Homepage, News

A myth: Euthanasia only for the terminally ill

Euthanasia advocates are constantly seeking to extend the circumstances where euthanasia should be available. Although advocated as only for those who are terminally ill, other jurisdictions where euthanasia has been legalised show the support for massive shifts in accessibility to include ‘mature minors’ (children under the age of 18), as well as people with psychiatric conditions.

Boundaries and exceptions around euthanasia are bound to expand, do we really want to take such a significant risk?

Read the full article, ‘Let teens and mentally ill decide on death: Queensland euthanasia advocate’ here.

Homepage, News

Euthanasia cannot solely be contained to the terminally ill

A paralysed man in the United Kingdom will be going before the High Court in London seeking the right to be euthanised by the state.

A paralysed man in the United Kingdom will be going before the High Court in London seeking the right to be euthanised by the state.

As opponents note, the request contravenes articles 8 and 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights – even though his request uses the language of human rights.

The case shows the mistruth that euthanasia can possibly remain limited to people with a terminal illness. Over time many people including disabled people like Mr Lamb will bring lawsuits challenging the law until they can be provided with assisted suicide.

It doesn’t matter what ‘safeguards’ are employed. Once it becomes a ‘right’ to be killed, it will inevitably become ‘discrimination’ to deny that right to individuals like Mr Lamb.

Read the article here.

Homepage, News

This week, the role of doctors will fundamentally change

By Mark Yates, The Age, 17th June 2019

Mark Yates, geriatrician and associate professor at Deakin University, discusses how from June 19, “Victoria will become the only jurisdiction in Australia to legalise euthanasia by enacting the voluntary assisted dying legislation.”

The fact that this will be a rare occurrence is irrelevant to the majority of the medical profession. The issue is that the role of the doctor is fundamentally changed by this legislation, from treatment to protect life and relieve suffering to now include intentionally causing the death of a patient

For doctors there is plenty of room for challenge and risk of accusation of unprofessional behaviour or worse, whether a doctor declines or accepts to head down the voluntary assisted dying pathway. The blanket protection included for doctors once the person is dead does not protect them from accusations of errors in process. Predicting prognosis, assessing capacity and the self-definition of “expert in the field” are all open to interpretation and challengeable.

Read the full article here.