BONES OF CONTENTION
FOR FREE THINKERS
The Right To Die
Every human being on this planet
deserves the right to die
in his or her own good time.
Australia
is the first country
to put it into law,
and every other country
should rush to copy
their splendid choice.
The technical name for this right is
euthanasia.
The Hemlock Society is fighting
for the right of people
to die a peaceful death.
We want to control our dying
and have our decisions recognized
by the partners in our caretaking:
our families, doctors,
nurses and hospice workers.
Particularly we want to insure
that at least the rights
to which we are legally entitled
are recognized.
WHO IS DOCTOR JACK KEVORKIAN?
Doctor Jack Kevorkian is widely referred to as Doctor Death,
because he has been present at the deaths
of more than 40 people since l990.
He charges no fees or expenses for his services to dying people.
He always makes his assistance public knowledge,
as part of his determined campaign to change
attitudes and laws on physician-assisted suicide.
He has actively participated in the 20-year campaign for
the right to choose to die.
Derek Humphry, the "father" of the assisted suicide movement,
and author of FINAL EXIT, stated publicly:
�In my view Jack Kevorkian has been of enormous value,
because of the extensive publicity caused by his acts
of compassionate help in dying.
He is a determined man with great integrity,
who has forced the medical profession to reconsider
its outdated position on euthanasia.
He wants fair and legal guidelines for justified assisted suicide,
which he and other sympathetic physicians can,
in good conscience, abide by.�
People have asked why, in the list of assisted suicides,
only nine of the 33 people are men.
Doctor Kevorkian told a National Press Club
on July 29, 1996:
"I find women stronger here.
They know the strength.
Of course, I knew that from my mother.
She was a very strong woman.
But women are, first of all, more practical than men.
Men are, well you know, their minds are boggled down
with bunches of hair-splitting philosophy and idealism.
Women wonder why they die for a principle.
Women are very practical.
That is why I think they can face it better than men.
They are more in tune with nature than men are."
A poll taken August 1996, shows the following level of opinion
on Doctor Jack Kevorkian's action in assisted suicides.
39% He should be controlled in his reckless methods.
28% He is always wrong in helping others to die.
39% He is always right in helping others to die.
41% The government should stay out of the issue.
22% Laws should prohibit assisted suicide.
34% Rules should prevent abuses of assisted suicide.
Dr. Jack Kevorkian is taken to trial repeatedly,
but so far no jury will convict him for his acts of mercy.
WHAT IS EUTHANASIA?
Amanda Taubman writes:
The euthanasia issue was recently raised
when seven doctors admitted in an open letter
to Premier Jeff Kennett of Australia
that they had helped a young man with A.I.D.S.
to die by giving him a lethal injection.
That letter has brought about discussions
about the euthanasia law.
Since then active euthanasia has become legal
in the Northern Territory.
It is one of three places in the world
where euthanasia is allowed.
There are seven types of euthanasia.
The main two types are passive and active euthanasia.
Passive euthanasia is when a life-support system is taken away
or a patient refuses to take necessary medical treatment to live.
Active euthanasia is when a person asks
to be killed with the help of a doctor or relative.
In spite of improvements in living conditions and life span,
that doesn't mean a person won't suffer when dying.
Doctors are better at postponing death than ever before.
This means more people are kept alive
with irreversible and disabling conditions.
It is because of these types of situations
that I am convinced in favour of euthanasia.
In conclusion, I want to say everybody has the right to live
but everybody should also have the right to die.
It seems only humane to let a person
who wants to die to commit euthanasia.
What is lingering death like for a person
who is suffering constant, excruciating pain
that tears at the very fiber of your being?
A palliative care specialist provides this explanation.
(palliative meaning lessening without curing)
Pain, particularly pain due to the infiltration by cancer
of extremely sensitive nerve-rich areas,
such as the brain, head, neck, pelvis and spine
is commonly episodic and excruciating,
aggravated by the slightest movement,
and may be likened to a dental drill
on an unanaesthetised tooth nerve.
As such, the pain is not capable
of adequate control by palliative medicine.
Five to 10 per cent of cancer pain
may be of this type and can only be palliated
by producing a prolonged state of unconsciousness,
coma or pharmacological oblivion.
This process can last
for an indeterminable length of time
until death occurs from dehydration, circulatory collapse
or retention of bronchial secretions (death rattle)
due to pneumonia and pulmonary collapse.
Add to the pain intractable vomiting,
gastrointestinal hemorrhage, air starvation
and massive loss of weight,
and it becomes easy to appreciate
that this is not a dignified process.
If you have ever watched an agonizing death,
you will confirm that it takes
an inordinate amount of courage
not to turn away,
and it becomes impossible not to afford
the suffering one the humane coup de grace
to end it all once and for all.
