people only; and

(b) It was commissioned by a pro-euthanasia organisation.

2009 Newspoll survey

31 I have not been able to find the actual published results for the 2009 Newspoll survey. However, I have located an article on SBS, “Support for voluntary euthanasia rising: poll” dated 24 Feb 2015 - 2:41pm (See http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2009/10/27/support-voluntary-euthanasia-rising- poll) which stated as follows:

The result from the poll, conducted by Newspoll on behalf of Dying with Dignity NSW, saw a five point increase in support from the results of the last survey, conducted in 2007.

The 2009 study, involving 1,201 adult respondents, found 10 per cent of Australians opposed voluntary euthanasia while five per cent were unsure.

Support was at its greatest in Western Australia where 88 per cent of respondents were in favour of voluntary euthanasia, while 87 per cent of South Australians were in favour of it, with six per cent opposed.

NSW residents were 87 per cent in favour, an increase of 12 points on the last survey, while Victoria had 84 per cent support and Queensland 82 per cent.

Dying with Dignity NSW spokesman Robert Marr said the results showed Australians wanted to explore the issue.

"With such massive support across the country, the results of this poll send a message to the country's lawmakers that the time has come for a full debate on this issue," Dr Marr said in a statement.

32 Not only was the sample size a mere 1200 respondents, it was done on behalf of no other than Dying with Dignity. That makes me suspicious of the sample size, the sample members and so forth.

8. Regrettably, I must say that despite the money and effort that has been spent and expended, this sample size is small than that of the polls mentioned above. At least there are written submissions, not merely an oral questionnaire, however, the overall tally is lower, and some of the responses are little better than an online one question survey.

David R.A. Foletta BCME LLB GDLP JP Further Final Letter to Premier Daniel Andrews 51

Annexure 12.: Does the Admitted Evidence show COMMUNITY SUPPORT for euthanasia? Bare assessment numbers for and against show community support for euthanasia

1. With the exception of the omitted submitters described below, I agree with the majority of the committee, based on the written submissions that I have read, that the overall number for and against shows community support for euthanasia. As with the majority, this is result is observed by merely reading and separating:

(a) The for;

(b) The against;

(d) The incoherent.

2. In general terms, I agree with the following:

1.2.1 Submissions

The Committee issued a call for submissions on 30 May 2015. Submissions formally closed on 31 July 2015, however given the ongoing public interest in the terms of reference the Committee continued to accept submissions throughout the course of the Inquiry.

The Committee received 1037 submissions. Of these, 925 were from individuals in a private capacity, and 112 from organisations.

The 100+ signatories that were omitted.

3. I have reviewed the submissions and I noted that there was a submission written in the hand of Dr Eamonn Mathieson (Dr Mathieson Submission). I was curious to know how the signatories were recorded and in the statistics of the overall for and against tally. In finding out the answer to this question I adopted the following methodology:

(a) I compared the names of the doctors in the Dr Mathieson Submission with the list of submitters identified in the Final Report. The result of this was that two doctors names showed on in the list of submitters in the final report. These two doctors were:

(i) Professor John Edward Murtagh AM MD, Professor in General Practice, School of Primary Health Care, Monash University Professorial Fellow, Faculty of Medicine, University of Melbourne; and

(ii) Professor Kuruvilla George MBBS, MPhil, DPM, FRANZCP, FRCPsych Director of Medical Services, Peter James Centre and Wantirna Health Clinical Director of Aged Persons Mental Health, Eastern Health Conjoint Clinical Professor, Deakin University Adjunct Clinical Associate Professor, Monash Univeristy

David R.A. Foletta BCME LLB GDLP JP Further Final Letter to Premier Daniel Andrews 52

(b) After receiving a match for the above two doctors, I continued to select doctors names in the Dr Mathieson Submission and failed to find any more matches with the list of submitters in the Final Report.

(c) I then entered the names “mathieson” and “Kuruvilla” into my Microsoft windows search function to search my recently made collection of submissions against the introduction of euthanasia and I discovered that both these doctors have a separate submission of their own.

(d) I then decided to make a full spreadsheet of all submissions, all names, to see if the majority of the committee included them in the statistical count but simply did not list them in the list of submitters in the Final Report. A copy of this reconciliation is included in Schedule 1 to this letter. I determined that, when:

(i) I count the fifteen names withheld as fifteen individual submissions, which they are:

(ii) I count the submissions from a husband and wife team as two submissions

I am almost at the same number of submissions as was stated in the Final Report – before I include the omitted submitters included in the Dr Mathieson Submission.

4. When I consider the potential impact on the overall statistics, even when we discount the double up of “Dr Mathieson” and “Dr Kuruvilla George” we still appear to be 104 doctors, being 104 nay voters to the introduction of euthanasia. The impact is mathematically shown as follows

104 925 0.11243243 11.2432432% 5. In my view, this is such a large impact that it makes the whole assertion of statistical reliance as stated in the Final Report – wrong.

6. In my view, this severely undermines the statistical analysis done by the Majority of the Committee. When the arguments about safeguards are so often statistics based, this kind of error reasonably undermines a person’s confidence in the Majority of the Committee’s assertion of statistical facts.

7. I am willing to hear from the majority of the committee and how they applied the Omitted Submitters in the Dr Mathieson Submission, but, I am concerned that I am correct.

Consistent References to Percentages in Support of Euthanasia

8. I have noticed a consistent theme many of the “lay” submissions in that there is a constant reference to 75%, 80% or the “majority” of Australians support euthanasia.

9. I doubt that each and every person who quotes these numbers/ percentages has done their own original research or the own poll, calling 1500 – 2000 strangers at random to gauge their opinion. So, where did they get their information? Via an internet search, and what results come up in google? Dying with Dignity and newspoll.

David R.A. Foletta BCME LLB GDLP JP Further Final Letter to Premier Daniel Andrews 53

10. These people who make these submissions accept without questioning the claims of 75% which is on dying with dignity’s website and then repeat the same in the submissions that they make.

11. I have already repeated in this letter, my opinion of the evidence used by pro-euthanasia organisations to evidence their claims.

12. I ask the Parliament of Victoria to be very skeptical of the claims and the value of the submissions where they say that the majority of Victorians want euthanasia. If this was really the case, then, one would have to say that there would be 10,000.00 or more submissions.

13. These people are talking the talk of the fact-less, self serving evidence as to polls which are sponsored and publicized by pro death organisations.

David R.A. Foletta BCME LLB GDLP JP Further Final Letter to Premier Daniel Andrews 54

From: Deborah Corrigall To: LSIC Subject: Inquiry into the End of Life Choices Date: Monday, 27 July 2015 4:21:41 PM

…

So ignore the political forces that are so keen to tell the rest of us how to live their lives and instead reflect the wishes of the majority and recommend this basic right is available to all. Regards Deborah -- Deborah Corrigall

David R.A. Foletta BCME LLB GDLP JP Further Final Letter to Premier Daniel Andrews 55

The Australian Sex Party’s Own Submissions

14. I have noticed that there is a close correlation regarding all of the submissions which were addressed to the Committee and which endorsed the policy of the political party lead by Committee, and Majority member, Mrs Fiona Patten who leads the Australian Sex Party. These submissions each opened with the line:

“I support the Australian Sex Party’s policy on voluntary euthanasia”

15. I have prepared the following table of submissions, from the Australian Sex Party’s supporters.

# Name Submission NO. Date Time Closing date 1 Nigel Keenan 577 29 July 2015 7.56pm 31 July 2015 2 Brett Hayhoe 573 29 July 2015 5.23pm 31 July 2015 3 Wayne Coombs 584 29 July 2015 10.09pm 31 July 2015 4 William Hayes Fisher 617 30 July 2015 4.31pm 31 July 2015 5 Rebecca Elmes 634 30 July 2015 8.00pm 31 July 2015 6 John Cunningham 636 30 July 2015 8.13pm 31 July 2015 16. In addition to the individual submissions listed in the above table, I located a separate, corporate submission which purports to be from the Australian Sex Party (ASP Submission) itself. I note the following about this ASP Submission:

(a) no one’s name is attached;

(b) it is no signed;

(d) there is no one giving authority for it to be submitted for the Australian Sex Party;

(e) It does not appear to be an attachment to the personal submissions, indeed, it has been given a separate submission number being “Submission 326” and it is a separate PDF document on the Committee’s webpage.

(f) it contains the policy of the Australian Sex Party regarding euthanasia;

(g) the policy of the Australian Sex Party on euthanasia carried the hallmarks of the ratio deciendi identified in this letter; and

(h) the ASP Submission and the individual submissions carry a high degree of correlation with each other;

17. I have written via email to Mrs Fiona Patten asking her to explain this and any conflict of interest. I have not had a reply.

18. Quite clearly, this is evidence provided by Mrs Patten’s party, on her own views, which she is then including in a report and asking the Parliament of Victoria to vote in favour of her views asserting there is community support for her views.

David R.A. Foletta BCME LLB GDLP JP Further Final Letter to Premier Daniel Andrews 56

19. The reference to a submission from the Australian Sex Party in the list of submitters is not sufficient as not all politicians would look so closely at who did or did not submit a written submission or any conflict of interest;

20. The ASP Submissions contains a reference to abuse being not an issue, perhaps this might as well say “no evidence of abuse” as a policy position which was then adopted as a position by the majority.

21. I hold the view that Mrs Fiona Patten should either abstain or vote against her own policy.

David R.A. Foletta BCME LLB GDLP JP Further Final Letter to Premier Daniel Andrews 57

David R.A. Foletta BCME LLB GDLP JP Further Final Letter to Premier Daniel Andrews 58

Annexure 13.: Does the Admitted Evidence show that safeguards work perfectly? 1. When I consider that the issue of the “safeguards” being sufficiently protective, as being a question for the committee to resolve and advise, inform about and assist the Parliament of Victoria’s understanding on I ask myself the following questions:

(a) What evidence was before the Committee?:

(b) What lay evidence was before the Committee?

(d) Was the majority of the Committee’s opinion formed on the lay and expert/ professional evidence or something else?

(e) Was the majority of the Committee’s opinion correct and reasonable?

(f) What are the implications for Recommendation 49 of the safeguards are not protective?

Failings of the various models

2. I have set out the failings of the various models of euthanasia, assisted dying however described around the world in my 8 Oct 17 Letter. For the sake of insufficiency of time and shorter reading, I do not repeat them here.

Conclusion

3. The fact that the breaches of rules are being talked about and that there is something to deny, is empirical evidence that there are problems.

4. That the Oregon model is held up as being “perfect” with no reported non compliances, so that there is no evidence to be ciriticised for is the most likely outcome owing to the numerous professional investigations which were not performed by the government authorities located in Oregon simply do not believe the findings of 100% compliance.

5. I am concerned that this is a mistaken belief in supporters that Oregon and other models are safe, when they are not and therefore the support which they now give would not be given if they knew the full story.

Case study 1 – on undue confidence in overseas models no reference to data

End of Life Choices Enquiry

Although I am not a Victorian resident I believe that any policy which concerns Assisted Dying or

David R.A. Foletta BCME LLB GDLP JP Further Final Letter to Premier Daniel Andrews 59

Case study 2– on undue confidence in overseas models no reference to data

Look at Glen Kesbah

Lets follow the successful history of Oregon USA" right to die laws " which have given terminal patients a dignified end to their lives for the past 20 years. ( There is no slippery slope , ignore the doomsayers and religious fanatics) My life , my suffering , my choice.

Yours Sincerely , Glenn Kesbah

6. Will anyone who votes for assited dying to be introduced into Victoria be willing to give a personal guarantee to go to jail for 25 years if the system fails and someone is murdered? I guess not, so why allow others to kill in a system which will have faults.

7. In my 8 oct 17 Letter, this is the issue to which I said that a world’s best practice of 2% or what ever ISO9000 may allow still means that 2 in every hundred people are being murdered and no one cares – and then says no slippery slope to be seen, and no devaluation of human life to be seen.

8. I do not consider that the Committee, the MAP, or the eventual “gaps analysis” and further systems development can ever produce a safe system that is 100% full proof and that dots all the Is and crosses all of the Tees. Therefore I consider that the majority has not made out this aspect of the ratio deciendi and the ratio deciendi has failed, Recommendation 49 must therefore fail.

David R.A. Foletta BCME LLB GDLP JP Further Final Letter to Premier Daniel Andrews 60

Annexure 14.: Does the Admitted Evidence show Palliative Care is insufficient? 1. In brief, the evidence regarding palliative care to me shows, the following:

(a) Palliative care in Australia and Victoria is high quality;

(b) Palliative care in Australia and Victoria is not equally distributed across all of Victoria;

(d) Palliative care in Australia and Victoria being expensive can make some elderly people feel like they are a burden on the health care dollar and make them ask if they are worth the cost

(e) Palliative care in Australia and Victoria improving all the time through research and development;

(f) Palliative care in Australia is going to see a lot of dementia patients in the next 20 years – a lot of the personal submissions showed a fear of dementia. Dementia should be added to the “word cloud” for individuals who support euthanasia;

(g) that there are some people who palliative care cannot help;

(h) that the number of submissions who would seek euthanasia for their loved one, in lieu of palliative care and see themselves as having reason for their loved one to be in the small fraction of one percent who would be in that group of people who may benefit from euthanasia.

(h) to legalise euthanasia for these people would be like smashing an egg with a sledgehammer.

2. I am reminded of the power of dedicate volunteers who make a difference to the dying and give the dying dignity. See the transcript of the hearing regarding Ms Deidre Bidmade, Vice-President, Mr Damian Goss, Board Member, and Ms Tam Vistarini, Hospice Manager, Warrnambool and District Community Hospice.

Mr GOSS — I also think if people have a better understanding in communicating with their medical people that pain control is pretty tops these days and once people understand that, there is a lot of relief. The other point I would make is that in my role as a palliative care volunteer, I really only get involved in the last months of their life, and I would say that everyone that I have dealt with in the last 15 years has had a good death.

Ms PATTEN — That is great.

Ms BIDMADE — There is no reason why we cannot have a good death.

Ms PATTEN — No. Thank you.

Ms BIDMADE — That is the whole point, and it is about these conversations. They are just so important. We cannot stress that enough. They are just so important to have.

Mr MULINO — I just wanted to say congratulations on what you have achieved, and I think what you are doing is very important. I can say from personal experience that the kind of work that you and your volunteers do does make a huge difference from the people that I have seen benefit from it.

