Philip Nitschke should not be the sole face of the euthanasia movement
|
Version 0 of 1. Philip Nitschke was suspended on an interim basis by the medical board today. The euthanasia campaigner has long been seen in Australia as the voice of the voluntary assisted dying movement. He has achieved this claim of fame with his activities in the Northern Territory in 1997, when he courageously and virtually single-handedly implemented Marshall Perron’s legislation, and helped a cancer sufferer to become the first person in the world to end his life under a legal euthanasia regime. Nitschke subsequently stood in the seat of Menzies in Victoria against Kevin Andrews, the author of the private member’s bill which overturned Perron’s rights of the terminally ill act. Since then, he has developed a notoriety for some bizarre ideas and aggressive statements, and has had a penchant for conflict with authority. He also became the go-to person of the media whenever the issue of assisted dying erupted. Meanwhile, organisations in each state are actively working on law reform. The development of careful legislation would allow doctors to assist people with intolerable suffering, terminal illness or an advanced incurable illness who are mentally competent, fully informed, and making a persistent request for that assistance. Nigel Brayley, the man at the centre of the allegations against Nitschke that have led to his interim suspension, would never have qualified for assistance under proposed legislation, as he had no physical illness and many doctors would have been concerned about the question of depression. There is a great danger that the public will see Nitschke's public statements as central to the aims of the voluntary assisted dying movement. Nothing could be further from the truth. Nitschke advocates that anyone should have the right to information and medication or other means to end their life without any medical interface or assessment that they are fully informed and mentally competent. The voluntary assisted dying societies all advocate careful law reform with medical safeguards. They have formed a national coalition called Your Last Right and Nitschke is not a member of that organisation. In my view, Nitschke does not represent the mainstream of law reform organisations in Australia; under the law reform proposed by most societies, only terminally ill patients of sound mind would have access to information and medication. His views are aberrant – he should not be seen as the spokesperson who those seeking to carefully legalise the right to die. |