The issue of euthanasia is not a new one,
and public debate has escalated recently
in various parts of the world,
notably Australia and the United States.
The resurgence is attributed to
the better educated and more assertive patient,
an aging society thinking more about death and dying,
less traditional religious authority,
the discovery and horror of AIDS,
tremendous advances in sustaining life
which, in effect, prolongs the dying process,
and the increasingly strong belief in liberty
and the individual�s right to choose.
Euthanasia is not a political issue.
It is a human rights issue.
Laws in place state
that regardless of our quality of life,
no matter how wretched, miserable or painful,
it will never be so bad that any of us
will be allowed to put an end to it.
I am not prepared to allow society
to make that decision for me
or for those I love.
The Right To Die concept is based
on a relatively simple principle.
If there is a terminally ill patient
who wishes to end their suffering
by accelerating their inevitable death,
and if there are sympathetic doctors
who are willing to help them die with dignity,
law should not forbid it.
If a patient is experiencing severe pain
or suffering severe mental depravation
with no hope of medical relief,
sympathetic doctors should be allowed
to administer a lethal substance,
or prescribe a lethal substance
to be self-administered,
without offending the law.
The narrow focus of The Right To Die
will not facilitate involuntary euthanasia.
It will simply give those who suffer
the right to choose a death with dignity,
to bring a swift end to the torture
so many endure on their death-bed.
Death is by no means inevitably
a painful and distressing experience,
yet for some, it is unbearable.
Oh, we can refuse medical treatment,
operations, life support systems,
resuscitation, food or drink
and thereby bring about an earlier death.
Law states that a patient
who is dying in agony
can end their life if they choose,
but that patient will have to die slowly
with no one to legally help them.
The patient must face
the prospect of dying
a so-called natural death
in suffering and distress.
Current law forbids the medical profession
to do that which is simply humane.
The will to live
is the strongest driving force of all
and we will hang on until
the quality of life becomes insufferable.
Then we deserve the right to die
at a time of their own choosing.
Even if the law were changed
some doctors would not comply
with requests for euthanasia,
because of a personal perception
of medical ethics or religious conviction.
Though situations are deemed appropriate,
some doctors would actively terminate life
while others would not.
Opposition based on sincere
religious belief can be appreciated,
but should that belief be imposed on others?
A favorite religious adage states
that we learn lessons from suffering.
Even if voluntary euthanasia
were legal the world over,
there would still be more than enough
human suffering to provide these lessons.
Does a loving god desire that we suffer
all the horrible things that
can and do occur in life?
If you believe that only God can give life
and only God can take it away,
The Right To Die is not for you.
Conversely,
and in all fairness,
every individual who does desire
the right to choose
should most certainly have it.
In a recent poll, 8 in 10 agreed
they would support a law
that allows voluntary euthanasia.
Why should anyone, including the law,
be permitted to deny
mentally competent adult patients
in the last stages of terminal illness
the choice to bring an end
to their relentless suffering?
The only purpose for which Over himself,
power can be rightfully exercised
over any member of a civilized society,
against his will,
is to prevent harm to others.
over his own body and mind,
the individual is sovereign.
Opposition would do well to consider
these powerful words because
The Right To Die
gives individuals the sovereignty
to exercise their right to choose
a more humane end to their life,
if they are terminally ill
and find the pain and stress
beyond their capacity to endure.
The only freedom
which deserves the name
is that of pursuing our own good
in our own way,
so long as we do not attempt
to deprive others of theirs,
or impede their efforts to obtain it.
Australia�s Northern Territory
is the first country in the word
to sign Euthanasia into law!
A Darwin man has become the first person
in the world to have his life ended
under euthanasia legislation.
The man, in his mid-60s,
who had suffered from prostate cancer for five years,
was assisted by his doctor under the
Australian Northern Territory's
Euthanasia Law.
The man, a former builder and pilot,
died on a Sunday afternoon at his suburban Darwin home
using lethal drugs administered by the so-called
"Death Machine"
a computer-operated device
which releases the drugs after
the patient presses the required buttons.
His wife was with him, as was his doctor.
The couple had no children.
Under the Northern Territory law,
a patient is required to obtain
the signatures of a doctor
and a specialist in his illness,
who must confirm the diagnosis and prognosis
and a psychiatrist who must state
the patient is not suffering a treatable clinical depression.
The form the man signed states that
he had been advised by doctors that
he was suffering from an illness
which would ultimately result in his death.
The doctors signed a form declaring that
"I am satisfied that he is of sound mind
and that his decision to end his life
has been made freely, voluntarily
and after due consideration".
There was then a nine-day "cooling off" period .
Do you demand your right to die on your own terms?