David R.A. Foletta BCME LLB GDLP JP Further Final Letter to Premier Daniel Andrews 61

Annexure 15.: Does the Admitted Evidence show unlawful euthanasia needs legalising? 1. I have expressed my opposition to the justifying euthanasia by reference to overcoming unlawful euthanasia (of assisted dying or however described):

(a) in my 8 Oct 17 Letter; and

(b) in this letter in relation to my opposition to those who say that the slippery slope does not exist because it is a trade off with unlawful deaths.

2. Owing to the insufficiency of time, and to save reading, I repeat those in relation to this aspect of the ratio deciendi and assert that this part of the majority’s ratio deciendi has not been made out and must fail.

David R.A. Foletta BCME LLB GDLP JP Further Final Letter to Premier Daniel Andrews 62

Annexure 16.: Does the Admitted Evidence Show that Current Suicides Require Euthanasia? 1. This is a very relevant question to be asking as part of the ratio deciendi of the Majority Report.

2. This is pertinent for me because I attended Q and A on the evening that Nikkii Gemmel and Margo Somerville attended and where Nikki Gemmel recounted the suffering of suicides that were allegedly gruesome.

3. In deciding this issue, I am drawn to two main bodies of evidence:

(a) the submissions and testimony provided by the Coroner’s Court of Victoria (CCOV); and

(b) the minority report of Daniel Mulino where he opposes the majority’s reliance on the suicides and in particular the evidence from the CCOV.

4. Ordinarily, and if time was in greater abundance to produce this letter, I would look at the majority Report in some detail, as I did with the slippery slope issue, however, given that the majority propels the CCOV, I consider that I do no need to hear anything more from the majority on this issue. If the majority feels they need to make further submissions to me, they can have liberty to have themselves heard. Other than that, and given that the Premier Mr Daniel Andrews when introducing the relevant bill into the lower house quoted the number of 50 deaths and the written submission of the CCOV, I consider that I am on good grounds for considering I need not hear anything more from the Majority.

The CCOV’s Evidence

5. The CCOV made two written submissions and also appeared through authorized officers at a hearing before the Committee. I shall further identify these as being:

(a) the CCOV’s original submission dated 26 August 2015 being submission 755 (26 Aug CCOV Submission)

(b) the CCOV’s further submission dated 20 May 2016 being submission 1037 (20 May CCOV Submission)

(c) the transcript of evidence of the hearing before the Committee in Melbourne on 7 October 2015 (CCOV Transcript) where the following authorized officers of the CCOV appeared:

(i) Ms Caitlin English, Coroner,

(ii) Mr John Olle, Coroner, and

(iii) Dr Jeremy Dwyer, Manager, Coroners Prevention Unit, Coroners Court of Victoria.

6. In the reverse order to what way they made, I will deal with each of the CCOV’s submission. Very briefly, the 20 May CCOV Submission is more dominated by depersonalized statistics, and is less emotive. The reading does not deliver good news to society, however it is I a form which is less gripping that emotional testimony of specific individuals. It is therefore less akin to the “personal story” approach that is so readily seen in:

(a) politician decision making; and

David R.A. Foletta BCME LLB GDLP JP Further Final Letter to Premier Daniel Andrews 63

(b) the personal submissions from individuals who make a submission telling how they or a loved one is or hs suffered.

7. By contract to the later submission, the 26 Aug CCOV Submission contains the statistic of 50 deaths per year, which appears to be what was relied upon by the Premier, Mr Daniel Andrews, and also contains five (5) case studies of suicides. Very briefly, these may be summaried as follows:

NO Person Ailment Method 1 Middle aged man Metastatic colorectal carcinoma for three years prior to Hanging himself from a death. rope in a public place 2 Driving age teenager Spinal damage due to car accident. Depression Lacerated lower limbs and bleed out. 3 Elderly lady Old, decline in life and health, vision loss, loss of Lacerated wrist and beed mobility. Lack independence and lack the ability to read. out. 4 Elderly man Mobility, eyesight and lack of ability to do hobbies. Overdose on mediation he had stored up. 5 Middle aged man Spine damage due to work accident. Addicted to Overdosed on mediations. medications, became obese, fell out with family. The CCOV Transcript

8. The CCOV’s purpose for attending the hearing was as follows:

I will talk a little bit about the work of the court in suicides. In 2013–14 there were some 6260 deaths reported to the Coroners Court that were investigated. A confronting part of our work is the number of deaths that are as a result of suicide. It is the largest category of unnatural death. It is higher than the road toll, and it is higher than the homicide rate. There are approximately seven per week in Victoria, and it is the highest cause of death of young people between the ages of 15 and 19. The most common method of suicide is hanging or suffocation, and some professions have a higher rate; for example, those in the medical field, such as ambulance officers, who have access to means.

Within the reportable deaths that we investigate there is a cohort of deaths that we have to determine whether they are preventable or not. There seems to be a cohort within the suicide group that it has been very difficult to come up with recommendations or comments that could contribute to their prevention. This is really what we want to talk to you about today. These are people who are suffering from irreversible physical terminal decline or disease, and they are taking their lives in desperate, determined and violent ways. They are the category of suicides we want to talk to you today about.

9. Mr Olle said:

I referred only a sample of some five cases I was investigating to Jeremy’s team of researchers. He has identified approximately 50 cases per year between 2009 and 2012. It is a small cohort, but a significant number. We are looking at 8.6 per cent of suicides that meet this criteria set out in our definition of our cohort.So a total of 197 deaths not in palliation at the time of death. It is important to point that out. We are not talking about this wonderful palliation. We do not in any way, shape or form undermine that. That role

David R.A. Foletta BCME LLB GDLP JP Further Final Letter to Premier Daniel Andrews 64

is so important, but we are not talking about that. We are talking about the people who unlikely would qualify, would meet the criteria of palliation.

10. Mr Olle went on with examples about the following individuals:

The first individual is a 59-year-old man. He had a wife of 38 years...

Another case I have seen was an 82-year-old lady….

Another, 89-year-old. ….

Another, 75-year-old ….

Finally, a 90-year-old man, ….

The Mulino Position

11. I am mindful that Mr Daniel Mulino, in his minority report has written the following:

The Majority Report gave considerable weight to the evidence from the Coroners Court of Victoria. This evidence included details of a number of confronting situations in which people committed suicide, often in very distressing ways, in order to end suffering. What the Majority Report doesn’t make clear is that many of the instances raised by the Coroners Court wouldn’t fall within the scope of its proposed regime. This highlights the difficult choice that we face in practice

My Conclusion

12. After considering the CCOV position and the Mulino position, I make the following conclusion:

(a) A case example needs to be within the scope of the proposed bill to be relevant, Clearly, a three year life expectancy will not be included in the proposed legislation;

(b) That using the examples above, where duration is greater than one year or there is no life threatening situation is begging for society to start rolling down the slippery hillside; certainly, Mr Andrew Denton and others would prefer this to be the case;

(c) I am yet to be convinced that the anxiety of a person suffering before the suicide as set out above, is going to be any worse than that in the lead up to an death through euthanasia (whatever form that takes);

(d) The dignity that was suffered by falling out with family should not be equated as loss of dignity experienced through suffering pain;

(e) the examples give by Mr Olle, may well have not fallen with in the 12 months diagnoses before death.

(f) the 50 relevant deaths, are out of a total of 6200 deaths annually.

13. For the reasons set out in 12 above, considering the evidence set out in this annexure, I do not consider that there is any validity to the need for legally assisted suicide to be brought into law.

David R.A. Foletta BCME LLB GDLP JP Further Final Letter to Premier Daniel Andrews 65

Annexure 17.: Does the Admitted Evidence show Choice should require euthanasia? 1. This is perhaps the simplest of all issues to resolve on this issue:

2. This is an extract of the policy on assisted dying of the Australian Sex Party,

3. The reality is that assisted dying can never been 100% personal decision. The reason for this is as set out by Daniel Mulino in his minority report – the guarantee of not impinging upon the freedom of others requires this law to be heavily regulated. Therefore it is impossible to be 100% free choice.

The role of professionals in a regulated euthanasia or assisted suicide regime could take a number of forms, including some or all of the following: •One or more medical professionals providing approval before an individual is granted access to either euthanasia or assisted suicide. •One or more medical or related professionals providing counselling before either euthanasia or assisted suicide is administered. •One or more medical professionals (or a chemist, with approval) prescribing the drug/poison to be used in an assisted suicide. •One or more medical professionals administering euthanasia. •Medical professionals or others as deemed appropriate witnessing an assisted suicide. •Medical professionals and others as deemed appropriate monitoring instances of euthanasia or assisted suicide and possibly hearing appeals at different steps of the regulated process. Because regulating euthanasia and assisted suicide involves the state regulating how medical professionals can take active steps to bring about death, it is not just a question of individual autonomy. 4. The numerous written submissions, and there are a lot, that refer to “choice”/ “my body” and “my life” must be viewed with one keeping a “level head” of a confident and strong Captain and not being overcome by the waves that are billowing over the port and/ or starboard sides of the vessel and throwing up challenges, turmoil and difficult time. Seeing the suffering in its tragic and unfortunate locus but proportional to the overall context of issues in a person’s life and in the collective life of a society means not introducing a risk that will be damaging to society more than what it will be helpful for a few.

5. Whilst the choice to die is an act of free will, shooting oneself, to have a legislative, statewide system of legalized self killing out of freewill to do so that is regulated to ensure safety from abuse is actually:

(a) a contradiction in terms; and

(b) an oxymoron.

6. For the reasons set out in my 8 Oct 17 Letter and in this annexure, I consider that the ratio deciendi attribute of “choice” to have not been made out. Therefore, the ratio of Recommendation 49 has not been made out, and it therefore there is no basis for the introduction of assisted dying into Victoria.

David R.A. Foletta BCME LLB GDLP JP Further Final Letter to Premier Daniel Andrews 66

Chapter 4: The Foletta Recommendations Annexure 18.: My Recommendations to the Parliament of Victoria (and NSW and elsewhere) 1. In addition to the recommendations included in my 8 Oct 17 Letter, I make the following recommendations: (a) That the numbers of submissions received need to be urgently reviewed; (b) That the evidenced relied on by the majority of the committee needs to be the latest evidence; (c) That there must be a proper definition of the “slippery slope” and that definition must be multi-faceted and not riddled with so many qualifications that it becomes more dominated by exceptions and exclusions than substance (d) The majority report cannot be accepted on the sheer basis of evidence which was before the Committee, in addition to the further evidence I located for my 8 Oct 17 Letter; (e) That the notion of a “trade off” between people saved through removing unlawful euthanasia that now happens by allowing a “slippery slope” is not acceptable. The proper action regarding unlawful euthanasia is quite simply: (i) expose it; (ii) ciminalise it; and (iii) stop it from happening.

(f) Parliament needs to understand that pro euthanasia organsiations are feeding into this debate by: (i) making multiple submissions from different branches; (ii) encouraging people to write submissions; (iii) talking up the emotion and suffering – as they know it works;

(iv) feeding information such as percentage polls that become “accepted facts” which find their way into letters which come to the attention of politicians who then rely on those “accepted facts”; and

(v) by telling people that the model in Oregon and Switzerland is safe.

(g) That not even Dying with Dignity can come up with good reasons or evidence to say: (i) what the slippery slope actually is; or (ii) that the slippery slope has not been gone down. (h) That the proposed law in Victoria is not “safe, conservative and protective” as it claims and is marketed as being; (i) That the ratio deciendi for making Recommendation 49 has been disproven, I submit, and therefore the Parliament of Victoria should reject Recommendation 49 and assisted dying in the State of Victoria; and (k) That the method of procuring the Final Report is not an example of good government and the focus questions must be answered No.

David R.A. Foletta BCME LLB GDLP JP Further Final Letter to Premier Daniel Andrews 67

Letter/ report/ submissions prepared by David R. A. Foletta BCME LLB GDLP

Sydney, Australia 29 October 2017

David R.A. Foletta BCME LLB GDLP JP Further Final Letter to Premier Daniel Andrews 68

Schedules Schedule 1: David Foletta’s Reconciliation of Count of Submissions Received

David Foletta’s Reconciliation Count of Submissions Received Item Submission Maker Personal Organisation 1 Abbey, Brian and Jennifer 2 2 Abery, Jillian 1 3 Abetz, Jeremy 1 4 Ackland, M. Leigh 1 5 Action for Life 1 6 Acton, John 1 7 Adam, William 1 8 Agostino, Susan 1 9 Ahern, Eugene 1 10 Aiashi, Trudi and Aiman 2 11 Alcock, William 1 12 Alfred Health 1 13 Allen, Wilma and Grahame 2 14 Alp, Veronica 1 15 Alvaro, Joe 1 16 Alwyn, Meg 1 17 Anaf, Julia 1 18 Anam Cara House Colac Inc. 1 19 Anastasiou, Robyn 1 20 Anderson, Keith 1 21 Anderson, Margaret 1 22 Andrews, Brian 1

23 Anglican Diocese of Melbourne, Social Responsibilities Committee 1 24 Anthony, Kathryn 1 25 Appels, Janis 1 26 Apps, Robyn 1 27 Apthorp, Joan 1 28 Arblaster, Stuart 1 29 Archer, Catherine 1 30 Arena, Franca 1 31 Armstrong, Doris 1 32 Aspinall, Glenn 1 33 Attard, Rita 1 34 Australasian College for Emergency Medicine 1 35 Australian and New Zealand Society for Geriatric Medicine 1

David R.A. Foletta BCME LLB GDLP JP Further Final Letter to Premier Daniel Andrews 69

David Foletta’s Reconciliation Count of Submissions Received Item Submission Maker Personal Organisation 36 Australian and New Zealand Society of Palliative Medicine Inc. 1 37 Australian Catholic Bishops Conference 1 38 Australian Catholic University 1 39 Australian Centre for Health Law Research 1 40 Australian Centre for Health Research Limited 1 41 Australian Christian Lobby 1 42 Australian Christians 1 43 Australian College of Nursing 1 44 Australian Family Association 1 45 Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency 1 46 Australian Medical Association (Victoria) Limited 1 47 Australian Nursing & Midwifery 1 48 Federation (Victorian Branch) 1 49 Australian Psychological Society 1 50 Australian Sex Party 1 51 Avant Mutual Group Limited 1 52 Avery, Jennifer 1 53 Bach, Neil 1 54 Bagguley, Charles and Marianne 2 55 Baker, Donald 1 56 Baker, Louise 1 57 Baker, Richard 1 58 Ballarat Heath Service 1 59 Bamber, Josie 1 60 Barnes, Kay 1 61 Barnes, Louise 1 62 Barnier, Robert 1 63 Barratt, Lynne 1 64 Barrington, Jan 1 65 Barwon Health 1 66 Barnier, Robert 1 67 Basiri, Amir 1 68 Bate, Wendy 1 69 Battova, Brigitte 1 70 Bayley, Donald 1 71 Baynes-Williams, Rupert 1 72 Beattie, Pru 1 73 Beck, Prue and Max 2 74 Beehey, J. M. 1 75 Beekmeyer, Stuart 1 76 Bennett, Jim 1 77 Bennett, Lila 1

