FEBRUARY 2014 We wish all our members and supporters all the best for 2014 - and yet another chance for voluntary assisted dying legislation to be passed!

Our first issue for 2014 is the State election, to be held on 15 March, and we would greatly appreciate your help. After the results are known we’ll be in a better position to plan our activities for the year, including the campaign for another voluntary assisted dying Bill which we expect to be introduced into Parliament during the year. Our activities in relation to end-of-life planning will continue through the year.

IN THIS ISSUE, in brief:

 COMING EVENTS:  Sunday 2 March, from 12.00 noon, BBQ at Waterworks Reserve. Members and friends are welcome. See details below. RSVP essential by Wed 26 February.  First Committee meeting - 12 February, 2.00 pm at the Glenorchy Library. Members are very welcome.

 STATE ELECTION: Please use your vote to support candidates in favour of voluntary assisted dying law reform. One of the features of the Tasmanian Hare-Clark voting system is that people can vote for their preferred Party but have a choice between candidates within that Party. Please help to gather information on candidates’ views so that we can let voters know to take them into account before they vote. See more information below.

 THE VOLUNTARY ASSISTED DYING BILL 2013: As you know, despite our considerable work and best efforts, the Voluntary Assisted Dying Bill 2013 was defeated by only one vote before there was a full and open debate on the detailed sections of the Bill. All 10 Liberal MPs voted against it along with 3 of the 10 Labor MPs with their justifications almost solely a regurgitation of the fear-mongering propaganda of the tiny minority who oppose such legislation. We include details of how MPs voted and a report on the debate.

 PRESIDENT’S REPORT: A summary of events and activities since the last general report with special thanks again to those who supported us so magnificently in the campaign for the VAD Bill.

 NEWS FROM AROUND AUSTRALIA AND OVERSEAS  COMING EVENTS

We welcome all members and friends to join us for our BBQ on Sunday 2 March from noon, at the Waterworks Reserve. Celebrate with us the progress we made towards voluntary assisted dying legislation and talk about the way ahead to build on that progress.

Please let us know by 26 February if you intend to come and if you would like a lift. You can do this by contacting a member of the Committee, through the contact form on the website or by leaving a message on the DwDTas number, 0450 545 167. If there is insufficient interest or it looks as if the weather is going to be bad, we may cancel the event.

In 2014, we will continue with Committee meetings on the second Wednesday of each month, at 2pm at the Glenorchy Library. First one is 12 February. Members are very welcome to come along and join in the discussion. However, we recommend that you check beforehand to ensure the meeting is going ahead. Sometimes we have to postpone is there are too many Committee members who are away.

 STATE ELECTION:

Please use your vote to support candidates in favour of voluntary assisted dying law reform.

One of the features of the Tasmanian Hare-Clark voting system is that people can vote for their preferred Party but have a choice between candidates within that Party.

The State election will be held on Saturday 15 March and there will be a very large field of candidates in all electorates. We will aim to gather as much information as possible by the Wednesday before the election so you can take it into account before you vote and also encourage your family and friends to do the same. We will be able to email those who receive receive the newsletter by email but may not be able to do a full mailout of a hard copy report. If you would like the information, please leave your name and a message on the DwDTas phone that you want the information. We can then ensure you get it.

We would greatly appreciate your help to gather information on candidates’ views by letting us know any information you become aware of. It will be virtually impossible for us to survey all candidates’ views. There will be a large number of candidates, many will not respond to questionnaires and follow-up can be time-consuming. If you are doorknocked or contacted by candidates, ask them for their views on the general issue of voluntary euthanasia and on the Voluntary Assisted Dying Bill 2013.

If you can, please contact candidates and ask their views, as well as telling them why you support voluntary assisted dying legislation. Ask them to contact Dying with Dignity to get factual, good quality information and not be hoodwinked by the fear-mongering propaganda of those opposed to the legislation. A good source of contact details for candidates can be found at http://www.abc.net.au/news/tas-election-2014/guide/candindex/ .

