Individual needs can't trump all else in euthanasia

Philip Nitschke says voluntary euthanasia needs to be clearly defined. Photo/APN

An article in the Sydney Morning Herald this week cries out for a response.

Called "We need a new word for suicide" and written by Philip Nitschke, an author and Voluntary Euthanasia Party candidate for the West Australian Senate, the article proposes that voluntary euthanasia should be clearly defined as different to suicide.

The basis for this argument is that statistics do not differentiate and therefore do not count the actual incidence of voluntary euthanasia.

He suggests this should be done as it would give voluntary euthanasia some legitimacy.

So, yet again, we hear the argument from voluntary euthanasia proponents that to kill oneself in an act of suicide is somehow okay as a choice in some situations, but not in others.

It is a completely misleading logic that diverts attention away from the sad reality. On the one hand, we grapple mightily with the tragedy of suicide, particularly in young people, while on the other hand we hear the view that it is all right in some circumstances, such as serious illness.

The difficulty I have with this is the way words are used to define such circumstances.

For proponents of voluntary euthanasia, it is regarded as an individual choice around matters of loss of quality of life, pain and distress related to personal health. Advances in palliative care mean that for those with terminal illness these issues can be managed with dignity and grace and, at a personal level, I have seen this done in a hospice setting. Those supporting voluntary euthanasia seem to have overlooked this option.

The Nitschke article focuses on the notion and priority of personal choice and dismisses the thoughts and feeling of those left grieving as irrelevant. This perspective reflects the very first-world luxury of a life that does provide choices.

It is no coincidence that the countries where the voluntary euthanasia debate is being conducted or legislation has been introduced all have first-world medical services. Their citizens enjoy life expectancies well beyond that of their peers in countries stricken by poverty or war and yet we appear to have lost sight of this privilege and replaced it with individual needs trumping any wider considerations of those around us.

Pain, distress and poor quality of life: a person who is contemplating suicide might use these words to describe how they feel - the very same words as those used by advocates of voluntary euthanasia. For this reason, it is not appropriate and actually dangerous to use such language to reinforce the voluntary euthanasia debate.

For many people, whether young, middle-aged or ageing, the loss of an important relationship, their health, their potential or their hope can be devastating and raise the risk of suicide. The pain and loss can feel like the end of the world.

With time and support, most will find resilience and move towards the future. It is critical that this message remains on the agenda for communities, agencies and policymakers and that it does not become side-tracked by the debate about voluntary euthanasia.

Terry Sarten is a New Zealand-registered social worker, writer and musician currently living and working in Sydney - feedback: tgs@inspire.net.nz