David R.A. Foletta BCME LLB GDLP JP Further Final Letter to Premier Daniel Andrews 70

David Foletta’s Reconciliation Count of Submissions Received Item Submission Maker Personal Organisation 78 Benson, Simon Michael 1 79 Berg, Sumner 1 80 Beslik, Lydia 1 81 Biasuzzo, Jane 1 82 Bingham, David 1 83 Blackwell, Andrew 1 84 Blair, Nannette 1 85 Blanch, Max 1 86 Bland, Ross 1 87 Blismas, Nick and Natalie 2 88 Boerlage, Coenraad 1 89 Bonavia, Luke 1 90 Bond, Catherine 1 91 Bonwick, Montague 1 92 Borg, Paul 1 93 Boryslawski, Lucien 1 94 Boschen, Ruth 1 95 Bourke, Mark 1 96 Bourne and Associates 1 97 Bowles, Rebecca 1 98 Boyd, Anne 1 99 Boyd, Fiona 1 100 Boyd, Joan 1 101 Boyd, Pamela 1 102 Braby, Robert 1 103 Bradley, Amanda 1 104 Bradshaw, Anthony V. 1 105 Bramich, Fred 1 106 Brandenburg, John 1 107 Branford, Glenn 1 108 Brayshaw, Morna Ann 1 109 Breed, Maria 1 110 Brentnall, Edward 1 111 Britten-Jones, Robert 1 112 Broad, Isabel 1 113 Brolly, Anne 1 114 Bromson, Kerry 1 115 Brown, Gabrielle 1 116 Brown, Jill and John 2 117 Brown, Rhonda 1 118 Browne, Michele 1 119 Bruce, John R. 1

David R.A. Foletta BCME LLB GDLP JP Further Final Letter to Premier Daniel Andrews 71

David Foletta’s Reconciliation Count of Submissions Received Item Submission Maker Personal Organisation 120 Buchanan, John 1 121 Buckley, Andrea 1 122 Buegge-Borshoff, Florence 1 123 Bullock, Joe 1 124 Buman, Alison 1 125 Burger, Bruce and Sue 1 126 Burkinshaw, Sam 1 127 Burns, Thomas 1 128 Burnstein, Kate 1 129 Burrows, Rodney 1 130 Burton, Liz 1 131 Butler, Kevin 1 132 Byrne, Greg 1 133 Byrne, Roger 1 134 Byrne, Yvonne 1 135 Cabrini Health 1 136 Cameron, Denise 1 137 Campbell, Debora 1 138 Campbell, Pauline 1 139 Cancer Council Victoria 1 140 Capper, Sandra 1 141 Carers Victoria 1 142 Carolan, Catherine Mary 1 143 Caroline Chisholm Centre for Health Ethics Inc. 1 144 Carroll, John 1 145 Carter, Brad 1 146 Carter, David 1 147 Carter, Irene 1 148 Cartwright, Colleen 1 149 Casanova, John 1 150 Catalano, John 1 151 Catholic Archdiocese of Melbourne 1 152 Catholic Health Australia 1 153 Catholic Social Services Victoria 1 154 Catholic Women’s League of Victoria & Wagga Wagga Inc. 1 155 Cava, Roberta 1 156 Center, Yola 1 157 Central Hume Primary Care Partnership 1 158 Centre for Palliative Care 1 159 Charles, Owen 1 160 Charnell, Wendy 1 161 Cheesman, Bernadette 1

David R.A. Foletta BCME LLB GDLP JP Further Final Letter to Premier Daniel Andrews 72

David Foletta’s Reconciliation Count of Submissions Received Item Submission Maker Personal Organisation 162 Chevor, Eleanor 1 163 Christian Medical & Dental Fellowship of Australia 1 164 Christians for Labor 1 165 Christians Supporting Choice for Voluntary Euthanasia 1 166 Cipollone, Ettore 1 167 Citroen, Jennifer 1 168 Civil Liberties Australia Inc. 1 169 Clarence, Jodie 1 170 Clark, Frank 1 171 Clarke, Roger 1 172 Cleary, William 1 173 Clegg, Pauline 1 174 Cleigh, W. Carol 1 175 Cleland, Jacquelin Lilian 1 176 Clements, Ken 1 177 Cobain, L. 1 178 Cock, Peter H. 1 179 Cocks, Paul 1 180 Cohealth 1 181 Cohen-Almagor, Raphael 1 182 Coleman, Alan 1 183 Coleman, Peter 1 184 Colemon, Marilyn 1 185 Coles-Rutishauser, Ingrid 1 186 Collier, Mary 1 187 Collins, Joan 1 188 Commissioner for Senior Victorians 1 189 Compton, Helen 1 190 Compton, Roger 1 191 Conlan, Elizabeth 1 192 Connell, John and Helen 1 193 Constantine, Joan 1 194 Cook, Jonathan 1 195 Coombs, Wayne 1 196 Cooney, John 1 197 Cooper, Lee 1 198 Copeland, Paul 1 199 Cora, Dorothy 1 200 Corby, Dora and Max 1 201 Cornelius, Otto 1 202 Coroners Court of Victoria 1 203 Corrigall, Deborah 1

David R.A. Foletta BCME LLB GDLP JP Further Final Letter to Premier Daniel Andrews 73

David Foletta’s Reconciliation Count of Submissions Received Item Submission Maker Personal Organisation 204 Corris, Peter 1 205 Cosstick, Mark 1 206 Costello, Leo and Sally 1 207 Cotching, Daniel 1 208 Coughlan, Brenda 1 209 Council of the Ageing 1 210 Cowden, Janet 1 211 Cowen, Rabbi Shimon 1 212 Coyne, Elizabeth 1 213 Cram, Barbara 1 214 Crawford, John 1 215 Cronk, Carol 1 216 Cronk, Oscar 1 217 Crook, Sue 1 218 Cross, Max 1 219 Cross, Richard 1 220 Crump, Sandra 1 221 Cummings, David and Ruth 1 222 Cunningham, John 1 223 Cunningham, Lesley 1 224 Curtis, Linda 1 225 Cutler, David 1 226 Dakin, Hugh 1 227 Daley, Judith 1 228 Daley, Lois 1 229 Daniel, Lawrie 1 230 Daniels, Norma 1 231 D’Arcy, George and Rita 1 232 Davidson, Rev Warwick 1 233 Davies, Bernadette 1 234 Davis, Charles 1 235 Dawes, Shirley 1 236 Dawson, June 1 237 De Haas, Judy 1 238 de Moulpied, Patricia 1 239 Denton, Andrew 1 240 Dethlefs, Geoffrey 1 241 Devries, Bert and Tina 1 242 Di Lorenzo, Joanne 1 243 Diggins, Ann-Marie 1 244 Dignitas 1 245 Dillon, David 1

David R.A. Foletta BCME LLB GDLP JP Further Final Letter to Premier Daniel Andrews 74

David Foletta’s Reconciliation Count of Submissions Received Item Submission Maker Personal Organisation 246 Ditmarsch, Bill 1 247 Dobson, Paul 1 248 Doctors for Voluntary Euthanasia Choice 1 249 Doctors Opposed to Euthanasia 1 250 Doherty, Kevin 1 251 Doig, Lindsay 1 252 Donegan, Teresa 1 253 Donnelly, Greg 1 254 Donnelly, Matt 1 255 Donohoe, Paul 1 256 Doumit, Monica 1 257 Dowsett, Gary 1 258 Drysdale, Graeme 1 259 Duncalf, Barry 1 260 Dying For Choice 1 261 Dying with Dignity ACT Inc. 1 262 Dying With Dignity New South Wales 1 263 Dying with Dignity (NSW) Central Coast Group 1 264 Dying with Dignity (NSW) Port Macquarie 1 265 Dying with Dignity Tasmania 1 266 Dying with Dignity Victoria 1 267 Eastern Palliative Care Association Incorporated 1 268 Ebert, Kathryn 1 269 Edgar, Sheila 1 270 Elliott, Shan 1 271 Elmes, Rebecca 1 272 Endeavour Forum Inc. 1 273 Eskdale, Terri 1 Ethics Committee of the Christian Medical and Dental Fellowship of 274 Australia 1 275 Evans, Len 1 276 Everett, Colin and Josephine 1 277 Eyres, Frances 1 278 FamilyVoice Australia 1 279 Farrell, Matthew 1 280 Featherston, Julian 1 281 Feeney, Helen 1 282 Ferlin, Fides 1 283 Ferraro, Umberto 1 284 Ferri, Robyne 1 285 Ferwerda, Peter 1 286 Fiddelaers, Carolyn 1

David R.A. Foletta BCME LLB GDLP JP Further Final Letter to Premier Daniel Andrews 75

David Foletta’s Reconciliation Count of Submissions Received Item Submission Maker Personal Organisation 287 Filipovski, Laura 1 288 Fillion, Elaine 1 289 Finn, Christine 1 290 Finter, Derek 1 291 Fisher, William Hayes 1 292 Fiske, Frank and Margaret 2 293 Fitchman, Barbara 1 294 Fitzgerald, Roger 1 295 Fitzpatrick, Janet 1 296 Fletcher, Joy Gwendoline 1 297 Flood, Gerard 1 298 Fogarty, F. R. 1 299 Fogarty, Jess 1 300 Ford, Norman 1 301 Foreman, Maria 1 302 Fornito, Tommy 1 303 Forster, David 1 304 Foster, Ralph Reginald 1 305 Franklin, Bertha 1 306 Franklin, Jason 1 307 Franze, Linda 1 308 Fraser, Judith 1 309 Fraser, Lenley 1 310 Fuller, Helen 1 311 Fuller, Virginia 1 312 Furman, Barbara 1 313 Gaal, Laura 1 314 Gano, Elaine 1 315 Gardner, Valerie 1 316 Garnham, Ken 1 317 Gartrell, Glenda 1 318 Garven, Rhonda 1 319 Gawler, David 1 320 Gawler, Isobel 1 321 Gaze, Doug 1 322 Gear, Rev Spencer 1 323 George, Kuruvilla 1 324 Geschke, Norman 1 325 Geschke, Robert 1 326 Gilbody, Julie 1 327 Gill, Elizabeth 1 328 Gill, John 1

David R.A. Foletta BCME LLB GDLP JP Further Final Letter to Premier Daniel Andrews 76

David Foletta’s Reconciliation Count of Submissions Received Item Submission Maker Personal Organisation 329 Gill, Samuel 1 330 Gilmour, Camille 1 331 Gilmour, Mark 1 332 Gleeson, Marie 1 333 Gleeson, Suzanne 1 334 Glover, Andrea 1 335 Godbold Family 1 336 Godbold, Raymond 1 337 Godbold, Rory 1 338 Godden, Brett and Dianne 1 339 Goldberg, Elizabeth 1 340 Gosbell, Janine 1 341 Graham, Margaret 1 342 Grant, Lidiya 1 343 Grant, Richard and Beverly 1 344 Grattan Institute 1 345 Gray, Christine 1 346 Greaves, Earle and Grace 1 347 Green, D. 1 348 Green, Sandy 1 349 Greenhaff, R. W. A 1 350 Greenough, F. 1 351 Greenwood, Beverley 1 352 Griffith, Andrea 1 353 Grigg, Desmond 1 354 Grigg, Lindsay 1 355 Grimstad, Julie 1 356 Grocott, Stephen and Dianne 1 357 Gronn, Kathryn 1 358 Gunter, Robert 1 359 Hadfield, Alana 1 360 Hallsworth, Sally 1 361 Hamann, Christine 1 362 Hamilton, Tim 1 363 Hannaford, Paul 1 364 Harle, Rob 1 365 Harman, Jennifer 1 366 Harper, Richard 1 367 Harris, David 1 368 Harris, John 1 369 Hart, Doris 1 370 Hartin, Peter 1

David R.A. Foletta BCME LLB GDLP JP Further Final Letter to Premier Daniel Andrews 77

David Foletta’s Reconciliation Count of Submissions Received Item Submission Maker Personal Organisation 371 Harvey, Beverly 1 372 Harvey, Fr. Geoff and Janet 1 373 Harvey, Jim 1 374 Harvey, Stephen 1 375 Harwood, Helen and Kevin 1 376 Hasslacher, Barbara 1 377 Hastie, Liam 1 378 Hatton, Stephen 1 379 Hawkes, Ada and Hubert 1 380 Hawkins, Margaret 1 381 Hawthorn, Alison 1 382 Hawthorn, Kelvin 1 383 Haxell, Phillip 1 384 Hayes, Barbara 1 385 Hayes, John 1 386 Hayes, Mary Anne 1 387 Hayhoe, Brett 1 388 Hayhoe, Paul 1 389 Haynes, Dennis and Pat 1 390 Health Issues Centre 1 391 Health Services Commissioner 1 392 Hearn, Joyce 1 393 Hempton, Courtney 1 394 Henderson, Rosemarie 1 395 Hengeveld, Steven, Murna and Tania 1 396 Henke, Hamish and Anita 1 397 Henney, Ronald 1 398 Henry, Reg 1 399 Henry, Douglas M. 1 400 Herman, Rodney 1 401 Herraman, Elice 1 402 Hess, Robert and Shirley 1 403 Hickey, Paul and Helen 1 404 Hickling, Mathew 1 405 Highfield, Lynne 1 406 Higson, Shayne 1 407 Hill, Anna 1 408 Hill, Barry 1 409 Hill, Mary 1 410 Hill, William 1 411 Hitchens, John 1 412 Hocking, Mary 1

David R.A. Foletta BCME LLB GDLP JP Further Final Letter to Premier Daniel Andrews 78