2

The report below gives information on the views of existing MPs, of whom all but two, Graeme Sturges and Michael Polley (both Labor) are standing again. We expect that all Greens candidates will be supportive of voluntary assisted dying legislation but have still to confirm this. In Denison, we believe that Labor candidates Sharon Carnes and Alphonse Mulumba are supportive. Independent Liberal candidate, Hans Willink may also be in favour. When he was a candidate for Queenborough in the 2013 Legislative Council election he advised that he was in favour in principle with voluntary assisted dying legislation. We will confirm with him that is still the case. In Lyons, of the new candidates, we know that David Llewellyn (Labor, standing in Lyons) strongly opposed the 2009 Dying with Dignity Bill and Guy Barnett (Liberal, Lyons) is a strong opponent of all the proposed social reform legislation.

 THE VOLUNTARY ASSISTED DYING BILL 2013:

This is a relatively brief report about the Voluntary Assisted Dying Bill 2013, which was debated in the Tasmanian House of Assembly on 16 and 17 October 2013. The vote on 17 October showed that, of the 25 members of Parliament (MPs) in the Tasmanian House of Assembly, 12 supported the Voluntary Assisted Dying Bill 2013 and 13 opposed it. If a single Liberal MP had voted for it, it would have passed through to a full and open debate on the detailed sections of the Bill. They wouldn’t even allow that to happen.

What was so disturbing was not the votes against the Bill but the justifications used in their speeches which consisted almost entirely of the fear-mongering propaganda of the tiny minority of the population who are opposed to the legislation. Because the vote on the Bill was an individual ‘conscience vote’, each MP chose the case they were going to put, independent of Party policy. They must each accept full responsibility for the material they chose to use and the extent to which that was false, misleading or inadequate.

They demonstrated little or no respect for the views of the vast majority of the population (or for reputable survey organisations), for the views and stories sent to them by many people or for any of the excellent, reputable research studies that have found that such legislation is safe and responsible. They quoted only a very few doctors opposed to the Bill but none of the many in favour, only the Law Society but not the many legal experts in favour, only academics that are well-known opponents. The speeches failed to meet the most basic standards expected of our MPs in the use of inaccurate, cherry-picked and inadequate data and claims that they knew or ought reasonably to know were false and misleading.

They presented themselves as the protectors of “the vulnerable” while providing no explanation of why they believed that Tasmanian doctors would threaten the vulnerable. There was a great focus on how wonderful palliative care can be - and we agree - but no acknowledgement of the terrible situation faced by those for whom palliative care cannot help.

We are doing a detailed analysis as part of follow-up activities to build on what has been achieved (eg challenging the accuracy of data used by individual MPs; more information papers, etc) and in the planning for the next time a Bill is debated. This may well be before the end of 2014.

3

The vote  The vote was 13-11 against the Bill because Deputy Speaker, Tim Morris, a supporter of the Bill was forced to stay in the Speaker’s Chair by the deliberate late arrival into the House of the Speaker, Michael Polley, who voted against it.

 MPs who voted for the Bill:  Franklin: The Premier, (Labor) and Nick McKim (Greens) who jointly moved the Bill and made passionate speeches in support; David O’Byrne (Labor)  Denison: Scott Bacon and Graeme Sturges (Labor) and Cassy O’Connor (Greens)  Lyons: Rebecca White (Labor). It is important to note that Tim Morris (Greens) also supported the Bill but  Bass: Michelle O’Byrne (Labor), Kim Booth (Greens)  Braddon: Bryan Green (Labor), Paul O’Halloran (Greens).

 MPs who voted against the Bill, all Liberal except where for the three Labor MPs:  Franklin: , Leader of the Liberal Opposition; Jacquie Petrusma  Denison: Elise Archer and Matthew Groom  Lyons: Rene Hidding, Mark Shelton, Michael Polley (Labor)  Bass: , Michael Ferguson, Brian Wightman (Labor)  Braddon: , Adam Brooks, Brenton Best (Labor).

