May 28th 2011


  Buy Issue 2852
Qty:

Articles from this issue:

EDITORIAL: Labor's backflip on asylum-seekers

CANBERRA OBSERVED: Abbott's inroads into Labor's heartland

NATIONAL AFFAIRS: Comment on the 2011 federal Budget

ENERGY: Will Windsor and Abbott deliver mandated ethanol?

GLOBAL FINANCIAL CRISIS: How the U.S. can emerge from the global slump

SRI LANKA: Australia silent over war crimes against Tamils

WAR ON TERROR: Al-Qaeda and Pakistan's nuclear weapons program

FOREIGN AFFAIRS: Election in Egypt: litmus test for Arab Revolution

CHINA: How Beijing has handled dissidents and protesters

NATIONAL PARKS: Tony Burke's showdown with mountain cattlemen

ENVIRONMENT: Global warming, the latest evidence

POPULATION: Russia to restrict abortions to reverse birth decline

EUTHANASIA: Decisive reasons to reject legalised euthanasia

SOUTH AUSTRALIA: The ups and downs of SA's euthanasia debates

AS THE WORLD TURNS: (various)

BOOK REVIEW: Hijacking the brain- how pornography works

Books promotion page

survey link

FONT SIZE:

SOUTH AUSTRALIA:
The ups and downs of SA's euthanasia debates


by Paul Russell

News Weekly, May 28, 2011

The Adelaide Advertiser headline, “Bill to allow euthenasia (sic) in limited circumstances looks likely to fail in Parliament” (May 5, 2011), was a welcome, if not entirely true, statement.

The bill in question, state Labor MP Stephanie Key’s Criminal Law Consolidation (Medical Defences — End of Life Arrangements) Amendment Bill, has indeed taken some heavy blows of late. A group of prominent doctors and specialists has publicly opposed the bill, and the Law Society of South Australia has expressed its reservations about it.

Into the mix Dr Philip Nitschke’s interventions, promoting the opening of death clinics, seem to have worked against the bill, and the rushed second reading vote (later rescinded) must surely have added to MPs’ doubts.

Earlier this month, when the debate resumed and the earlier vote was, five MPs in succession spoke against the bill — hence the Advertiser’s headline.

However, the thrust of the article wasn’t so much about the predicted decline of the Key bill, but rather about an alternative euthanasia bill being promoted by independent MP, Bob Such.

Such has put up the same bill, promoting euthanasia laws similar to those in the American state of Oregon, in the last three or four parliaments in succession. Rarely has his bill had more than a few speeches in its favour and, previously, it has always languished low down on the notice paper only to fall off at the proroguing of parliament.

The article has Such pushing his bill as a more reasonable alternative to the Key bill. He said: “The concern among members is that this one (being debated) doesn’t have enough safeguards. When you talk about ending someone’s life, it has to have pretty strict safeguards.”

However, in a previous debate, on March 24, when the Key bill was rushed through to a vote, Such expressed different sentiments. He said: “This bill will allow a medical practitioner, using their normal standards of medical care, to ensure that a person does not suffer and that their life is ended with dignity. I agree with what the Minister for Health said: the other options are more complex and more complicated, but this is a very simple proposal which basically allows a medical practitioner to end a life with dignity.… I support this measure.”

It must be said that, after the motion to rescind the earlier second reading was passed, Such did ask the Speaker of the House whether that meant that those who spoke earlier could speak again. It is not clear from the exchange whether or not Such would have declared a change of mind about the Key bill had he been given the opportunity.

Time will tell whether Such was genuine or whether this is simply another case of “any bill will do”.

The question is whether the “good bill, bad bill” play for votes will work. No doubt, there will be those who are happier with a safeguards model.

But, as Wesley J. Smith observed when he was in Adelaide early last year, safeguards are only there to make us feel better about killing people; they are never effective, cannot define every circumstance or the progress of any illness and, ultimately, will very likely be ignored by degrees anyway.

Paul Russell is executive officer for Right to Life NSW and founder of HOPE: Preventing Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide. URL: www.noeuthanasia.org.au. He is due to speak at the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition’s international conference in Vancouver (June 3–4).




























Join email list

Join e-newsletter list


Your cart has 0 items



Subscribe to NewsWeekly

Research Papers



Trending articles

NATIONAL AFFAIRS Cardinal rebuts commission's 'Get Pell' campaign

COVER STORY Anti-discrimination law validates Safe Schools

U.S. AFFAIRS First Brexit, now Trump: it's the economy, stupid!

INDUSTRY AND ENVIRONMENT Wikileaks reveals U.S, funding behind anti-coal campaign

COVER STORY QUT discrimination case exposes Human Rights Commission failings

FOREIGN AFFAIRS How the left whitewashed Fidel Castro

ANALYSIS What is possible to a Trump Whitehouse



News and views from around the world

19-year-old homeschooled pro-lifer wins Ontario election by landslide (Lianne Laurence)

Trump makes right choice for education secretary (National Review)

Transgender conformity (Katherine Kersten)

Sex education programs do not reduce teen pregnancy or STI rates (Philippa Taylor)

Photographer who captured Safe Schools founder harassing bystander shuts down business (Frank Chung)

Is the global middle class here to stay? (Samuel Rines)

Donald Trump could end America's new feudalism (Joel Kotkin)

It just got easier to find the perpetrators of Stalin's purges (David Filipov)

Castro's death eradicate bacillus of old-style Marxism (Gerald Warner)

Labor MP Terri Butler in QUT race case apology (Geoff Chambers)



























© Copyright NewsWeekly.com.au 2011
Last Modified:
December 2, 2016, 2:36 pm