David Foletta’s Reconciliation Count of Submissions Received Item Submission Maker Personal Organisation 413 Hodgson, Robert 1 414 Hogan, Kevin 1 415 Hogan, Bruce and Heather 1 416 Hokin, Allen 1 417 Holliday, Valica 1 418 Honeyman, Julie 1 419 Hont, John 1 420 Hookey, Geoffrey 1 421 HOPE 1 422 Hosking, William 1 423 Houghton, Santhosha Vani 1 424 Howard, Peter 1 425 Hoy, Vikki 1 426 Hoysted, Alan 1 427 Hubbard, David 1 428 Hubbard, Graham 1 429 Hubbard, Paul 1 430 Hughes, Gilian 1 431 Hughes, Therese 1 432 Hum, Steven Istvan 1 433 Humanist Society of Victoria Inc. 1 434 Hunt, Gillian 1 435 Hunt, Roger 1 436 Hurworth, Patricia 1 437 Husman, Eduardina 1 438 Hutcheson, Marion 1 439 Iley, John 1 440 Isaacs, Sandra 1 441 Isocracy Network Inc. 1 442 Jackson, Dirk 1 443 Jago, Arnold 1 444 James, Helen 1 445 Janson, Vickie 1 446 Janssen, Fons and Bronwyn 1 447 Jeffries, Shirley 1 448 Jensen, Suzanne 1 449 Jessiman, Lyn 1 450 Jex, Mildred 1 451 Johnson, Christopher 1 452 Johnson, Paul 1 453 Johnson, Philip J. 1 454 Johnson, Trish 1

David R.A. Foletta BCME LLB GDLP JP Further Final Letter to Premier Daniel Andrews 79

David Foletta’s Reconciliation Count of Submissions Received Item Submission Maker Personal Organisation 455 Johnson, Vivienne 1 456 Johnston, Suzanne 1 457 Johnstone, Ross 1 458 Johnstone, Vicki 1 459 Jones, Les and Bev 1 460 Jones, Millicent 1 461 Jonquiere, Rob 1 462 Joseph, Rita 1 463 Joy, Kyra Ly 1 464 Joyce, Harry 1 465 Kalotas, Thomas and Susanne 1 466 Kastner, Irmgard 1 467 Kavanagh, Mary 1 468 Keane, Patricia 1 469 Keeda, Peter 1 470 Keenan, Nigel 1 471 Keldoulis, Lilian 1 472 Kelly, Bill and Hazel 1 473 Kelly, David St Leger 1 474 Kelly, Des 1 475 Kelly, John 1 476 Kelly, Norma 1 477 Kemp, Catherine 1 478 Kendall, Jan 1 479 Kenmar, Doreen 1 480 Kennedy, Michael 1 481 Kennedy, Rosemary 1 482 Kernebone, Richard and Nola 1 483 Kerr, Andrew 1 484 Kerr, Bruce 1 485 Kesbah, Glenn 1 486 King, Carolyn 1 487 King, Natalie 1 488 Kissane, David 1 489 Klabbers, Johannes 1 490 Knights of the Southern Cross Victoria 1 491 Kok, Jereth 1 492 Koniuszko, Lidia 1 493 Kos, Stefan 1 494 Kotzman, Anne 1 495 Krietsch, Sylvia 1 496 Krins, Tony 1

David R.A. Foletta BCME LLB GDLP JP Further Final Letter to Premier Daniel Andrews 80

David Foletta’s Reconciliation Count of Submissions Received Item Submission Maker Personal Organisation 497 Kuhse, Helga 1 498 Kumaschow, Lydia 1 499 La Trobe University, Palliative Care Unit 1 500 Lacey, Jan 1 501 Lackner, Susan 1 502 Ladd, Atala and Elena 1 503 Lademan, Eileen 1 504 Laidlaw, Kerri 1 505 Landvogt, Julie 1 506 Lane, Magdalena 1 507 Lanham, Anne and Ray 1 508 Larcombe, Travis 1 509 Large, Anne and Neville 1 510 Lastman, Anne 1 511 Lau, Michael 1 512 Law Institute of Victoria 1 513 Leach, Cr Helen 1 514 Leake, Peter 1 515 Lechner, Henry 1 516 Lee, Carolyn 1 517 Lee, Edna 1 518 Lee, Geraldine 1 519 Leeds, Gabrielle 1 520 Leitch, Douglas 1 521 Lennon, Matthew 1 522 Lenzo, Joe 1 523 Leschke, John 1 524 Leung, Patricia 1 525 Lewandowski, Ed 1 526 Lewis, Dianne 1 527 Lewis, Kenneth 1 528 Liberty Victoria 1 529 Limb, Jennifer 1 530 Lindenmayer, Graeme and Greta 1 531 Linnane, Damien 1 532 Lissenden, Jean Valerie 1 533 Little, Carla 1 534 Little Sisters of the Poor Aged Care Ltd 1 535 Littlemore, Chris 1 536 Lives Worth Living 1 537 Lloyd, Alan Murray 1 538 Lock, Thomas 1

David R.A. Foletta BCME LLB GDLP JP Further Final Letter to Premier Daniel Andrews 81

David Foletta’s Reconciliation Count of Submissions Received Item Submission Maker Personal Organisation 539 Long, Dorothy 1 540 Long, Michael 1 541 Loughlan, Patricia 1 542 Lubitz, Karin 1 543 Luker, Margaret 1 544 Lushch, Denis 1 545 Lynam, Tamplin 1 546 Lynch, Pauline 1 547 Lynch, Troy 1 548 Lyttle, Janet 1 549 Maack, Evelyn 1 550 MacDougall, Susan 1 551 Mackenzie, Rod 1 552 MacLean, Joan 1 553 MacMillan, Gordon 1 554 Magree, Brian and Judith 1 555 Magree, Terence 1 556 Maher, Margaret 1 557 Mahony, John 1 558 Majdali, Kameel 1 559 Malicki, Stan 1 560 Mallinson, Gaye 1 561 Mangalson, Stan 1 562 Manickam, Julia 1 563 Manoy, Robyn 1 564 Manser, Carol 1 565 Marantelli, Laurie 1 566 Marcius, Debbie 1 567 Marks, Sheila 1 568 Marshall, Jim 1 569 Martin, Pamela 1 570 Martyres, Raymond 1 571 Mathai, Anna 1 572 Mathieson, Eamonn (and signatories) 1 573 Matthews, Iola 1 574 Matthews, Kerryanne 1 575 Matthews, Ron 1 576 Mavric, Heather 1 577 May, Sandra 1 578 Mayhead, Gerald 1 579 Mazzei, Emilia 1 580 McCarthy, Ernest 1

David R.A. Foletta BCME LLB GDLP JP Further Final Letter to Premier Daniel Andrews 82

David Foletta’s Reconciliation Count of Submissions Received Item Submission Maker Personal Organisation 581 McCarthy, Ronda 1 582 McCathie, Robert 1 583 McClatchie, Gordon 1 584 McCleave, P. J. 1 585 McConaghy, Brian 1 586 McCormack, John Francis 1 587 McCormack, Paul 1 588 McCrae, Carol 1 589 McCullagh, Peter 1 590 McDonald, Janette 1 591 McDonald, Lilian 1 592 McDonald, Peter 1 593 McDonald, Ronald 1 594 McFarlane, Amy 1 595 McGarity, Barbara 1 596 McGovan, Bess 1 597 McHardy, Jeanette 1 598 McInerney, Mary B. 1 599 McIntosh, Stephen 1 600 McIntyre, Beverley 1 601 McKay, James 1 602 McKay, Patrick 1 603 McLaren, Ann 1 604 McLaughlan, Mark 1 605 McLennan, Carol 1 606 McLeod, Dianne 1 607 McMahon, Erin 1 608 McNamara, Gary 1 609 McPhee, Jodie 1 610 McSweeney, Loretta 1 611 Meaney, Patricia 1 612 Mears, Robert 1 613 Medical Oncology Group of Australia Incorporated 1 614 Medicine with Morality 1 615 Meese, Lesa 1 616 Meharg, Bob 1 617 Melbourne Catholic Lawyers Association 1 618 Melbourne City Mission 1 619 Melbourne Health 1 620 Mercy Health 1 621 Metcalf, Flora 1 622 Meyer, Susan 1

David R.A. Foletta BCME LLB GDLP JP Further Final Letter to Premier Daniel Andrews 83

David Foletta’s Reconciliation Count of Submissions Received Item Submission Maker Personal Organisation 623 Middleton, Christopher 1 624 Miles, Judith 1 625 Millar, Graeme 1 626 Millar, Maralyn 1 627 Miller, David 1 628 Miller, James 1 629 Miller, Eliana Freydel 1 630 Milley, Cheryl 1 631 Mills, Gareth 1 632 Mills, Richard 1 633 Minniti, Ashley 1 634 Mitchell, Kahli 1 635 Mitchell, Patricia 1 636 Mitchell, Lisa 1 637 Mitro, Eva 1 638 Moir, Marie 1 639 Monagle, Marisa 1 640 Money, Lawrence 1 641 Moodie, Rob 1 642 Morris, Brian 1 643 Morris, Jane 1 644 Morris-Leonzini, Sandra 1 645 Morrissey, M. 1 646 Morison, Peter 1 647 Morrison, Marty 1 648 Morrissey, John J. 1 649 Morrow, Ann 1 650 Mortier, Tom 1 651 Moseley, Les 1 652 Moynihan, Tracey 1 653 Mummery, Barbara 1 654 Munro, Jane 1 655 Murphy, Jenny 1 656 Murray, Joel 1 657 Murray, Peter 1 658 Murtagh, John 1 659 Musumeci, Joan 1 660 Myers, John 1 661 Name withheld (15 name withheld 01 1 662 Name withheld (15 name withheld 02 1 663 Name withheld (15 name withheld 03 1 664 Name withheld (15 name withheld 04 1

David R.A. Foletta BCME LLB GDLP JP Further Final Letter to Premier Daniel Andrews 84

David Foletta’s Reconciliation Count of Submissions Received Item Submission Maker Personal Organisation 665 Name withheld (15 name withheld 05 1 666 Name withheld (15 name withheld 06 1 667 Name withheld (15 name withheld 07 1 668 Name withheld (15 name withheld 08 1 669 Name withheld (15 name withheld 09 1 670 Name withheld (15 name withheld 10 1 671 Name withheld (15 name withheld 11 1 672 Name withheld (15 name withheld 12 1 673 Name withheld (15 name withheld 13 1 674 Name withheld (15 name withheld 14 1 675 Name withheld (15 name withheld 15 1 676 Namow, Tina 1 677 National Seniors Victorian Policy Advisory Group 1 678 Navaratne, Rohan 1 679 Naylor, Patricia 1 680 Nerlich, Graham 1 681 Networking Health Victoria 1 682 Newell, Patricia 1 683 Newton, Marie 1 684 Nimon, Joy 1 685 Nitschke, Philip 1 686 Niven, A. 1 687 Nolan, James 1 688 Norwood, Neville 1 689 O’Connor, Bill 1 690 O’Connor, Frank 1 691 O’Connor, Margaret 1 692 Oderberg, David S. 1 693 O’Donnell, Bill and Kay 1 694 O’Donnell, Tony 1 695 O’Dwyer, Anne 1 696 Office of the Public Advocate 1 697 O’Hanlon, Paul 1 698 O’Hea, Mary 1 699 Olive, Dorothy 1 700 Oliver, Norma 1 701 Ollerenshaw, David 1 702 O’Loughlin, Carolyn 1 703 Opie, Margaret 1 704 Orchard, Jeremy 1 705 O’Reilly, John 1 706 O’Shea, Barry 1

David R.A. Foletta BCME LLB GDLP JP Further Final Letter to Premier Daniel Andrews 85

David Foletta’s Reconciliation Count of Submissions Received Item Submission Maker Personal Organisation 707 Otlowski, Margaret 1 708 Paas, Johannus 1 709 Palliative Care Australia 1 710 Palliative Care Victoria 1 711 Palma, Michael and Maria 1 712 Palmer, Margot 1 713 Parker, G. and S. 1 714 Parker, Yvonne 1 715 Parliamentary Friends of Palliative Care 1 716 Parrott, Barbara 1 717 Pascal, M. 1 718 Paschke, Win and Deidre 1 719 Pask, Sharon 1 720 Patterson, Joyce 1 721 Paul, Tony 1 722 Payne, Rachel 1 723 Peake, David 1 724 Pearce, Susanne 1 725 Pearse, Tony and Elizabeth 1 726 Pearson, Beverley 1 727 Pelczynska, Barbara 1 728 Pelczynski, Stanislaw 1 729 Pelletier, Robert 1 730 Perez, Beatriz 1 731 Perrin, David 1 732 Perron, Marshall 1 733 Pestell, Lorraine 1 734 Peters, Robert 1 735 Pfanner, Ruth 1 736 Phefley, Anne 1 737 Phillips, Clare 1 738 Phipps, Graeme and Magda 1 739 Pilcher, Fred 1 740 Pledge, Stephen 1 741 Plunkett Centre for Ethics 1 742 Pollnitz, Robert 1 743 Pollock, Cassandra 1 744 Pollock, Sue 1 745 Ponsford, Caroline 1 746 Pope, Thelma 1 747 Porter, Mary 1 748 Pound, Brian 1

David R.A. Foletta BCME LLB GDLP JP Further Final Letter to Premier Daniel Andrews 86

David Foletta’s Reconciliation Count of Submissions Received Item Submission Maker Personal Organisation 749 Powell, Harley 1 750 Powell, Julia 1 751 Presbyterian Church of Victoria, Church and Nation Committee 1 752 Prescott, Bronte 1 753 Price, Mary 1 754 Prichard, Jeremy 1 755 Progressive Atheists Inc. 1 756 Pro-Life Victoria 1 757 Proud, Helen 1 758 Pryor, Lyn 1 759 Pryor, Malcolm and Rosemary 1 760 Public Health Association Australia (Victorian Branch) 1 761 Pulitano, Rosa 1 762 Puls, Kathleen 1 763 Purdie, Grant 1 764 Purton, Doug 1 765 Quinn, Bernadette 1 766 Quinn, Peter 1 767 Rabinowicz, Dvora 1 768 Rael, Andrew 1 769 Rainier, Marilyn 1 770 Rampertshammer, Alfred 1 771 Ramsay, Belinda 1 772 Rapley, Sylvia 1 773 Raskine, Mikhail 1 774 Rationalist Society of Australia 1 775 Rawlins, Judith 1 776 Rawlins, Judith A. 1 777 Ray, Ranjan 1 778 Reale, Frank 1 779 Redding, Graham 1 780 Regos, Nodda 1 781 Reid, Benjamin Andrew 1 782 Reid, Graeme 1 783 Reid, Margaret and Derek Gordon 1 784 Reid, Judy 1 785 Reiffel, John 1 786 Reilly, Mary 1 787 Renehan, Michael and Jo 1 788 Reti, Paul 1 789 Reynolds, Norm 1 790 Richards, Leith 1