Key issues  Lack of acknowledgement of and respect for those who may need the legislation: One of the disturbing aspects of the speeches against the Bill was the lack of acknowledgement of the need for the legislation, that is, a lack of acknowledgement of the intolerable and unrelievable suffering experienced by some people at the end of their lives. In fact, some spent a considerable part of their speeches saying how difficult they found the debate, and on personal anecdotes which, while emotional and touching, were completely irrelevant to the Bill.

Many were about members of their families who had died but did not need assisted dying, had not asked for assistance or were not eligible for assistance, eg as mentioned at great length by Peter Gutwein. He assured everyone: “Believe me, I understand what grief feels like; I understand the pain of loss” and “that process of palliative care was better than I had ever imagined it could be” but said nothing about those who were not able to get relief from their suffering despite the best palliative care.

Brian Wightman talked at length about his experience with his dying father, once again an emotional and touching story but irrelevant. As he said, “he was in no position to make a rational decision” and would therefore have been ineligible to apply for assisted dying. Mark Shelton’s long irrelevant personal anecdotes were mainly about his early life.

It was extremely difficult to fathom how they could be so insensitive and self-absorbed as to focus solely on their own discomfort and irrelevant anecdotes, particularly from their own families, and totally ignore those experiencing intolerable suffering and wanting the law to

4

give them a choice; and to ignore the fact that there were people present at the debate whose loved ones had suffered so badly because the law wasn’t in place (eg Nica Cordover).

 No acknowledgement of the consequences of their decision: Not a single MP who voted against the Bill acknowledged a critical feature of the Bill, that it provided a last resort option. Not one acknowledged Clause 22 and the requirement that, before assisted dying could be provided under the proposed law, the patient and doctor would both have to be satisfied that there were no relevant treatment options available to improve the person’s medical condition or to relieve their suffering. By evading this section, they could also evade acknowledging that through their ‘conscience vote’ they were condemning people to either prolonged suffering or much worse options to end it, eg suicide by violent or unsatisfactory means.

 Focus on vastly exaggerated threat to “the vulnerable”(often undefined): A feature of the speeches against the Bill was the use of discriminatory, demeaning and belittling stereotypes of people they lumped under the heading of “the vulnerable’ or “vulnerable people” and which included people who are elderly and people with disabilities. Several including Mark Shelton used the illogical and unreasonable claim about the potential of the Bill to increase youth suicide but produced no data to support their claims.

 Lack of respect for the views of the vast majority of the community: We have made it clear that we do not expect MPs to vote for the Bill just because the vast majority of the community support a change in the law to allow doctor-provided voluntary assisted dying. But we did not expect the lack of respect for the views of the community. Some, like Will Hodgman, Leader of the Opposition and potentially the next Premier of Tasmania, failed to even mention the high level of community support. Instead, he sided completely with the legal, medical and societal opinion against it without acknowledging that their views are shared by less than 10% of the community. (According to our EMRS poll in September 2013, only 9% of respondents disagreed strongly with the need for doctor provided voluntary assisted dying as provided for in the Bill.)

Some of the Liberal MPs actively denigrated respected opinion poll findings. Michael Ferguson (Bass) implied they were the result of push-polling. Matthew Groom (Denison) opted for his own superior knowledge and relying on those he’d spoken to as a more effective method than those of respected survey organisations: “Based on my practical exposure to people who have provided me with feedback and those I have spoken to in relation to this issue, the suggestion that 80 per cent of the people in our community support state-sanctioned euthanasia as proposed by this bill is not sustainable.” Rene Hidding and Mark Shelton (Lyons) relied on the argument that if a different question was asked you’d get a different answer. “I am not saying it is push polling but there is no question that if we could ring all those people back with a fair rewrite of the questions by me, it would be a different outcome” (Rene Hidding).

