EOLC Sub 680 Rec'd 22/10/2017 22 October 2017 The Principal Research Officer Select Committee on End of Life Choices Legislative Assembly Parliament House PERTH WA 6000 Email [email protected] Dear Principal Research Officer RE WHY EUTHANASIA HAS NO PLACE IN AUSTRALIA WHY EUTHANASIA SUPPORTERS MUST FALL ON THEIR OWN SWORD WHY EUTHANASIA IN ANY OF ITS FORMS SHOULD NOT BE PERMITTED WHY EUTHANASIA MUST NOT SEE THE SUNSET ON THIS, THE LONGEST DAY My name is David Foletta. I am a solicitor admitted to practice in the State of New South Wales. MY SUBMISSIONS It is my pleasure to make submissions to the Inquiry into the need for laws in Western Australia to allow citizens to make informed decisions regarding their own end of life choices (Inquiry). MY POSITION ON EUTHANASIA I oppose all forms of euthanasia. EVANGELICALISM NOT THE ONLY REASON FOR OPPOSITION I hold to a Christian ethic, however, as the committee will see, I hold opposition for reasons that people who have a range of responses to questions of theology could also agree with. CONSENT TO PUBLICATION I give my consent to the public disclosure of this letter, the email serving this letter and all attachments to this letter. In my respectful submission, I actually consider that the public disclosure of the contents of my submissions is vital to the safeguarding of people in Western Australia and by consequence, all people around Australia. IN PERSON ATTENDANCE AT PUBLIC HEARING I am willing to travel to Western Australia to attend a public hearing in person. CRITICISMS OF VICTORIAN INQUIRY In 2015 and 2016, the State of Victoria held a similar inquiry (Victorian Inquiry) to this Inquiry. There is a great deal of parity between the Terms of Reference of the Victorian Inquiry and this Inquiry. The Terms of Reference to the Victorian Inquiry are included in my submissions. As you and anyone who reads my submissions will quickly, and alarmingly, see that the Victorian Inquiry’s Final Report was: 1. Split 6:2 on the question of implementing some sort of physician assisted dying, with Mrs Inga Peulich MLC – Victoria and Mr Daniel Mulino MLC – Victoria who are included on this email each submitting dissenting minority reports on this issue; 2. That the majority report on the question of “Recommendation 49” not being worth the paper it is written on for the following reasons: (a) They failed to comply with their terms of reference because they did not consider euthanasia in Belgium – where euthanasia is at its worst (b) They did not give reasons for their conclusions; (c) They did not give reasons for why evidence that opposes the eventual outcome was not preferred over the purported “evidence” that supported the implementation of euthanasia into Victoria; and (d) The conclusion reached actually go contrary to the evidence they did detail. For example, they assert that low punishments in the past are a sign of community acceptance, yet strong penalties are claimed to be a safeguard. 3. The reliance on the Oregon model as being a system of euthanasia acting perfectly is a falsehood. There are non-compliances and unexplained deaths, which are masked. Doctors do not even believe the claims of lack of complications, when something appears to be too good to be true, it probably is a useful phrase/ cliché to use. 4. Mr Daniel Mulio MLC said that the majority “side stepped” the issue of Belgium and the negative data on abuse and non compliances; 5. Mrs Inga Peulich MLC made plain that the outcome of the Victorian Inquiry was known before the Victorian Inquiry was commenced; 6. The majority of the Victorian Inquiry based their decision on “values” which was not a question put to the general public or people’s submission; 7. The majority of the Victorian Inquiry based their definition of “dignity” on the concept of “choice” not pain like so many others do, and this being a topical word for so many other issues it David R.A. Foletta BCME LLB GDLP JP Letter to WA Inquiry 2 appears to be a convenient word to grant rights on other controversial issues, such as same sex marriage and abortion. Hence, more acting under policy not examining the evidence and making a decision on the evidence in relation to the issue of euthanasia; and 8. The strength of my criticisms are, in my respectful submissions, given more substance when we see the Premier of Victoria, the Honourable Mr Daniel Andrews give a speech to the Parliament of Victoria that is more emotion than substance, and where he actively attempted to avoid legal technicalities being considered in making a decision on this issue. One of those legal technicalities being the need to look at all the evidence. In my attached submissions, I