David R.A. Foletta BCME LLB GDLP JP Further Final Letter to Premier Daniel Andrews 87

David Foletta’s Reconciliation Count of Submissions Received Item Submission Maker Personal Organisation 791 Richmond, Coralie 1 792 Riddell, Anne 1 793 Ride, Patricia 1 794 Ridley, Laine 1 795 Riedel, William 1 796 Right to Life Australia Inc. 1 797 Ritchie, Susan 1 798 Roberts, Clyde J. 1 799 Roberts, Debra 1 800 Roberts, Elaine 1 801 Roberts, June 1 802 Roberts, Lyal and Judie 1 803 Roberts, Lyn 1 804 Robertson, Bonita 1 805 Robertson, Melissa 1 806 Robinson, Edward 1 807 Robinson, Susan 1 808 Robson, Graeme 1 809 Robson, Dawn 1 810 Rodda, John 1 811 Rodriguez, Charles B. 1 812 Roebuck, Tracey 1 813 Rogers, Kathy 1 814 Rommel, Glenda 1 815 Ronec, Joanna 1 816 Rosenberg, Anna 1 817 Rosenblatt, Jill 1 818 Royal Australasian College of Physicians 1 819 Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists 1 820 Royal, Christine 1 821 Rule, Brenton 1 822 Rutnam, Romaine 1 823 Ruys, Paul 1 824 Ryan, Barrie 1 825 Salt Shakers 1 826 Samman, Michaela 1 827 Scanlon, David 1 828 Scarlett, Maureen 1 829 Scherek, Paul 1 830 Schuklenk, Udo 1 831 Schumann, Angela 1 832 Scott, Lyndal R. 1

David R.A. Foletta BCME LLB GDLP JP Further Final Letter to Premier Daniel Andrews 88

David Foletta’s Reconciliation Count of Submissions Received Item Submission Maker Personal Organisation 833 Scott, Peter 1 834 Shaw, Dawn 1 835 Shaw, Kate (and sisters) 1 836 Shea, Patrick 1 837 Sheahan, Geoff 1 838 Sheehan, Betty 1 839 Shell, Alan 1 840 Sheppard, Nancy 1 841 Sheridan, Bert 1 842 Sheriden, Margaret 1 843 Shorland, Allan 1 Short, Bill (and other residents of Cherry Tree Grove Retirement 844 Village) 1 845 Short, Elizabeth 1 846 Shuttle, David 1 847 Simcoe-Fitzmaurice, Mark 1 848 Simmons, Gwen 1 849 Simpson, Anne 1 850 Simpson, George 1 851 Simshauser, Cheryl 1 852 Singer, Peter 1 853 Sisters of Nazareth—Geraldton 1 854 Community 1 855 Slatyer, David 1 856 Sleeman, Glenys 1 857 Smeaton, Elaine 1 858 Smith, Colin 1 859 Smith, Helen 1 860 Smith, Lachlan 1 861 Smith, Michael 1 862 Smith, Peter 1 863 Smith, Roger 1 864 Snaauw, John 1 865 Sobey, Annie 1 866 Soo, Victor and Crystal 1 867 Souter, Elisabeth 1 868 South Australian Voluntary Euthanasia Society 1 869 Southern Cross Care Victoria 1 870 Sparrow, Linda 1 871 Speech Pathology Australia 1 872 Speidel, Rosmarie 1 873 Spicer, John 1

David R.A. Foletta BCME LLB GDLP JP Further Final Letter to Premier Daniel Andrews 89

David Foletta’s Reconciliation Count of Submissions Received Item Submission Maker Personal Organisation 874 Spinks, Julie 1 875 Spiritual Health Victoria 1 876 Spirovska, Nevena 1 877 Stamm, Mort 1 878 Stanley, Alison 1 879 Stanton, John 1 880 Stebbing, Duncan 1 881 Steer, Kay 1 882 Stephen, Paul 1 883 Stephens, Elizabeth 1 884 Stephenson, Rod 1 885 Stevenson, Rhonda 1 886 Stewart, Ian 1 887 Stewart, Joyce Hilda 1 888 Stewart, Maree 1 889 Stewart, Robert 1 890 Still, Peter 1 891 Storm, Caroline 1 892 Strangman, Denis 1 893 Stratis, Sotiria 1 894 Strickland, Susan 1 895 Strnad, Halina 1 896 Stuckey, Phillip and Richard E. 1 897 Sullivan, Marie and Kevin 1 898 Sumpter, Pamela 1 899 Sutherland, Lisa 1 900 Sutherland, Max 1 901 Sutton, Peter J. 1 902 Swan, Kate 1 903 Swan Hill District Hospice 1 904 Swanton, David 1 905 Swarbrick, M. L. 1 906 Sweeney, Julanne 1 907 Swinnerton, Neville 1 908 Sykes, Hugh 1 909 Syme, Rodney 1 910 Synnott, David 1 911 Sypkens, Susan 1 912 Tallott, Jared 1 913 Taylor, Judy 1 914 Taylor, Patricia 1 915 Taylor, Sarah 1

David R.A. Foletta BCME LLB GDLP JP Further Final Letter to Premier Daniel Andrews 90

David Foletta’s Reconciliation Count of Submissions Received Item Submission Maker Personal Organisation 916 Tent, Adriaan and Geertruida 1 917 Tetteroo, John 1 918 Thomas, Bob 1 919 Thompson, Brian 1 920 Thompson, Beverley 1 921 Thorpe, Lea 1 922 Thurbon, Patrick and Yvonne 1 923 Tighe, Margaret 1 924 Ting, Dora 1 925 Tinker, Ross 1 926 Tinsley, Michael P. 1 927 Tiong, Poh Huong 1 928 Tobias, Heather 1 929 Tobin, Judith A. 1 930 Tognetti, K. 1 931 Toohill, Graham 1 932 Toulantas, Jill 1 933 Traill, Joan 1 934 Trautman, Jodie 1 935 Trousdell, Bruce 1 936 Truter, Janine 1 937 Tucker, Cathi 1 938 Tung, Peter 1 939 Turner, Angela 1 940 Turner, Joseph 1 941 Turner, Ken 1 942 Turner, William and Irene 1 943 Uphill, Ann 1 944 Usher, Keith 1 945 van Brummelen, Graeme 1 946 van der Horst, Joel David 1 947 van der Linden, Maureen 1 948 van der Straaten, Anne 1 949 Veldman, Hetty 1 950 Valenta, Tom 1 951 Verkerk, Michelle 1 952 Vertigan, Katrina 1 953 Very Special Kids 1 954 Vevers, Sherryn 1 955 Victorian Auditor-General’s Office 1 956 Victorian Clinical Leadership Group on 1 957 Care of Older People in Hospital 1

David R.A. Foletta BCME LLB GDLP JP Further Final Letter to Premier Daniel Andrews 91

David Foletta’s Reconciliation Count of Submissions Received Item Submission Maker Personal Organisation 958 Victorian Government 1 959 Victorian Healthcare Association 1 960 Victorian Secular Lobby Inc. 1 961 Villa Maria Catholic Homes 1 962 Voluntary Euthanasia Party (NSW) 1 963 Voluntary Euthanasia Party (VIC) 1 964 Voorendt, Nicolaas 1 965 Waddington, Margaret and Michael 1 966 Walker, Anne 1 967 Walker, Geoffrey 1 968 Walker, Linda 1 969 Wall, Geoff 1 970 Wall, Joyce 1 971 Walsh, Mary 1 972 Walsh, Sandy 1 973 Wannan, Lynne 1 974 Ward, Belinda 1 975 Ward, Maurice 1 976 Waterman, Mary 1 977 Waterman, Robert 1 978 Watkins, Jo 1 979 Watts, Elaine 1 980 Webberley, Helen 1 981 Weinberg, Sherri 1 982 Welsh, Jim 1 Western Australia Department of Health — WA Cancer and 983 Palliative Care Network 1 984 Western Health 1 985 Westwood, Barbara 1 986 Wheelhouse, Kevin 1 987 Whelan, Tony 1 988 White, Janet 1 989 White, Joan Ann 1 990 White, Lynette 1 991 White, Michelle 1 992 Whitehead, Peter 1 993 Wicks, Lyn 1 994 Wielechowska, Krystyna 1 995 Wignell, Edel 1 996 Wilberforce Foundation 1 997 Wilce, Robert 1 998 Willcocks, Peter 1

David R.A. Foletta BCME LLB GDLP JP Further Final Letter to Premier Daniel Andrews 92

David Foletta’s Reconciliation Count of Submissions Received Item Submission Maker Personal Organisation 999 Williams, Carolyn 1 1000 Williams, Deborah 1 1001 Williams, Geoffrey 1 1002 Williams, Jennifer 1 1003 Williams, Michael 1 1004 Williamson, Kathie 1 1005 Willox, Dianne 1 1006 Wilson, Catriona 1 1007 Wilson, Peter 1 1008 Wilson, Darryl Raymond 1 1009 Wilson, Margaret 1 1010 Wilson, Trent 1 1011 Wilson, John D. 1 1012 Wingrove, Lorna 1 1013 Winship, Brian 1 1014 Wittick, Alan and Andrea 2 1015 Wong, Yvonne 1 1016 Wood, Kamini 1 1017 Wood, Nancy 1 1018 Woodger, Anne 1 1019 Woolf, Kath 1 1020 Woulfe, John 1 1021 Wynter, John 1 1022 Young, John 1 1023 Young, Terry and Cheryl 2 1024 Young, Nancy 1 1025 Zeimer, Mira 1 My count 945 90

report states 925 112

Difference -20 22

Required total 1037 My total 1035 difference 2

David R.A. Foletta BCME LLB GDLP JP Further Final Letter to Premier Daniel Andrews 93

Schedule 2: Omitted submitters?

Signatories which appear to be counted with Dr Eamonn Mathieson's "one" submission 1 Professor John Edward Murtagh AM MD Also made separate submission 2 Professor Kuruvilla George Also made separate submission 3 Dr Natasha Michael 4 Dr Adrian Dabscheck 5 Dr Alice Lac 6 Dr John Yeatman MB BS FRACP 7 Dr David Anderson 8 Mr John Baré 9 Dr Stephen Baré 10 Dr Luke Bonavia 11 Dr Michelle Brown 12 Dr Cornelis Buma 13 Dr Andrew Burke, 14 Dr Malcolm Capon 15 DR Maria Cendana-Paiva 16 Dr S. Esther Chan 17 Dr Lishuang Chen 18 Dr Michael Christie 19 Dr Russell Clark 20 Dr Robert C Claxton, 21 Dr Peter Coleman 22 General Practitioner 23 Dr Derek Davey 24 Dr Ian Denness 25 Dr Ann-Marie Diggins 26 Dr Ashlea Doery 27 Dr Jacki Doughton 28 Dr Lachlan Dunjey 29 Dr Brian Dunne 30 Dr Maree Farley 31 Dr Edward Foley 32 Dr Chris French 33 Dr Margaret Graham 34 Dr Nathan Grills 35 Dr Maria Haase 36 Dr Natasha Hamilton 37 Dr Dominica Ho 38 Dr Mark Hobart 39 Dr Zelle Hodge 40 Dr Simon Holland

David R.A. Foletta BCME LLB GDLP JP Further Final Letter to Premier Daniel Andrews 94

Signatories which appear to be counted with Dr Eamonn Mathieson's "one" submission 41 Dr Louise Holliday 42 General Practitioner 43 Dr Thai Hong 44 Dr Michael Huang 45 Dr Brett Hurley 46 Dr Nicole Hutchens 47 Dr Gabrielle James 48 Dr Ian D Jones 49 Dr Peter Keith 50 Dr Terrence Kent 51 Dr Fah Bee Kok 52 Dr Elena Kornaczewski 53 Dr Graham Lawn 54 Dr. Christopher Lee 55 Dr Aet Lees, 56 Dr Angela Livingstone 57 Dr Thomas McEniery 58 Dr Judith McEniery 59 Dr Peta McLean 60 Dr Luke McLindon, 61 Dr Lisa K. McLindon-Smith 62 Dr Jenny Madden 63 Dr Barbara Martin 64 Dr Wayne Martin 65 Dr Eamonn Mathieson 66 Dr Olivia Meese 67 Dr Brendan Miller 68 Dr Lucia Murnane 69 Dr Judith Nall-Bird 70 Dr Trish Newell 71 Dr Nancy Nicholas Fr James O’Donoghue Chaplain Royal Brisbane and Women’s 72 Hospital 73 Dr Jason Ong 74 Dr Valerie Peers 75 Dr Mathew Piercy 76 Dr Michael Plunkett 77 Dr Rebecca A. Preece, D.O., 78 Dr Harry Preston 79 Dr James Quinn 80 Dr Douglas Randell, 81 Dr Albert Stuart Reece 82 Dr Elizabeth Mary Reed

David R.A. Foletta BCME LLB GDLP JP Further Final Letter to Premier Daniel Andrews 95

Signatories which appear to be counted with Dr Eamonn Mathieson's "one" submission 83 Dr Jill Rosenblatt 84 Dr Lesleigh Sands 85 Dr Elvis I Šeman 86 Dr Michael Shanahan 87 Dr Thalia Shuttleworth 88 Dr David Simpson 89 Dr Mary Stavropoulou 90 Dr Merlina Sulistio 91 Dr Mano Thevathasan 92 Dr Jane Thompson 93 Dr Graham Toohill 94 Dr Ha Tran 95 Dr Alison Walsh 96 Dr Mary Walsh 97 Dr William Warr 98 Dr Grace Warren 99 Dr James Wei 100 Dr Bernadette Wilks 101 Dr Nick Woolfield 102 Dr Bernadette Zhi Ying Wong 103 Dr David Westmore 104 Dr Rosemary Wong 105 Dr Nick Woolfield 106 Dr Lynette Yap

David R.A. Foletta BCME LLB GDLP JP Further Final Letter to Premier Daniel Andrews 96