 Lack of respect for views in support of the Bill: One by one the Liberal MPs stated that they had received many representations from both sides of the debate and thanked everyone for taking the time to contact them. One by one they then went on to make speeches that 5

used only material against the Bill and to make no mention of any of the representations in favour. Adam Brooks expressed support in principle but he then reverted to the same false and misleading arguments used by all his colleagues about the risks posed by the Bill.

There was no quoting of the views or personal stories from those supporting the Bill and no citing of the opinions of the many doctors, legal experts or respected bodies in favour, such as the Royal Society of Canada. Instead the speeches largely consisted of repeating poor quality information, arguments and assertions without any supporting evidence, cherry- picked figures taken out of context and misrepresenting the situation, inaccurate and distorted pictures of overseas legislation and its impact.

There are many examples which we will collate and challenge. For example, Rene Hidding chose a range of inaccurate data to vilify the whole of the Belgian population of over 10 million people as at the bottom of some fanciful moral cliff; Jeremy Rockliff and Matthew Groom between them quoted almost all the 2 page AMA submission on the consultation paper but like the AMA failed to explain why Tasmanian legislation should be based on the views of overseas medical associations; Elise Archer included long quotes from a group, Lives Worth Living, that almost certainly does not exist (what checks were doneto determine their ‘bona fides’?); Jacquie Petrusma’s speech included inaccuracies including the long refuted claim about the Dutch Minister for Health.

 Voted to prevent full and open debate: None of the MPs who voted against it because of their stated concerns with the safety of the Bill, particularly the threat to “the vulnerable”, had sufficient ‘courage of their convictions’ or respect for the views of the vast majority of the community to allow a full debate on the rigorous process and the detailed safeguards contained in the Bill. This is because a detailed debate would have shown that the Bill contained provisions that were different from overseas legislation, including sections to overcome some of the perceived weaknesses of existing legislation, and that the expressed fears were irrational and baseless.

 The Liberal Party is now completely out of step with the community and with Liberal voters on the issue of voluntary assisted dying law reform and other social issues. If one Liberal MP, that is, only 10% of their number had been in step with 80% of the community, as shown in opinion poll after opinion poll, the Tasmanian Bill would have passed the House of Assembly and there was a reasonable chance of success in the Upper House. All 10 Liberal Party MPs voted against the Bill, despite the fact that our EMRS poll in September revealed again that 74% of Liberal voters supported a change in the law. This pattern is the same as for the votes on the Tasmanian 2009 Dying with Dignity Bill, the 2013 NSW Rights of the Terminally Ill Bill and in WA on the 2010 Voluntary Euthanasia Bill - not a single Liberal or National Party MP voted in favour of any of these Bills. A strong theory is that it is because of the dominance gained in the Liberal Party by the ‘religious Right’, in some States by those with very conservative Catholic beliefs and other States, like Tasmania, those involved with micro Protestant sects such as the Reform Church, Pentecostals, etc. The key powerbroker of the Tasmanian Liberal Party, Senator Eric Abetz, strongly opposed the Bill.

6

 PRESIDENT’S REPORT

The great efforts of the Committee of the last 6 months were focussed on the campaign for the Voluntary Assisted Dying legislation, including assisting with the preparation of the Bill, significant lobbying through Information Papers and other information sent to MPs, meetings and contacts with MPs and encouraging and supporting others to do so and the media campaign including letters to the papers, initiating and responding to contacts with journalists and media producers and presenters and appearing in the media in Tasmania and nationally. Our TV and radio ads resulted in a massive increase in website and Facebook contacts and were extremely effective in building a whole new and younger support group for voluntary assisted dying law reform which augurs well for future campaigns.

We could not have done this without the extraordinarily generous donations from the Clem Jones Group of companies (app $34,000) and donations amounting to over that amount from our national colleagues (YLR.com - $5000), Dying with Dignity Victoria ($10,000) and from Tasmanians and around the country. From amounts of $5 to $5000, they all helped. One member donated enough for the billboard sign outside Launceston and another enough to pay for the total cost of the EMRS survey. Particularly important was over $15,000 in total from Dying with Dignity Victoria members who responded magnificently to a request from President of DwDV, Dr Rodney Syme, to support us. Marshall Perron paid a significant part of the costs of his visits, including his airfares. Individual members of the Committee all do so much out of their own pockets, covering all the incidental costs that mount up, as do other active members.

