BOOK OVERVIEW 10 MINUTES

Good morning everyone.  This book is the result of many years research and reflection.  The concept of this book is based upon the following considerations:

  1. The major social issues with which contemporary society has had to deal are not issues unrelated to each other. They are not, so to speak, silos in a field, each subject distinct from the other, and the resolution of which has no impact on the way society deals with other issues.  These issues all go to the heart of the fundamental human values expressed as human rights which are the foundation of a civilized society.
  2. In democratic societies, governments and Parliaments have, as their first obligation to secure the citizens they represent, against threats to life and liberty. Those threats may come from within a society (what we do to each other) and from outside a society from foreign interests and nations.
  3. Australia as a nation state is a member of the United Nations and has bound itself to the Charter of the UN which includes the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. “Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice, and peace in the world, (Preamble)”.  “Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person. (article 3)
  4. It is important to an informed debate that we say what we mean and not use euphemisms which may well do little more than obfuscate the terms of the debate. In the current situation, the preferred euphemism for euthanasia is “voluntary assisted dying”.  But the real issue is legalising one class of persons to kill other innocent persons subject to certain legal conditions, or to assist a person to kill himself or herself otherwise known as physician assisted suicide.  It should be noted with approval that pro-euthanasia campaigner, Professor Peter Singer, insists on the use of direct and plain language.
  5. The evaluation of the consequences of the passing of a particular law should be based upon empirical data wherever it may be found.
  6. The promotion of eugenics is fundamental to the euthanasia and physician assisted suicide case. That there are some human lives which are no longer worthy to be lived, that society should be disencumbered of the burden of those lives.  This, of course, contravenes the UDHR which states that “Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.”

In Australia the current debate on euthanasia identified in this book is marked by certain key issues which many parliamentarians refuse to confront directly.  Those characteristics of the debate which I identify are these:

  1. Parliamentarians line up to tell personal stories about individuals who have died in terrible circumstances.  Here there is an emotional appeal to allow euthanasia or PAS as the obvious solution.
  2. It is always being suggested that euthanasia and PAS are “compassionate” responses to these difficult deaths.  This is to misuse the word “compassion”.  Compassion means to “suffer with” another person or persons, to identify with their sufferings and to want to do something to relieve that suffering.  Compassion is the virtue which urges us to act, but only when we know what is the right thing to be done.  Killing the innocent is immoral, but the appropriate alleviation of pain and discomfort is ethically the right response even should such palliative treatment have as unintended second effect of shortening life.  Of course, the killing option is cheaper, and the palliative care option more expensive. [Professor Ian Maddocks]
  3. As I remarked earlier, the euthanasia debate is often confused because of the almost universal use of euphemisms which effectively hide the reality of what is being proposed.  In some states a feature of the legislation already passed is that “voluntary assisted dying” is not, for the purposes of the law, suicide.  So, these Acts of Parliament include the blatant lie that the Act does not endorse suicide, ie self-killing.  There are many other euphemisms being used and include “shortening death”, “shortening the dying process”, personal choice or autonomy, and so on.
  4. The appeal to autonomy, to personal choice, is often presented as the knock down argument for euthanasia.  Curiously, this an appeal to use your autonomy to obliterate your autonomy.  Australia has committed itself to protecting the right to life of innocent persons because that right, like the right to liberty” is an “inalienable right”.  An inalienable right is one which cannot be alienated.  I cannot have my right to life taken away from me and nor can I give away my right to life.  The reason for this is that if a person has the right to be killed by another person at their own competent request or to be assisted to kill themselves then the State’s obligation to impartially protect the rights to life and security of person of all citizens is greatly compromised.  It is the same with liberty.  The State can never legalise slavery for those who voluntarily wish to do so, even for noble reasons.
  5. Ignore the evidence. There are other countries which now have had a long period of time in which euthanasia and physician assisted suicide have been legally practiced. My book identifies the empirical data collected about these practices.  The current debate is characterised by the outright refusal of many to deal with this empirical data because to acknowledge that data would get in the way of legalisation.
  6. Slippery slopes. Similarly, in the current debate, many refuse to accept the legitimacy of the slippery slope argument.  The slippery slope argument has two aspects to it, not one.  First, there is the highly significant slide to non-voluntary euthanasia.  But second, once euthanasia and PAS have been legalised, there is the pressure to extend euthanasia to ever wider groups of people, including the demented elderly, children, and the psychologically compromised, as well as those who are simply “sick of life”.  The book provides an abundance of empirical evidence available in the literature from other countries where euthanasia and physician assisted suicide are legal.  Similarly, there is an abundance of evidence of what has happened in Australia when euthanasia and PAS are practiced illegally showing at least as many are killed without their knowledge and consent as with.  It would be naïve to imagine that events which take place privately can ever be independently supervised.  Why would doctors who are prepared to kill their patients when it is illegal to do so, suddenly become law-abiding.

Overall, this book sets the euthanasia debate in the context of the current crisis in Western culture and in relation to the raft of other social issues in which Parliaments have, over the last 55 years, changed the law.  It also places euthanasia in its historical context world-wide.  I hope and believe that you will find this book to be helpful not only in situating euthanasia issues in context, but also in providing the most up-to-date empirical data available about the way euthanasia has affected medical practice and the way that the most vulnerable citizens are being treated.  In the book I refer to the two best funded official reports on euthanasia.  First, the Select Committee on Medical Ethics of the House of Lords (UK 1995), which included members who were in favour of euthanasia before they did their research, said this:

Ultimately, however, we do not believe that these arguments [in favour of legalised euthanasia] are sufficient reason to weaken society’s prohibition of intentional killing. That prohibition is the cornerstone of law and of social relationships. It protects each one of us impartially, embodying the belief that all are equal. We do not wish that protection to be diminished and we therefore recommend that there should be no change in the law to permit euthanasia.

And in the US, the New York Task Force on Life and the Law (1995) said this:

Some Task Force members do not believe that assisted suicide is inherently unethical or incompatible with medical practice. On the contrary, they believe that providing a quick, less prolonged death for some patients can respect the autonomy of patients and demonstrate care and commitment on the part of physicians or other health care professionals. Nonetheless, these members have concluded that legalising assisted suicide would be unwise and dangerous public policy.

In both these committees there were members personally in favour of legalized euthanasia and PAS.  The research they did persuaded both committees to unanimously recommend against legalised euthanasia and physician assisted suicide.

Finally, there are several persons involved in euthanasia practice.  The patient, at least nominally, gets to have their informed choice implemented.  Doctors and nurses may be forced to provide euthanasia and not get a choice to stay out of it.  And privately owned hospitals and nursing homes may be forced to allow what they consider to be gravely immoral acts taking place in their facilities.  The moral beliefs of these individuals and organisations deserve the same respect as those who say they want to be killed in accordance with the law.

I commend my book to all interested persons on all sides of the debate.

 

Post Views : 89