Schedule 3 Personal Submissions and other documents reviewed 1. In the preparation of this letter, I was able to locate, access read the following personal submissions;

1 Abbey, Brian and Jennifer 364 Hannaford, Paul 2 Abery, Jillian 365 Harle, Rob 3 Abetz, Jeremy 366 Harman, Jennifer 4 Ackland, M. Leigh 367 Harper, Richard 5 Action for Life 368 Harris, David 6 Acton, John 369 Harris, John 7 Adam, William 370 Hart, Doris 8 Agostino, Susan 371 Hartin, Peter 9 Ahern, Eugene 372 Harvey, Beverly 10 Aiashi, Trudi and Aiman 373 Harvey, Fr. Geoff and Janet 11 Alcock, William 374 Harvey, Jim 12 Alfred Health 375 Harvey, Stephen 13 Allen, Wilma and Grahame 376 Harwood, Helen and Kevin 14 Alp, Veronica 377 Hasslacher, Barbara 15 Alvaro, Joe 378 Hastie, Liam 16 Alwyn, Meg 379 Hatton, Stephen 17 Anaf, Julia 380 Hawkes, Ada and Hubert 18 Anam Cara House Colac Inc. 381 Hawkins, Margaret 19 Anastasiou, Robyn 382 Hawthorn, Alison 20 Anderson, Keith 383 Hawthorn, Kelvin 21 Anderson, Margaret 384 Haxell, Phillip 22 Andrews, Brian 385 Hayes, Barbara Anglican Diocese of Melbourne, Social 23 Responsibilities Committee 386 Hayes, John 24 Anthony, Kathryn 387 Hayes, Mary Anne 25 Appels, Janis 388 Hayhoe, Brett 26 Apps, Robyn 389 Hayhoe, Paul 27 Apthorp, Joan 390 Haynes, Dennis and Pat 28 Arblaster, Stuart 391 Health Issues Centre 29 Archer, Catherine 392 Health Services Commissioner 30 Arena, Franca 393 Hearn, Joyce 31 Armstrong, Doris 394 Hempton, Courtney 32 Aspinall, Glenn 395 Henderson, Rosemarie Hengeveld, Steven, Murna 33 Attard, Rita 396 and Tania 34 Australasian College for Emergency Medicine 397 Henke, Hamish and Anita Australian and New Zealand Society for Geriatric 35 Medicine 398 Henney, Ronald Australian and New Zealand Society of Palliative 36 Medicine Inc. 399 Henry, Reg 37 Australian Catholic Bishops Conference 400 Henry, Douglas M. 38 Australian Catholic University 401 Herman, Rodney 39 Australian Centre for Health Law Research 402 Herraman, Elice

David R.A. Foletta BCME LLB GDLP JP Further Final Letter to Premier Daniel Andrews 97

40 Australian Centre for Health Research Limited 403 Hess, Robert and Shirley 41 Australian Christian Lobby 404 Hickey, Paul and Helen 42 Australian Christians 405 Hickling, Mathew 43 Australian College of Nursing 406 Highfield, Lynne 44 Australian Family Association 407 Higson, Shayne 45 Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency 408 Hill, Anna 46 Australian Medical Association (Victoria) Limited 409 Hill, Barry 47 Australian Nursing & Midwifery 410 Hill, Mary 48 Federation (Victorian Branch) 411 Hill, William 49 Australian Psychological Society 412 Hitchens, John 50 Australian Sex Party 413 Hocking, Mary 51 Avant Mutual Group Limited 414 Hodgson, Robert 52 Avery, Jennifer 415 Hogan, Kevin 53 Bach, Neil 416 Hogan, Bruce and Heather 54 Bagguley, Charles and Marianne 417 Hokin, Allen 55 Baker, Donald 418 Holliday, Valica 56 Baker, Louise 419 Honeyman, Julie 57 Baker, Richard 420 Hont, John 58 Ballarat Heath Service 421 Hookey, Geoffrey 59 Bamber, Josie 422 HOPE 60 Barnes, Kay 423 Hosking, William 61 Barnes, Louise 424 Houghton, Santhosha Vani 62 Barnier, Robert 425 Howard, Peter 63 Barratt, Lynne 426 Hoy, Vikki 64 Barrington, Jan 427 Hoysted, Alan 65 Barwon Health 428 Hubbard, David 66 Barnier, Robert 429 Hubbard, Graham 67 Basiri, Amir 430 Hubbard, Paul 68 Bate, Wendy 431 Hughes, Gilian 69 Battova, Brigitte 432 Hughes, Therese 70 Bayley, Donald 433 Hum, Steven Istvan Humanist Society of Victoria 71 Baynes-Williams, Rupert 434 Inc. 72 Beattie, Pru 435 Hunt, Gillian 73 Beck, Prue and Max 436 Hunt, Roger 74 Beehey, J. M. 437 Hurworth, Patricia 75 Beekmeyer, Stuart 438 Husman, Eduardina 76 Bennett, Jim 439 Hutcheson, Marion 77 Bennett, Lila 440 Iley, John 78 Benson, Simon Michael 441 Isaacs, Sandra 79 Berg, Sumner 442 Isocracy Network Inc. 80 Beslik, Lydia 443 Jackson, Dirk 81 Biasuzzo, Jane 444 Jago, Arnold 82 Bingham, David 445 James, Helen 83 Blackwell, Andrew 446 Janson, Vickie

David R.A. Foletta BCME LLB GDLP JP Further Final Letter to Premier Daniel Andrews 98

84 Blair, Nannette 447 Janssen, Fons and Bronwyn 85 Blanch, Max 448 Jeffries, Shirley 86 Bland, Ross 449 Jensen, Suzanne 87 Blismas, Nick and Natalie 450 Jessiman, Lyn 88 Boerlage, Coenraad 451 Jex, Mildred 89 Bonavia, Luke 452 Johnson, Christopher 90 Bond, Catherine 453 Johnson, Paul 91 Bonwick, Montague 454 Johnson, Philip J. 92 Borg, Paul 455 Johnson, Trish 93 Boryslawski, Lucien 456 Johnson, Vivienne 94 Boschen, Ruth 457 Johnston, Suzanne 95 Bourke, Mark 458 Johnstone, Ross 96 Bourne and Associates 459 Johnstone, Vicki 97 Bowles, Rebecca 460 Jones, Les and Bev 98 Boyd, Anne 461 Jones, Millicent 99 Boyd, Fiona 462 Jonquiere, Rob 100 Boyd, Joan 463 Joseph, Rita 101 Boyd, Pamela 464 Joy, Kyra Ly 102 Braby, Robert 465 Joyce, Harry 103 Bradley, Amanda 466 Kalotas, Thomas and Susanne 104 Bradshaw, Anthony V. 467 Kastner, Irmgard 105 Bramich, Fred 468 Kavanagh, Mary 106 Brandenburg, John 469 Keane, Patricia 107 Branford, Glenn 470 Keeda, Peter 108 Brayshaw, Morna Ann 471 Keenan, Nigel 109 Breed, Maria 472 Keldoulis, Lilian 110 Brentnall, Edward 473 Kelly, Bill and Hazel 111 Britten-Jones, Robert 474 Kelly, David St Leger 112 Broad, Isabel 475 Kelly, Des 113 Brolly, Anne 476 Kelly, John 114 Bromson, Kerry 477 Kelly, Norma 115 Brown, Gabrielle 478 Kemp, Catherine 116 Brown, Jill and John 479 Kendall, Jan 117 Brown, Rhonda 480 Kenmar, Doreen 118 Browne, Michele 481 Kennedy, Michael 119 Bruce, John R. 482 Kennedy, Rosemary 120 Buchanan, John 483 Kernebone, Richard and Nola 121 Buckley, Andrea 484 Kerr, Andrew 122 Buegge-Borshoff, Florence 485 Kerr, Bruce 123 Bullock, Joe 486 Kesbah, Glenn 124 Buman, Alison 487 King, Carolyn 125 Burger, Bruce and Sue 488 King, Natalie 126 Burkinshaw, Sam 489 Kissane, David 127 Burns, Thomas 490 Klabbers, Johannes

David R.A. Foletta BCME LLB GDLP JP Further Final Letter to Premier Daniel Andrews 99

Knights of the Southern Cross 128 Burnstein, Kate 491 Victoria 129 Burrows, Rodney 492 Kok, Jereth 130 Burton, Liz 493 Koniuszko, Lidia 131 Butler, Kevin 494 Kos, Stefan 132 Byrne, Greg 495 Kotzman, Anne 133 Byrne, Roger 496 Krietsch, Sylvia 134 Byrne, Yvonne 497 Krins, Tony 135 Cabrini Health 498 Kuhse, Helga 136 Cameron, Denise 499 Kumaschow, Lydia La Trobe University, Palliative 137 Campbell, Debora 500 Care Unit 138 Campbell, Pauline 501 Lacey, Jan 139 Cancer Council Victoria 502 Lackner, Susan 140 Capper, Sandra 503 Ladd, Atala and Elena 141 Carers Victoria 504 Lademan, Eileen 142 Carolan, Catherine Mary 505 Laidlaw, Kerri 143 Caroline Chisholm Centre for Health 506 Landvogt, Julie 144 Ethics Inc. 507 Lane, Magdalena 145 Carroll, John 508 Lanham, Anne and Ray 146 Carter, Brad 509 Larcombe, Travis 147 Carter, David 510 Large, Anne and Neville 148 Carter, Irene 511 Lastman, Anne 149 Cartwright, Colleen 512 Lau, Michael 150 Casanova, John 513 Law Institute of Victoria 151 Catalano, John 514 Leach, Cr Helen 152 Catholic Archdiocese of Melbourne 515 Leake, Peter 153 Catholic Health Australia 516 Lechner, Henry 154 Catholic Social Services Victoria 517 Lee, Carolyn Catholic Women’s League of Victoria & Wagga 155 Wagga Inc. 518 Lee, Edna 156 Cava, Roberta 519 Lee, Geraldine 157 Center, Yola 520 Leeds, Gabrielle 158 Central Hume Primary Care Partnership 521 Leitch, Douglas 159 Centre for Palliative Care 522 Lennon, Matthew 160 Charles, Owen 523 Lenzo, Joe 161 Charnell, Wendy 524 Leschke, John 162 Cheesman, Bernadette 525 Leung, Patricia 163 Chevor, Eleanor 526 Lewandowski, Ed 164 Christian Medical & Dental Fellowship of Australia 527 Lewis, Dianne 165 Christians for Labor 528 Lewis, Kenneth Christians Supporting Choice for Voluntary 166 Euthanasia 529 Liberty Victoria 167 Cipollone, Ettore 530 Limb, Jennifer Lindenmayer, Graeme and 168 Citroen, Jennifer 531 Greta

David R.A. Foletta BCME LLB GDLP JP Further Final Letter to Premier Daniel Andrews 100

169 Civil Liberties Australia Inc. 532 Linnane, Damien 170 Clarence, Jodie 533 Lissenden, Jean Valerie 171 Clark, Frank 534 Little, Carla Little Sisters of the Poor Aged 172 Clarke, Roger 535 Care Ltd 173 Cleary, William 536 Littlemore, Chris 174 Clegg, Pauline 537 Lives Worth Living 175 Cleigh, W. Carol 538 Lloyd, Alan Murray 176 Cleland, Jacquelin Lilian 539 Lock, Thomas 177 Clements, Ken 540 Long, Dorothy 178 Cobain, L. 541 Long, Michael 179 Cock, Peter H. 542 Loughlan, Patricia 180 Cocks, Paul 543 Lubitz, Karin 181 Cohealth 544 Luker, Margaret 182 Cohen-Almagor, Raphael 545 Lushch, Denis 183 Coleman, Alan 546 Lynam, Tamplin 184 Coleman, Peter 547 Lynch, Pauline 185 Colemon, Marilyn 548 Lynch, Troy 186 Coles-Rutishauser, Ingrid 549 Lyttle, Janet 187 Collier, Mary 550 Maack, Evelyn 188 Collins, Joan 551 MacDougall, Susan 189 Commissioner for Senior Victorians 552 Mackenzie, Rod 190 Compton, Helen 553 MacLean, Joan 191 Compton, Roger 554 MacMillan, Gordon 192 Conlan, Elizabeth 555 Magree, Brian and Judith 193 Connell, John and Helen 556 Magree, Terence 194 Constantine, Joan 557 Maher, Margaret 195 Cook, Jonathan 558 Mahony, John 196 Coombs, Wayne 559 Majdali, Kameel 197 Cooney, John 560 Malicki, Stan 198 Cooper, Lee 561 Mallinson, Gaye 199 Copeland, Paul 562 Mangalson, Stan 200 Cora, Dorothy 563 Manickam, Julia 201 Corby, Dora and Max 564 Manoy, Robyn 202 Cornelius, Otto 565 Manser, Carol 203 Coroners Court of Victoria 566 Marantelli, Laurie 204 Corrigall, Deborah 567 Marcius, Debbie 205 Corris, Peter 568 Marks, Sheila 206 Cosstick, Mark 569 Marshall, Jim 207 Costello, Leo and Sally 570 Martin, Pamela 208 Cotching, Daniel 571 Martyres, Raymond 209 Coughlan, Brenda 572 Mathai, Anna Mathieson, Eamonn (and 210 Council of the Ageing 573 signatories) 211 Cowden, Janet 574 Matthews, Iola

David R.A. Foletta BCME LLB GDLP JP Further Final Letter to Premier Daniel Andrews 101