have dealt with the sixty eight (68) alleged safeguards that the Ministerial Advisory Panel (MAP) to the Victorian Health Minister, the Honourable Jill Hennessy, has developed. Indeed, these are themselves only mere ideals, and they even assert a need for further research and development. This is very disappointing given that much ado has been made by the Majority of the Committee who heard and ran the Victorian Inquiry that the safeguards would be “robust” – yet they, like the MAP do not have knowledge of what those “robust” safeguards will be or how they will work. The Premier of Victoria and Jill Hennessy have done a lot of salespersonship on the merits of the Victorian Inquiry and validated the legislation by asserting that a thorough inquiry was done. This mere act of holding an inquiry does not validate the outcome no matter the outcome, and, even more so when the inquiry was not comprehensive at best and compromised at worst. I believe that compromised is the better of the two descriptions. EXPERT OPINION In my letter to the Honourable Mr Daniel Andrews, Premier, I have set out the opinion of people who are much more learned than what I am. I have included comments from a former State Premiers, a State Governor and a former Prime Minister of England. I note that two former Prime Ministers Mr John Howard and Mr Paul Keating have come out recently to oppose euthanasia. MORE RESEARCH TO BE DONE I still have much more research to do. I am attempting to procure as many of the journal articles and evidence that the majority of the Committee said that they looked at but did not discuss in their Final Report. This is important for me and for all people to know about. I draw a negative inference the Majority of the Committee’s decision to not include or discuss articles which they said they read. That inference, and one I am entitled to draw, is that the evidence went against their desired outcome so it was excluded. I regret that the rules of the Parliament of Victoria appear to be such that it is easier to get a politician into trouble for taking $5,000.00 which they should not have than what it is for writing a self-serving report that will take 5000 peoples’ lives. David R.A. Foletta BCME LLB GDLP JP Letter to WA Inquiry 3 SINK THE TITANIC, SINK THE BISMARK AND SINK THE GENERAL BELGRANO The MAP made Recommendation 1 which expressly stated that the option of euthanasia must be balanced with the risk of euthanasia. In my submission, keeping these two issues in balance, means outlawing euthanasia. The reason for this is that actual number of people who would benefit from euthanasia is so small relative to the number of people who can be abused. Ironically, even the health minister Jill Hennessy states that numbers of people who would be eligible is relatively small. This argument is fully developed in my letter to the Premier. In my submission, this one Recommendation of the MAP sinks the whole cause of implementing euthanasia. FALSE CLAIMS AND OVERSTATING THE LEVELS OF COMMUNITY SUPPORT The committee hearing this Inquiry be told, I have no doubt, a lot about community support and that community attitudes are swaying now a days in favour of assisted dying/ euthanasia being acceptable. I submit that the committee hearing this Inquiry should be on guard against such false rhetoric. This is for the following reasons: 1. The most commonly relied upon opinion polls are sponsored by pro euthanasia organisations; 2. The questions being put are designed for the desired outcome; 3. The lobbying is often done to cause politicians concern about being voted out of office if they do not agree with the voters in their electorate. I have noticed this being done in Victoria in seats where the member is still undecided. This is tantamount to saying “if you do not agree to killing people, you will find yourself out of parliament”; and http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-10-10/voters-back-euthanasia-laws-in-victorian-seats- polling-shows/9033666 Polling in three country Victorian seats indicates more than four in five people support proposed voluntary euthanasia laws, but the local Coalition MPs remain undecided ahead of next week's parliamentary debate. The poll, conducted by OmniPoll for Andrew Denton's pro-euthanasia group Go Gentle Australia, asked residents in the Ovens Valley, Euroa and Eildon electorates: "If a terminally ill patient asks a doctor for a lethal dose, should a doctor be allowed to provide a lethal dose, or not?" A thousand people were surveyed in each of the three Coalition-held seats, where the local members are all undecided on the bill to legalise a medically assisted dying scheme.