W E S T E R N A U S T R A L I A’ S A WA R D - W I N N I N G C AT H O L I C N E W S P A P E R S I N C E 1 8 7 4
THE RECORD
We d n e s d a y, 1 5 S e p t e m b e r 2 0 1 0 T H E
P A R I S H . T H E N AT I O N . T H E W O R L D .
$2.00
THERECORD.COM.AU
The science of love An anti-establishment doctor is changing the lives of many Perth couples. PAGES 12-13 Euthanasia: the other side of the story - Pages 1-3
AMA opposes WA Green’s push for euthanasia The AMA is flatly opposed to euthanasia, its national president has told The Record. One reason why: doctors should never have anything to do with situations where the express intention is to end a person’s life.
We need a society that cares, not kills, says Wanneroo author
BY ANTHONY BARICH The Australian Medical Association is against euthanasia and its President believes doctors should not be expected to decide whether a person requesting euthanasia is under duress. Dr Andrew Pesce, AMA national president, responded to The Record’s enquiry regarding the Voluntary Euthanasia Bill 2009 to be debated in WA Parliament from 21 September which stipulates that two doctors unrelated to the patient must assess the eligibility of the applicant for the administration of euthanasia. This includes judging whether the patient is under duress or undue influence, which Liberal MLC Nick Goiran, a lawyer, told The Record are contract law concepts that doctors are ill-equipped and likely unwilling to make judgments on. Dr Pesce, an obstetrician and gynecologist, told The Record last week that doctors are “not in a position to assess a person’s social circumstances”. AMA National President The doctor’s position is especially difficult if Dr Andrew Pesce the doctor is the family GP, knows them well and is likely to be the one administering the euthanasia, he said. “If they’re the GP for the family members that makes it a more complex decision on behalf of the doctor,” Dr Pesce said. “Doctors are placed to make medical assessments of the nature of the illness; maybe whether it’s an illness which would be one whether you’d consider euthanasia an option, and make medical assessments. “But they’re not in a position to make such a significant assessment of the patient’s social circumstances. Perhaps as the family doctor they have insights and can provide, but if that will be used as a yardstick (as to the patient’s eligibility for euthanasia), it should be made by someone apart from the medical dynamics of the patient.” He said England’s current proposal to appoint a tribunal to judge whether a patient is under duress is preferable to treating physician. However, he said the AMA is flatly against euthanasia. “We believe that doctors should not have to do anything where the only intention is to end life. Our obligation is to relieve suffering, and while doctors must do things which sometimes end up hastening death in pain relief, sedation etc, euthanasia is a treatment whose express purposes is to end life,” he said. Mr Goiran said that if the Voluntary Euthanasia Bill Please turn to Page 2
Wanneroo author Dr Erik Leipoldt, a man with quadraplegia and advocate for those living with disability, outside his Wanneroo home this week. Dr Leipoldt is the author of a book of 28 in-depth interviews with people with quadriplegia in the PHOTO: ANTHONY BARICH Netherlands and Australia and leaders in the disability movement published this year.
“...Government-mandated euthanasia is too dangerous for vulnerable people, in an uncaring society that already devalues them, for example because it abhors dependence, fragility and vulnerability. Instead we would be more constructively engaged by working towards excellent care in everything we do for others - ie, a caring society.” - Dr Erik Leipoldt, author of Euthanasia and Disability Perspective (2010) Dr Erik Leipoldt acquired quadriplegia in 1978 after a diving accident. He has just published a book on attitudes of Dutch and Australian people with quadriplegia towards euthanasia. Here he asks whether we really need to legalise euthanasia.
I
n Australia and other Western countries, suffering is a subjective and private experience leading to the invocation of individual rights to do away with one’s life should it become unbearable. The life of a person who suffers is of no consequence to others. When we look closer, however, we see that this private domain is an illusion. Suffering is not an individual, isolated experience. No one is an autonomous entity. Suffering, and its amelioration, is largely a dynamic process involving others.
Here in Australia, as elsewhere, some press for legislation to provide euthanasia to persons of sound mind in response to “pain, suffering or debilitation” that is judged “considerable” in the presence of a terminal illness. Vague and broad as this description is, it invites anyone with a heart to say “yes, of course we should help”. But what is suffering? And what is the difference between killing the sufferer and attending to the sufferer’s needs? It is in interactions between people, in injurious events, and in our values and practices that suffering is created and experienced. Pain is experienced differently by people who have good care and by people who feel abandoned. Mental anguish can arise from unresolved conflicts in close relationships, even relationships which are far in the past. PLEASE TURN TO PAGE 9