212 Cowen, Rabbi Shimon 575 Matthews, Kerryanne 213 Coyne, Elizabeth 576 Matthews, Ron 214 Cram, Barbara 577 Mavric, Heather 215 Crawford, John 578 May, Sandra 216 Cronk, Carol 579 Mayhead, Gerald 217 Cronk, Oscar 580 Mazzei, Emilia 218 Crook, Sue 581 McCarthy, Ernest 219 Cross, Max 582 McCarthy, Ronda 220 Cross, Richard 583 McCathie, Robert 221 Crump, Sandra 584 McClatchie, Gordon 222 Cummings, David and Ruth 585 McCleave, P. J. 223 Cunningham, John 586 McConaghy, Brian 224 Cunningham, Lesley 587 McCormack, John Francis 225 Curtis, Linda 588 McCormack, Paul 226 Cutler, David 589 McCrae, Carol 227 Dakin, Hugh 590 McCullagh, Peter 228 Daley, Judith 591 McDonald, Janette 229 Daley, Lois 592 McDonald, Lilian 230 Daniel, Lawrie 593 McDonald, Peter 231 Daniels, Norma 594 McDonald, Ronald 232 D’Arcy, George and Rita 595 McFarlane, Amy 233 Davidson, Rev Warwick 596 McGarity, Barbara 234 Davies, Bernadette 597 McGovan, Bess 235 Davis, Charles 598 McHardy, Jeanette 236 Dawes, Shirley 599 McInerney, Mary B. 237 Dawson, June 600 McIntosh, Stephen 238 De Haas, Judy 601 McIntyre, Beverley 239 de Moulpied, Patricia 602 McKay, James 240 Denton, Andrew 603 McKay, Patrick 241 Dethlefs, Geoffrey 604 McLaren, Ann 242 Devries, Bert and Tina 605 McLaughlan, Mark 243 Di Lorenzo, Joanne 606 McLennan, Carol 244 Diggins, Ann-Marie 607 McLeod, Dianne 245 Dignitas 608 McMahon, Erin 246 Dillon, David 609 McNamara, Gary 247 Ditmarsch, Bill 610 McPhee, Jodie 248 Dobson, Paul 611 McSweeney, Loretta 249 Doctors for Voluntary Euthanasia Choice 612 Meaney, Patricia 250 Doctors Opposed to Euthanasia 613 Mears, Robert Medical Oncology Group of 251 Doherty, Kevin 614 Australia 252 Doig, Lindsay 615 Incorporated 253 Donegan, Teresa 616 Medicine with Morality 254 Donnelly, Greg 617 Meese, Lesa 255 Donnelly, Matt 618 Meharg, Bob

David R.A. Foletta BCME LLB GDLP JP Further Final Letter to Premier Daniel Andrews 102

Melbourne Catholic Lawyers 256 Donohoe, Paul 619 Association 257 Doumit, Monica 620 Melbourne City Mission 258 Dowsett, Gary 621 Melbourne Health 259 Drysdale, Graeme 622 Mercy Health 260 Duncalf, Barry 623 Metcalf, Flora 261 Dying For Choice 624 Meyer, Susan 262 Dying with Dignity ACT Inc. 625 Middleton, Christopher 263 Dying With Dignity New South Wales 626 Miles, Judith 264 Dying with Dignity (NSW) Central Coast Group 627 Millar, Graeme 265 Dying with Dignity (NSW) Port Macquarie 628 Millar, Maralyn 266 Dying with Dignity Tasmania 629 Miller, David 267 Dying with Dignity Victoria 630 Miller, James 268 Eastern Palliative Care Association Incorporated 631 Miller, Eliana Freydel 269 Ebert, Kathryn 632 Milley, Cheryl 270 Edgar, Sheila 633 Mills, Gareth 271 Elliott, Shan 634 Mills, Richard 272 Elmes, Rebecca 635 Minniti, Ashley 273 Endeavour Forum Inc. 636 Mitchell, Kahli 274 Eskdale, Terri 637 Mitchell, Patricia Ethics Committee of the Christian Medical and 275 Dental Fellowship of Australia 638 Mitchell, Lisa 276 Evans, Len 639 Mitro, Eva 277 Everett, Colin and Josephine 640 Moir, Marie 278 Eyres, Frances 641 Monagle, Marisa 279 FamilyVoice Australia 642 Money, Lawrence 280 Farrell, Matthew 643 Moodie, Rob 281 Featherston, Julian 644 Morris, Brian 282 Feeney, Helen 645 Morris, Jane 283 Ferlin, Fides 646 Morris-Leonzini, Sandra 284 Ferraro, Umberto 647 Morrissey, M. 285 Ferri, Robyne 648 Morison, Peter 286 Ferwerda, Peter 649 Morrison, Marty 287 Fiddelaers, Carolyn 650 Morrissey, John J. 288 Filipovski, Laura 651 Morrow, Ann 289 Fillion, Elaine 652 Mortier, Tom 290 Finn, Christine 653 Moseley, Les 291 Finter, Derek 654 Moynihan, Tracey 292 Fisher, William Hayes 655 Mummery, Barbara 293 Fiske, Frank and Margaret 656 Munro, Jane 294 Fitchman, Barbara 657 Murphy, Jenny 295 Fitzgerald, Roger 658 Murray, Joel 296 Fitzpatrick, Janet 659 Murray, Peter 297 Fletcher, Joy Gwendoline 660 Murtagh, John 298 Flood, Gerard 661 Musumeci, Joan

David R.A. Foletta BCME LLB GDLP JP Further Final Letter to Premier Daniel Andrews 103

299 Fogarty, F. R. 662 Myers, John Name withheld (15 name 300 Fogarty, Jess 663 withheld 301 Ford, Norman 664 submissions) 302 Foreman, Maria 665 Namow, Tina National Seniors Victorian 303 Fornito, Tommy 666 Policy Advisory Group 304 Forster, David 667 Navaratne, Rohan 305 Foster, Ralph Reginald 668 Naylor, Patricia 306 Franklin, Bertha 669 Nerlich, Graham 307 Franklin, Jason 670 Networking Health Victoria 308 Franze, Linda 671 Newell, Patricia 309 Fraser, Judith 672 Newton, Marie 310 Fraser, Lenley 673 Nimon, Joy 311 Fuller, Helen 674 Nitschke, Philip 312 Fuller, Virginia 675 Niven, A. 313 Furman, Barbara 676 Nolan, James 314 Gaal, Laura 677 Norwood, Neville 315 Gano, Elaine 678 O’Connor, Bill 316 Gardner, Valerie 679 O’Connor, Frank 317 Garnham, Ken 680 O’Connor, Margaret 318 Gartrell, Glenda 681 Oderberg, David S. 319 Garven, Rhonda 682 O’Donnell, Bill and Kay 320 Gawler, David 683 O’Donnell, Tony 321 Gawler, Isobel 684 O’Dwyer, Anne 322 Gaze, Doug 685 Office of the Public Advocate 323 Gear, Rev Spencer 686 O’Hanlon, Paul 324 George, Kuruvilla 687 O’Hea, Mary 325 Geschke, Norman 688 Olive, Dorothy 326 Geschke, Robert 689 Oliver, Norma 327 Gilbody, Julie 690 Ollerenshaw, David 328 Gill, Elizabeth 691 O’Loughlin, Carolyn 329 Gill, John 692 Opie, Margaret 330 Gill, Samuel 693 Orchard, Jeremy 331 Gilmour, Camille 694 O’Reilly, John 332 Gilmour, Mark 695 O’Shea, Barry 333 Gleeson, Marie 696 Otlowski, Margaret 334 Gleeson, Suzanne 697 Paas, Johannus 335 Glover, Andrea 698 Palliative Care Australia 336 Godbold Family 699 Palliative Care Victoria 337 Godbold, Raymond 700 Palma, Michael and Maria 338 Godbold, Rory 701 Palmer, Margot 339 Godden, Brett and Dianne 702 Parker, G. and S. 340 Goldberg, Elizabeth 703 Parker, Yvonne

David R.A. Foletta BCME LLB GDLP JP Further Final Letter to Premier Daniel Andrews 104

Parliamentary Friends of 341 Gosbell, Janine 704 Palliative Care 342 Graham, Margaret 705 Parrott, Barbara 343 Grant, Lidiya 706 Pascal, M. 344 Grant, Richard and Beverly 707 Paschke, Win and Deidre 345 Grattan Institute 708 Pask, Sharon 346 Gray, Christine 709 Patterson, Joyce 347 Greaves, Earle and Grace 710 Paul, Tony 348 Green, D. 711 Payne, Rachel 349 Green, Sandy 712 Peake, David 350 Greenhaff, R. W. A 713 Pearce, Susanne 351 Greenough, F. 714 Pearse, Tony and Elizabeth 352 Greenwood, Beverley 715 Pearson, Beverley 353 Griffith, Andrea 716 Pelczynska, Barbara 354 Grigg, Desmond 717 Pelczynski, Stanislaw 355 Grigg, Lindsay 718 Pelletier, Robert 356 Grimstad, Julie 719 Perez, Beatriz 357 Grocott, Stephen and Dianne 720 Perrin, David 358 Gronn, Kathryn 721 Perron, Marshall 359 Gunter, Robert 722 Pestell, Lorraine 360 Hadfield, Alana 723 Peters, Robert 361 Hallsworth, Sally 724 Pfanner, Ruth 362 Hamann, Christine 725 Phefley, Anne 363 Hamilton, Tim 726 Phillips, Clare 727 Phipps, Graeme and Magda 728 Pilcher, Fred 729 Pledge, Stephen 730 Plunkett Centre for Ethics 731 Pollnitz, Robert 732 Pollock, Cassandra 733 Pollock, Sue 734 Ponsford, Caroline 735 Pope, Thelma 736 Porter, Mary 2. When I had read Mary Porter’s submission, I had no further time to read more submissions, and, my concerns were materialized when I read her submission/ report as set out in this letter. 3. In the preparation of this letter, I was able to locate, access read the transcripts of evidence given in person to the Committee at the public hearings on various dates and various locations. I have included some of these in this letter.

If time was held by me in sufficient quantities, and I am preparing my letters in my spare time, I would love to read all of the submissions, all journal articles which I could not yet procure.

David R.A. Foletta BCME LLB GDLP JP Further Final Letter to Premier Daniel Andrews 105

Submission 899

Inquiry into End of Life Choices 2015

Thank you for the opportunity to contribute to this important Inquiry into the issue of end- of-life care.

We, the undersigned, are an ad hoc group of more than 100 medical doctors from a range of specialties. We come from various backgrounds and we do not represent any particular organization.

Whilst recognising the danger of prescriptive legislation for the many challenging, complex and difficult situations faced by healthcare professionals on a daily basis, we welcome legislation that promotes, facilitates and supports excellence in end-of-life care. We also welcome government involvement to better educate and inform the general public about end-of-life issues and the availability and expectations of services which foster high quality and ethical care for the sick and the dying.

In this way, any end-of-life care legislation or policy should affirm the intrinsic worth and inherent dignity of every human being, regardless of age, disability or illness and should seek to promote and support:

• The provision of and access to high quality palliative and supportive care, to enable all people to live positively and comfortably with illness, disability and dying.

• The optimal relief of pain and other distressing symptoms for all patients with life threatening and chronic illness at all stages of their life, provided the doctor's primary aim is to relieve suffering and not to hasten death.

• Genuine solidarity with and compassion for the sick, the disabled, the vulnerable, the dying, and their families and carers.

• The process of planning for future care needs, involving ongoing dialogue between patients, their chosen representatives and skilled health care practitioners.

However, there should be NO legalisation of voluntary euthanasia or any form of assisted suicide or ‘medical assisted dying’ for reasons that include:

• It puts at risk the care and wellbeing of the most vulnerable and dependent people in our society.

• It endangers respect and value for human life, especially for those who are sick, disabled, or near the end of life.

• It undermines trust between patients and health-care professionals.

• It corrupts the fundamental principles and ethical foundations of the medical profession.

• It may alter the perception of the role of the doctor from someone who heals and cares to someone who takes life.

Page 1 of 12 Submission 899

We believe that any legislation for ‘medical assisted dying’ carries too great a risk for our society, especially for the weak and vulnerable, and risks undermining the integrity and ethics of healthcare and its practitioners.

Our opposition to any form of legalised ‘medical assisted dying’ is supported by almost every national medical association around the world, who consider it to be unethical and incompatible with the nature and integrity of medical practice.

To support our position we have included excerpts from recent documents by leading medical associations around the world and in Australia. They reflect the 2400 year old Hippocratic tradition and wisdom which states: “I will not give a lethal drug to anyone even if I am asked, nor will I advise such a plan”1. Such wisdom has set the standard for the ethical care of the sick and the dying for millennia.

The World Medical Association: (Representing 111 National Medical Associations)

‘Statement on Physician Assisted Suicide’ 2

“Physician-assisted suicide, like euthanasia, is unethical and must be condemned by the medical profession. Where the assistance of the physician is intentionally and deliberately directed at enabling an individual to end his or her own life, the physician acts unethically.” “World Medical Association Resolution on Euthanasia”3

"The World Medical Association reaffirms its strong belief that euthanasia is in conflict with basic ethical principles of medical practice, and The World Medical Association strongly encourages all National Medical Associations and physicians to refrain from participating in euthanasia, even if national law allows it or decriminalizes it under certain conditions."

The Australian Medical Association:

‘Position Statement on the Role of the Medical Practitioner in End of Life Care’, 20074 and AMA Victoria’s Issues Paper- regarding the proposed Medical Treatment (Physician Assisted Dying) Bill 2008’, dated July 2008.5

“medical practitioners should not be involved in interventions that have as their primary intention the ending of a person's life.”

1 https://www.nlm.nih.gov/hmd/greek/greek_oath.html 2 May 2005, Reaffirmed 194th WMA Council Session, Bali, Indonesia, April 2014 http://www.wma.net/en/30publications/10policies/e13b/ 3 53rd WMA General Assembly, Washington, DC, USA, October 2002 4 AMA: Position Statement on the Role of the Medical Practitioner in End of Life Care’ 2007 http://www.ama.com.au/web.nsf/doc/WEEN-76S8CY 5 AMA Victoria Issues Paper- Medical Treatment (Physician Assisted Dying) Bill 2008’ http://www.amavic.com.au/index.php?action=view&view=30093&pid=

Page 2 of 12 Submission 899

The Australian and New Zealand Society of Palliative Medicine

Position Statement: The Practice of Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide (2013)6

“(a) The discipline of Palliative Medicine does not include the practice of euthanasia or assisted suicide;

(b) ANZSPM endorses the World Medical Association Resolution on Euthanasia, adopted by the 53rd WMA General Assembly, Washington, DC, USA, October 2002.

The New Zealand Medical Association

‘Euthanasia and Doctor-Assisted Suicide’, July 20057

“The NZMA is opposed to both the concept and practice of euthanasia and doctor assisted suicide. Euthanasia, that is the act of deliberately ending the life of a patient, even at the patient's request or at the request of close relatives, is unethical. Doctor- assisted suicide, like euthanasia, is unethical.”

“The NZMA position is not dependent on euthanasia and doctor-assisted suicide remaining unlawful. Even if they were to become legal, or decriminalised, the NZMA would continue to regard them as unethical.”

