Dying with Dignity draft bill 2014

Comments

I find the title offensive.

The appeal to dignity is a distraction. In any hospital stay, we can vomit, bleed and walk around in hospital gowns, partially naked in front of staff and general public alike. Any invasive medical procedure will be undignified. Likewise, we should expect dying to be messy.

Our sense of dignity is primarily a matter of our mind set. It arises from our self-image and can be supported by respect and sensitivity from medical staff. Our major effort should be in training people for transcendence of some kind at such times of extreme challenge. That befits the dignity of a human being.

By contrast, this push for is one more example of the quick fix, mechanistic view of human beings. If there is a problem, take a pill — literally or metaphorically. Far from affording dignity to the dying, it demeans us all.

The text of the bill contains ambiguity and massive loop holes at key points.

In section 4, the definition of illness includes ‘degeneration of mental or physical faculties.’ These are markers of old age and will definitely end in death. Hence, old age qualifies as a ‘terminal illness’ under this section 4.

In this context, the section 5 (1) use of ‘humane’ acquires sinister undertones; given it is a highly subjective concept, open to endless interpretation.

My ill ease only increases as I read section 5 (2). The provisions seem comprehensive enough, yet they are stated ‘Without limiting subsection (1).’ That is, there are no clear limits.

Section 12 ( c ) ‘reasonable grounds’. Such catch-all terms keep appearing. They are subjective and allow easy perversion of the intent of the bill over time. We need more direction on criteria to delimit the scope of the bill. Section 12 (1) ( c ) (iii) can be read to mean that availability of palliative care is not reason for refusing suicide. Is that what you intend?

Section 13 (3) proposes alleviation ‘to a level acceptable to the person.’ This criterion leaves no objective reference points.

S 13 (4) (b) means that, once the suicide process has started, even if palliative care is effective, the doctors cannot stop the person completing suicide if the person chooses to go ahead. Pain and distress are no longer relevant.

Among offences, S 21 (2) raises concerns. Opponents of suicide may easily be construed as threatening disadvantage through their negative publications designed to rein in these practices.

How do we envisage enforcing constraints on ‘undue influence’ (S 22) and establishing ‘good faith’ (S 24,25)

Behind the spin, there is a deadening philosophy.

The phrase, ‘dying with dignity’, is a marketing slogan and a euphemism for medically assisted suicide. I object strongly to such deceptive phrasing. We need our laws to be clear, precise and in plain language.

Is this really for the terminally ill only? Philip Nitschke and Exit have a considerably broader clientele than that already and are not even in jail for it. gave front-page promotion to the suicide of Beverley Broadbent. Her main reason for killing herself was the tedium of advancing age with its likelihood of dependence on others. We are a long way down that slippery slope already. This bill will only facilitate the slide.

Section 3 (a) aims to “recognise the right” to suicide in certain circumstances. How do we know such a right exists? Most ethical systems require accountability to the providers of our life, be they ancestors or gods. This ‘right’ to kill ourselves implies final accountability to ourselves alone. This is consistent only with philosophies such as humanistic materialism and atheism.

Moreover, quality of life depends on being alive first. This bill assumes that sometimes the quality of life is more important than life itself. That is illogical. We can understand the emotional pull to ease another’s suffering, but this is not the way to do it. We cannot afford to include in our law a principle that is so completely irrational.

I do not want such principles to be shoved down my throat under the guise of supposedly ‘humane’ law.

Further, they are no foundation upon which to build a nation. These are principles with which we cannot have it all ways. We have to choose the kind of society we want, one that is life affirming or life denying.

Conclusion

The bill is based on unproven assumptions and highly sectarian philosophies, framed in ambiguous terms that cover up its real meaning. The bill shows little sign of adequate boundaries to its application.

Rather than respect human dignity, the bill pushes a philosophy that regards us as mechanistic pawns, unable to rise spiritually to the challenges of extreme difficulty. Such an approach is socially damaging. It would be irresponsible to pass such a bill.