June 3rd 2017


  Buy Issue 2997
Qty:

Articles from this issue:

COVER STORY Left poisons Trump's real achievements

EUTHANASIA It must be war, as truth has been the first casualty

SAME-SEX MARRIAGE Dr David van Gend criticises AMA statement

GENDER POLITICS U.S. Target goes gender neutral; pays the price

GENDER POLITICS Where have all the transgenders gone?

NATIONAL AFFAIRS Graceless new book takes hatchet to Cardinal Pell

CULTURAL HISTORY The prophets of eco-doom: a perfect record of failure

LAW AND SOCIETY Religion in the balance in Australia

MUSIC What's it all about?: when no amount of ado will do

CINEMA Alien: Covenant: Creature seeks Creator

BOOK REVIEW Insights for the euthanasia debate

BOOK REVIEW Assistance is an Australian strength

LETTERS

CANBERRA OBSERVED Abbott strives not to join the forgotten people

NATIONAL AFFAIRS Is Cardinal Pell just the tallest poppy of them all?

Books promotion page
FONT SIZE:

EUTHANASIA
It must be war, as truth has been the first casualty


by Paul Russell

News Weekly, June 3, 2017

The Victorian Ministerial Advisory Panel charged by Premier Daniel Andrews with the task of developing a safe way to kill people and to help them to suicide, released its interim report on May 17.

Set up in December last year, the “expert panel” has conducted statewide hearings and accepted submissions on precisely how to make a safe law.

The panel’s introductory discussion paper made it perfectly clear that its job was not to consider the ethical concerns: “The purpose of this consultation is to ensure that Parliament may debate the merits of voluntary assisted dying through well-informed and workable legislation.”

How that outcome could be considered as “values neutral” is beyond comprehension. Any proposition that has supposedly been vetted and designed through what I am sure will be described as a “lengthy and thorough process” would seem to have the “tick of approval”. The “merit” is loaded into the outcome as Health Minister Jill Hennessy confirmed: “We have the very best medical and legal experts working on this to make sure that when the time comes, everyone in the Victorian Parliament has the information and assurances they need to make an informed decision about this important issue.”

The template

Note well how the panel continues to refer to “voluntary assisted dying” rather than assisted suicide and euthanasia.

As Cardinal Gerhard Müller recently observed: “The use of euphemism or obscure terminology in issues involving life and death should always alert us to an effort to hide the truth. For example, in Canadian public discourse, facilitation of suicide or even direct killing is deceptively termed “aid in dying” – a fabricated expression whose only rhetorical function is to conceal the very nature of the death-dealing action it describes.”

In its 64 pages and 29,143 words, the interim report uses the word “euthanasia” only once – and that in a quotation from a submission. “Assisted suicide” is mentioned three times – again, only from quotations. And “suicide” separately? Well, that’s where matters become more interesting again.

“Some denominational submissions suggested it should not be called ‘voluntary assisted dying’ because it would obscure the role of medical practitioners in aiding suicide.”

Why the mention of “denominational”? In all the quotes from various submissions and testimony, no mention is made about the name of the individual or organisation. What is it about this reference that requires an identifier? It is difficult to come to any other conclusion than to observe that by the use of “denominational” the report seeks to dismiss the concerns as being a “religious objection” only.

The very next sentence amplifies the subterfuge: “An alternative view was expressed that the language of suicide should not be conflated with voluntary assisted dying because of the person’s proximity to death due to illness.”

Who expressed that view? Suicide is suicide; no amount of qualification changes that. But here the euphemism becomes really useful. Read the quote again and substitute “suicide” for “voluntary assisted dying” and the reasons for its use become clear. This is double-speak.

If any more proof was needed, the next occasion that the “S” word appears is in the context of a discussion about record keeping and monitoring: “It was noted that if information about those whose request was denied was linked to other data such as suicides, it would provide a greater understanding of how the framework was operating.”

So, if a person gets access to the law, it’s “voluntary assisted dying”; if they fail to qualify and end their life by other means, it can be called suicide. The premise here, of course, is that “assisted dying” will reduce the incidence of other forms of suicide. This has proven not to be the case in Oregon and any expectation that it might be the case in Victoria is supposition at best.

There’s more! In a discussion about legal liability it is noted that “acting outside the proposed legislation, such as aiding and abetting suicide, would still be a criminal offence”.

Indeed. The death might be by precisely the same method under precisely the same conditions – even with full consent – yet if one condition identified in the law is not met, then it is assisted suicide! You couldn’t make this stuff up!

But the final mention of “suicide” is really where obfuscation and euphemisms are so blatantly evident:

“The impact of the listed cause of death on insurance eligibility was also highlighted in forums and submissions. It was noted that there should be no loss of insurance benefits as a result of exclusion clauses for suicide. This was one of the reasons many considered that voluntary assisted dying should not be listed on a death certificate. Others were of the view that it was clearly the underlying terminal illness or disease that was the cause of death, so there should be no issues with insurance.”

Like many other bills we’ve seen in Australia, this proposition would legislate further obfuscation and would make liars out of doctors by forcing them to falsify the cause of death.

Insurance industry bodies have railed against this kind of inclusion previously and for good reason. They raised the same concerns in The Australian on May 18. It opens up the possibility of someone signing up for a life insurance policy only months before their suicide for the benefit of their estate with a minimum of paid premiums. Think of the possibilities of “inheritance impatience”, otherwise known as Elder Abuse.

What kind of policy outcome are Victorians likely to gain from all this if their elected representatives and appointed officials can’t get past the fabricated expressions of the death-dealing lobby?

Buddha is often quoted as having said: “Three things cannot be long hidden: the sun, the moon and the truth.” He never visited Victoria.

The final report is said to be due at the end of July.




























Join email list

Join e-newsletter list


Your cart has 0 items



Subscribe to NewsWeekly

Research Papers



Trending articles

COVER STORY Full audit can end dual-citizenship fiasco

MANUFACTURING Auto industry loss result of government policy failure

AGENDA FOR AUSTRALIA Financing infrastructure for development and jobs

CANBERRA OBSERVED High Court high handed to 'foreigners' in Parliament

CANBERRA OBSERVED Turnbull is running on empty as margin shrinks

ENVIRONMENT Core of climate science is in the real-world data

COVER STORY Turnbull redefines terms of marriage vote



























© Copyright NewsWeekly.com.au 2017
Last Modified:
March 16, 2017, 10:40 am