The British Medical Association

‘Assisted dying – a summary of the BMA's position’, June 20068

“The current policy is that the BMA: • believes that the ongoing improvement in palliative care allows patients to die with dignity; • insists that physician assisted suicide should not be made legal in the UK; • insists that voluntary euthanasia should not be made legal in the UK;”

“The BMA opposes all forms of assisted dying…even when terminally ill patients request that or when an individuals’ suffering cannot be fully alleviated”.

“The primary goal of medicine is still seen as promoting welfare, protecting the vulnerable and giving all patients as good a quality of life as is possible… The BMA’s policy is that assisting patients to die prematurely is not part of the moral ethos or the primary goal of medicine and, if allowed, could impact detrimentally on how doctors relate to their own role and to their patients.”

“Although the BMA respects the concept of individual autonomy, it argues that there are limits to what patients can choose if their choice will inevitably impact on other people.”

6 http://www.anzspm.org.au/c/anzspm?a=da&did=1005077 7 https://www.nzma.org.nz/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/16996/Euthanasia-2005.pdf 8 http://bma.org.uk/practical-support-at-work/ethics/bma-policy-assisted-dying

Page 3 of 12 Submission 899

“If assisted dying were an option, there would be pressure for all seriously ill people to consider it even if they would not otherwise entertain such an idea. Health professionals explaining options for the management of terminal illness would have to include assisted dying. Patients might feel obliged to choose it for the wrong reasons, such as if they were worried about being a burden or concerned about the financial implications of a long terminal illness.”

“The concept of assisted dying risks undermining patients’ ability to trust their doctors and the health care system. In particular, it could generate immense anxiety for vulnerable, elderly, disabled or very ill patients. It could also weaken society’s prohibition on intentional killing and undermine safeguards against non-voluntary euthanasia of people who are both seriously ill and mentally impaired. For such reasons, the BMA opposes it.”

The American Medical Association

AMA Policy E-2.21 Euthanasia9

“Euthanasia is fundamentally incompatible with the physician’s role as healer, would be difficult or impossible to control, and would pose serious societal risks”.

“Instead of engaging in euthanasia, physicians must aggressively respond to the needs of patients at the end of life. Patients should not be abandoned once it is determined that cure is impossible.”

If you have any questions or queries regarding this submission please contact:

Dr Eamonn Mathieson Email: Mobile:

We thank you for considering our submission.

9 https://www.ama-assn.org/ssl3/ecomm/PolicyFinderForm.pl?site=www.ama- assn.org&uri=%2fresources%2fhtml%2fPolicyFinder%2fpolicyfiles%2fHnE%2fE-2.21.HTM

Page 4 of 12 Submission 899

Professor John Edward Murtagh AM MD Epworth Eastern Medical Centre Professor in General Practice, School of Box Hill Primary Health Care, Monash University Professorial Fellow, Faculty of Medicine, Dr David Anderson University of Melbourne MBBS FRACGP Adjunct Clinical Professor, School of General Practitioner Graduate Medicine, University of Notre Nunawading Dame, Western Australia Mr John Baré MBBS FRACS Professor Kuruvilla George Orthopaedic Surgeon MBBS, MPhil, DPM, FRANZCP, Windsor FRCPsych Director of Medical Services, Peter James Dr Stephen Baré Centre and Wantirna Health MBBS Clinical Director of Aged Persons Mental Patholgy Registrar Health, Eastern Health Western general Conjoint Clinical Professor, Footscray Deakin University Adjunct Clinical Associate Professor, Dr Luke Bonavia Monash Univeristy MBBS Peter James Centre, Mahoneys Road, Physician in training Forest Hill Bayside-Peninsula Consortium

Professor T. John Martin FRS Dr Michelle Brown Emeritus Professor of Medicine MBBS FRACGP University of Melbourne General Practtioner John Holt Fellow St Vincent's Institute of Medical Research Dr Cornelis Buma MBBS, DRCOG Obstetrician and Gynaecologist Dr Natasha Michael Kingsway Medical Centre MBBS FRACP Madeley Palliative Care Specialist Director Of Palliative Care Services Dr Andrew Burke, Cabrini Hospital MBBS FRACP Malvern Respiratory and Infectious Diseases Physician Dr Adrian Dabscheck The Prince Charles Hospital MB BS Dip Pall Med Brisbane Palliative Care Consultant; Royal Children's Hospital, Dr Malcolm Capon Western Health and Peter MacCallum MBBS FRACO Cancer Institute. Ophthalmologist Strathfield Dr Alice Lac MBBS (Hons), FRACP DR Maria Cendana-Paiva Consultant Physician in Aged Care, BSc MBBS FRACGP MPH Latrobe Regional Hospital (Health Service Mgt) Adjunct Senior Lecturer, General Practitioner Monash University Monash Clinic Clayton

Dr John Yeatman MB BS FRACP Palliative Care Physician 51 Milroy Street Brighton East Dr S. Esther Chan BMBS, FRACGP, DipRANZCOG A/Prof Francis Thien, MBBS FRACP General Practitioner, Respiratory Medicine & Allergy, Point Cook VIC 3030

Page 5 of 12 Submission 899

Dr Lishuang Chen Dr Ashlea Doery MBBS FRACGP Dip Derm. MMED MBBS General Practitioner Resident Medical Officer Sydney Monash Health, Victoria

Dr Al Donoghue Richard J. Chittleborough MBChB MBA FRCOG FRANZCOG MBBS FRACGP Lucanus Corporation Retired General Practitioner Palmerston North Palliative and Aged Care NEW ZEALAND Reynella Dr Jacki Doughton Dr Michael Christie MBBS FRACP MBBS FRACGP Radiation Oncologist General Practitioner West Brunswick Dr Lachlan Dunjey MBBS FRACGP Dr Russell Clark General Practitioner AM, MBBS FRACP DTM&H Dianella St Vincent's Hospital Sydney Dr Brian Dunne MBBS FRACGP Dr Robert C Claxton, General Practitioner MBBS, FRACS, FRCS, FRCSEd. Ringwood General Surgeon Ashfield Dr Maree Farley MBBS (Sydney), DCH (London), D(Obst.) Dr Peter Coleman RCOG (London) MBBS FRACGP General Practitioner (retired) General Practitioner Chatswood and Palliative Care physician Mater Hospital Dr Edward Foley Newcastle MB B.Ch BAO FACRRM Grad Dip Occ. and Env. Med Dr John Curran General Practitioner MBBS FRACGP Brisbane General Practitioner Tarragindi Dr Chris French Dr Derek Davey MBBS, FRACP MBBS, D Obst. RCOG, Grad Dip Occ H, Neurologist Grad Dip Musc Med, FAFMM. Royal Melbourne Hospital General Practitioner Geelong Dr Margaret Graham MBBS FRACGP FRANZCP Consultant Psychiatrist Dr Ian Denness Dandenong MBBS DCH DSCCA FRACGP General Practitioner

Dr Nathan Grills MBBS FAFPHM Dr Ann-Marie Diggins Public Health Physician MBBS FRACGP Nossal Institute for Global Health General Practitioner Melbourne School of Population and Darebin Community Health Global Health East Reservoir University of Melbourne

Page 6 of 12 Submission 899

Dr Gabrielle James Dr Maria Haase MBBS BSc MSc MBBS MBBS Obstetric Registrar, General Practitioner Gold Coast University Hospital Cleveland Qld Dr Ian D Jones Dr Natasha Hamilton MBBS, FACRRM MBBS, BMedSci Botanical Gardens Health Paediatric Advanced Trainee Castlemaine Royal Darwin Hospital Dr Peter Keith Dr Dominica Ho MBBS FRACGP MBBS FRACGP M Bioeth General Practitioner (Retired) General Practitioner Brisbane Dr Terrence Kent MBBS FRACGP Dr Mark Hobart General Practitioner MBBS FRACGP Brisbane General Practitioner Sunshine Dr Fah Bee Kok MBBS FRACGP Dr Zelle Hodge General Practitioner MBBS FRACGP Mooroolbark General Practitioner Dr Elena Kornaczewski Mitchelton MBBS, B.Med. Sci. Endocrinology Advanced Trainee Dr Simon Holland Skye MBBS FRACS Orthopaedic Surgeon Dr Graham Lawn Austin Hospital MBBS FRACGP General Practitioner Dr Louise Holliday Busselton MBBS(Hons) FRACGP, F.R.A.C.G.P General Practitioner Dr. Christopher Lee Willoughby Medical Practice, MBBS, DCH Willoughby GP Registrar Atherton Dr Thai Hong Dr Aet Lees, MBBS (Hon) B.Med Sci, FRACP MD, FRACP Gastrenterologist General Physician Maribyrnong Sydney

Dr Michael Huang Dr Angela Livingstone MBBS, FRACGP MBBS FRANZCP General Practitioner Psychiatrist Coburg St Vincent’s Hospital Melbourne

Dr Thomas McEniery MBBS FRACGP General Practitioner Dr Brett Hurley Booval Medical Centre MBBS Booval Senior Resident Medical Officer Sydney Dr Judith McEniery MBBS, FAChPM Dr Nicole Hutchens Palliative Care Staff Specialist MBBS Intern The Wesley Hospital Central Coast Local Health District Brisbane Dr Peta McLean

Page 7 of 12 Submission 899

MBBS St John of God Hospital Dr Nancy Nicholas Bendigo MBBS General Practitioner Dr Luke McLindon, Wantirna South MBBS, FRACGP, FRANZCOG Fr James O’Donoghue Obstetrician,Gynaecologist Chaplain Mater Hospital Royal Brisbane and Women’s Hospital Brisbane Brisbane

Dr Lisa K. McLindon-Smith Dr Jason Ong NEW LIFE MEDICAL MBBS MMed (Hon), FRACGP, Naprotechnology Medical Consultant GradDipDIV, Doncaster East PhD candidate - The University of Melbourne School of Population and Dr Jenny Madden Global Health. BPharm, MPS, MACP, MAACP Sexual Health Advanced Trainee (Royal Consultanat Pharmacist Australasian College of Physicians) Uranquinty

Dr Barbara Martin Dr Valerie Peers MB BS, FRCOG, FRANZCOG, FACHPM MBBS FRACGP Retired Obstetrician General Practitioner Palliative Care Specialist Nth Altona Northern Hospital

Dr Wayne Martin Dr Mathew Piercy MBBS FRACGP DRANZCOG MPH&TM MBBS, FANZCA, FJFICM General Practitioner Director of Intensive Care, Duncraig Goulburn Valley Health Dr Michael Plunkett Dr Eamonn Mathieson MBBS FRACGP MBBS FANZCA General Practitioner Anaesthetist Thornbury Mercy Hospital for Women Dr Rebecca A. Preece, D.O., Dr Olivia Meese Family Physician BA (Liberal Arts), MBBS Doonside Resident Medical Officer Wagga Wagga Base Hospital Dr Harry Preston MBBS FRACGP Dr Brendan Miller General practitioner MBBS, BSc, FRACGP, FRANZCOG Lower Templestowe Obsttetrician Gynaecologist Toowomba Dr James Quinn MBBS FRACGP Dr Lucia Murnane General Practitioner MBBS FRACGP DCH Dip Bioethics Glenroy General Practitioner Lwr Templestowe Dr Douglas Randell, Dr Judith Nall-Bird MBBS, FRACGP, FACAsM, FRAeS MBBS FRACGP General Practitioner General Practitioner Nicholls Palliative Care Practitioner Young Dr Albert Stuart Reece Dr Trish Newell MBBS FRACGP MBBS, FANZCA General Practitioner Anaesthetist Brisbane Royal Melbourne Hospital

Page 8 of 12 Submission 899

Dr Elizabeth Mary Reed Frankston Child and Adolescent Psychiatrist MBBS, FRANZCP Dr Jane Thompson Private Practice Melbourne MBBS FRACGP DipRANZCOG General Practitioner Professor David C. Reutens Frankston MBBS MD FRACP Senior Staff Specialist Dr Graham Toohill Royal Brisbane & Women’s Hospital MBBS FRACGP General Practitioner Dr Jill Rosenblatt Leongatha MBBS FRACGP General Practitioner Dr Ha Tran Ashburton MBBS FRACGP Palliative Care Registrar Dr Lesleigh Sands Cabrini Hospital, Prahran MBBS FRACGP General Practitioner Dr Alison Walsh Flinders View, Ipswich MBBS, FRACGP, DipRANZCOG, IBCLC Locum General Practitioner Dr Elvis I Šeman NE Victoria MB BS, FRANZCOG, FRCOG, EUCOGE Gynaecologist Dr Mary Walsh Chair, MaterCare Australia MBBS FRACGP Head of Urogynaecology, General Practitioner Flinders Medical Centre Lwr Templetstowe Bedford Park. Senior Lecturer Dr William Warr Flinders University MBBS FRACGP South Australia Eramosa Family Medical Centre Somerville Dr Michael Shanahan MBBS FRACS General Surgeon (Retired) Dr Grace Warren Perth A.M., SPk., MD( Syd). MS. FRACS, FRCS, F AOrthA. DTM&H(Syd) Dr Thalia Shuttleworth Plastic and Reconstructive Surgeon MBBS FRCSEd FRCOphth Consultant Ophthalmologist (Retired) Royal Melbourne Hospital Mosman Dr James Wei MBBS BMedSc Dr David Simpson GP Registrar FRCOG, FRANZCOG FRCPE Myrtleford Obstetrician & Gynaecologist, (Retired) Bankstown & Sutherland Hospitals Dr Bernadette Wilks MBBS Dr Mary Stavropoulou Anaesthetic Registrar MBBS FRACGP Alfred Hospital General Practitioner Camberwell Dr Nick Woolfield MBChB, DCH, Dip Obst, Dr Merlina Sulistio FRACP, FSAHM, MBBS FRACP Paediatrician Palliative Medicine physician Cabrini Health Dr Bernadette Zhi Ying Wong MBBS Dr Mano Thevathasan Radiology Registrar MBBS, FRACP, FAChPm Gold Coast University Hospital Rheumatology and Palliative Care

Page 9 of 12 Submission 899

Dr David Westmore MBBS FRACS Urologist John Fawkner Hospital

Dr Rosemary Wong MBBS, FRACP Endocrinologist Cabrini Hospital

Dr Nick Woolfield MBChB, DCH, Dip Obst, FRACP, FSAHM, Paediatrician

Dr Lynette Yap MBBS, FRACGP, MPHC, BTh, MTh Regional Director East Asia South Pacific, Interserve International Geelong

Page 10 of 12