Dr Goodall’s wish to die
Reading Time: 2 minutes
In today’s ‘Guardian Australia’, Australian Medical Association president, Dr Michael Gannon, is reported commenting on Dr Goodall’s death in Switzerland, saying that he was concerned that the “suicide of someone who’s aged 100” was being celebrated.
“What is the age at which we no longer celebrate people continuing life?” he asked. “People like Dr Goodall make a decision based on nothing more than they’ve decided there’s nothing more to live for. I think that’s a dangerous line to cross.”
Dr Gannon clearly does not understand why so many of us are so pleased for Dr Goodall. What is being celebrated is Dr Goodall determination and ability to die at a time of his choosing, even if he did have to travel to Switzerland to do so.
Dr Gannon comment questions the basis on which Dr Goodall decided to die. Surely he doesn’t believe that medical practitioners are entitled to decide what motivations adequately justify a patients’ requests to die. Yet people like Dr Gannon have left our laws completely out of step with public opinion, which overwhelmingly favours legalising Euthanasia. To appreciate just how far we lag behind the law in Switzerland, I note that Dr Goodall would not qualify for assisted death under the euthanasia law proposed in Victoria nor under the short-lived NT law. We need to question whether it is appropriate for doctors and even our lawmakers to determine what reasons are acceptable – Must we have a terminal illness? Must we be in excruciating pain? Must we be close to denying anyway? Must family members support our wish to die?
The AMA and their conservative friends in Australian parliaments do not just prevent us from being able to avail ourselves of euthanasia, they are responsible for constraining legal initiatives designed to ensure that we’re able to express our wishes about being kept alive.
Dr Gannon needs to be reminded that as long as patients have capacity to make decisions about their medical treatment and procedures, it is patients who decide whether or not they are kept alive through medical intervention. Even when patients lose capacity to decide for themselves, doctors are expected to respect the patients’ earlier expressed wishes, usually as recorded in advanced care directives or in their enduring powers of attorney. Because our law makers have not stood up to the AMA and other conservative pressure groups, our laws permit doctors and family members to legally challenge even the most clearly expressed wishes.
Before we get caught up debating/scaremongering safeguards, the great furphy of the euthanasia debate, let’s consider whether our laws should justifiably prevent any mentally capable person from deciding when they have had enough?
(Visited 12 times, 1 visits today)