Darkthorn’s Blog

To the editor,

I am writing today to put forward the issue of Legalised Euthanasia in Australia. For many years, this topic has been hotly debated by physicians, the government and the families of people who wish to have this last service to end their pain and suffering. An incident in May, 2002, involved an elderly woman, Nancy Crick, suffering from an inoperable and painful twisted bowel after undergoing surgery for cancer, committing “suicide” in front of 21 witnesses in her own home. This raises the question, what is the difference between suicide and euthanasia? Dr Philip Nitschke says that there is a clear distinction between the two. Voluntary euthanasia occurs if a rational person, suffering from a terminal illness, takes their own life, only speeding up the inevitable. Nitschke says that “suicide occurs where irrational behaviour tragically cuts short a productive life.” So essentially, it is whether the person is rational enough to understand the consequences of their decision that defines whether it is suicide or euthanasia.

Under the laws proposed by the Australian Voluntary Euthanasia Research Foundation, only those chronically suffering or who have a terminal illness, may opt for euthanasia. However, in the Netherlands, where euthanasia is already legal, the laws are open-ended, allowing people who suffer from either physical or emotional problems to choose euthanasia. The Dutch legal court legally sanctioned euthanasia as an appropriate response to depression in 1994. A grieving middle-aged woman, Hilly Bosher obsessed with being buried between her two dead children was euthanised on her own request by her psychiatrist, without any attempt made on his part to council her about her grief. The court ruled that this was acceptable because “euthanasia for emotional suffering was no different than that for physical suffering.” Shocking as this may seem to readers, euthanasia was a kinder offer to this suffering woman than suicide. As Crick said, “I don’t see why I have to die alone.” For Bosher, this meant that she could die comfortably and with the support of someone she trusted, not alone.

The main argument of those against Legalised Euthanasia is that palliative care can provide the means for a terminally ill patient to live comfortably for the rest of their, albeit shorter, lives. However, unfortunately in Australia, the number of terminally ill patients has risen in recent years, but palliative care facilities have not grown with the number of people needing their services. Many people are suffering from ill-controlled pain-killing drugs which do not deal effectively with their needs. Worse still, those patients who refuse pain-control to end their lives sooner, but suffer until the end more painfully. Wouldn’t it be a better situation if these people were given the option of legally ending their lives in a shorter and less painful period of time?

My personal view on this situation is that euthanasia should be legalised, but only under strict regulations. For example, the person opting for euthanasia must sign a document giving absolute permission for it to go ahead, witnessed by at least two doctors and 2 family members (if possible). The patient should not be under the influence of mind-altering drugs and be able to testify that they are aware of what they are doing. Specially qualified doctors should be trained for performing the procedure, just as vets are trained to deal with dying animals. Investigations should be made into the most humane death possible such as lethal injections or “suicide pills”. If these regulations, and more, were followed, I am confident that Legalised Euthanisia would be a solution to the problem of the wish for “dying with dignity”.

A letter to the editor (obviously) written in 2006, or my year 11 in high school.