Euthanasia and the law

Current law recognises the right of every mentally competent person to refuse unwanted medical treatment, but not the right to take one’s own life. In fact, everyone is legally empowered to prevent attempted suicide. Thus, the lives of all innocent persons are protected. Confusion may arise from the fact that attempting suicide is not a criminal act, but assisting suicide is. The reason is because the law recognises that attempting suicide is very often the outcome of mental illness, and that when an attempt fails, the person needs care rather than punishment.

Although it is sometimes implied that a change in the law to allow euthanasia would be a small one, it would in fact entail a massive shift in our legal concepts of intent, responsibility and causation. It would single out a particular group of vulnerable individuals, the sick, for discriminatory action. No law to legalise euthanasia has been made in any country because no proposal has been devised which was free of the likely, not just the possible, risk of abuse. The supporters of euthanasia offer no suggestions to overcome this problem. Some of them admit that a safe law would probably not be possible, and it must be said that this is realistic.

Can euthanasia be controlled? The Dutch experience.

Euthanasia is allowable and widely practised in Holland since the early 1990’s, despite that it is by law a criminal offence. It is cited as an example of social progress, which we in Australia should consider. We are told that it is subject to safe, established guidelines, and that it has an agreed moral basis. It is a disaster we must not copy.

Only recently did the official picture come to hand, supplied by Dutch government sources. (Remmelink Report). We now know that intentional death is brought about by Dutch doctors in about 1/5 of the deaths in the country; in over 2/3 of the cases the death certificate is falsified after euthanasia to make it seem that the death was due to natural causes. The doctor suffers no penalty for this and it is not known whether or not any guidelines were followed at all.

Where information is available about guidelines they are known to be widely disregarded; just over ¼ of the doctors admitted they had killed patients without any request at all.

Though the Dutch Medical Society correctly defines this as murder; in some of those, not even the family was told what was happening. The authorities admit they have no control over euthanasia and there is no consensus within Holland about the moral, medical, legal or social bases for euthanasia though it has commonly been performed for about 20 years.

There is no palliative care in Holland.

Why euthanasia has been rejected by legislatures

In 1996 the Australian House of Representatives voted to overturn the Northern Territory Euthanasia Legislation. The Senate confirmed this action in 1997. As well, every major government inquiry around the world in recent years has strongly recommended against legalising euthanasia (Canada 1982, Victoria 1987, Great Britain 1994, New York State 1994).

Most of the British House of Lords’ select committee members initially supported euthanasia, including the chairman, Lord Walton, who had been medical consultant to the Voluntary Euthanasia Society. However, after thorough research and a trip to The Netherlands, the committee unanimously opposed the legalising of euthanasia, concluding: “It would be next to impossible to ensure all the acts were truly voluntary. We are concerned that vulnerable people – the elderly, lonely, sick or distressed – would feel pressure, whether real or imaged, to request early death.”

“We believe that the message which society sends to vulnerable and disadvantaged people should not, however obliquely, encourage them to seek death, but should assure them of our care and support in life.”