We also could not have run so effective a campaign without the superb, generous, skilled and professional advice and help of Resilience Marketing. Gail and Darren, others at Resilience and those whom they contracted to do work (eg website development, recording and making the TV and radio ads) all contributed far more than they were paid and gave professional and personal support beyond anything that could have been expected. As an organisation, we are extremely appreciative of their high level of professional skill and personal support. I cannot thank them enough, particularly Gail, for their high level of support to me, their encouragement, their reassurance - including lifting me out of the ‘black holes’ that occur in all campaigns when it all seems too hard - and their good humour and compassion.

Bill Godfrey has also continued his very valuable work to promote the importance of end-of-life and advance care planning and to provide presentations to groups to increase awareness and to provide practical help to people to set out their wishes and to appoint an Enduring Guardian.

We are very hopeful that a NW group within DwDTas will be formed and become active this year. It has been proposed by member, Frank Webb, who has been co-opted onto the Committee in order to become the Chair of the group and the liaison with the Committee. We will send more information to NW members when there is progress on this matter.

 NEWS FROM AROUND AUSTRALIA AND OVERSEAS

 South Australia: Despite the outstanding efforts by our friends at SAVES, unfortunately the SA End of Life Bill, moved by Dr Bob Such, failed to come to a vote and lapsed when Parliament rose before the State election (which will be on the same day as the Tasmanian one). As a Private Members Bill, moved by an Independent, it had to take its place in the 7

queue for debate, was only debated an hour at a time over several months and failed to get to a vote.

In the SA election for the Upper House on 15 March, there will be two candidates for the Legal Voluntary Euthanasia group.

 CANADA - Quebec: Significant progress is being made in the Quebec Parliament with Bill 52, “An Act respecting end-of-life care” and it is likely to be voted on in February. It is expected to pass and will be a very important step forward for VAD legislation. Those opposed to the Bill have conducted an almost identical fear-mongering campaign against it and against the Tasmanian and other Australian Bills. There has been a very thorough consultative process leading up to this point including a public consultation process commencing in 2010.

 US - New Mexico: In more positive news, following a judgement in a State Court, New Mexico has become the fifth state of the US to allow doctors to prescribe fatal drug doses that suffering patients can use to end their lives. Judge Nan Nash, wrote: “This court cannot envision a right more fundamental, more private or more integral to the liberty, safety and happiness of a New Mexican than the right of a competent, terminally ill patient to choose aid in dying” and said “the liberty, safety and happiness interest of a competent, terminally ill patient to choose aid in dying is a fundamental right under our New Mexico Constitution.”  New Hampshire: Another “Death with Dignity Bill” will soon be considered by their Parliament.  Oregon: the 16th Annual Report on their Death with Dignity Act is now available at http://public.health.oregon.gov/ProviderPartnerResources/EvaluationResearch/Deathwith DignityAct/Documents/year16.pdf. Deaths under the Act remained at the very low level of approximately 0.2% of all deaths in Oregon in 2013. As in previous years, the three most frequently mentioned end-of-life concerns were: loss of autonomy (93.0%), decreasing ability to participate in activities that made life enjoyable (88.7%), and loss of dignity (73.2%).

COMMITTEE FOR 2013 - 2014 Margaret Sing (President) Bill Godfrey (Vice President) Helen Brookfield (Treasurer) Keith Anderson (Secretary) Mike Harris Trish Kershaw Hilde Nilsson Barbara Porter Noel Woodrow Allan Cameron AM Dr Helen Cutts Frank Webb (co-opted Dec 13)

Patron: Professor Colin Wendell-Smith AO

Next meetings: 12 February, 12 March and 9 April – 2pm, Glenorchy Library. (Please check beforehand that the meeting is going ahead.)

8