Cheryl Field Wants No Pollies At Her Bedside

Australia, 16 May 07 -- No Pollies At My Bedside.

"Go to buggery". They were the last words I heard my father say.

He was bedridden, dying of lung cancer, and I had been called upon to lend a hand at the family home. I was trying to give him some water to ease his dry, rasping throat. He didn't want it and, obviously antagonised, he blurted out the words which will stay with me forever.

You see, he'd chosen to die at home. From the moment he knew there was no coming back, he was going to do it his way.

And his way was to be at home...in his own bed and with his family around him. We respected his decision. After all, it was his life...and his death!

While I'd be lying to say it was easy for everyone involved, I can say that in the end we felt better in knowing it had gone according to plan -- his plan... not my plan, the doctor's plan, the neighbours' plan or the government boffins' plan.

And that's the funny thing about death. It's personal.

But it seems there are too many people -- experts and otherwise -- quick to criticise anyone who strays from their sense of finding what's fitting and proper for someone entering the final stages of their life.

Death is really a lot like life -- it's not a 'one-size-fits-all' proposition. Some choose to face death from their hospital beds taking advantage of every medical assistance available. Others take great relief in the availability of palliative care -- either at home or in care.

But there are some who choose to end their suffering before, or as, it enters its final stages. We call it voluntary euthanasia -- opponents call it murder.

Whatever term you use, it's all about choice. A choice made by a dying person about how they want to spend their final hours.

Some don't get that choice...there one minute, gone the next. You'll often hear the question: How do you want to die? Most would answer"quickly and with no pain".

So why do our politicians continue to ignore the overwhelming support in the community for voluntary euthanasia? Is it fear of losing support of the Christian lobby, or is it simply because they think they know best?

Their hollow wafflings that it could lead to scores of elderly people being "bumped off" just doesn't ring true in today's society of checks and balances. And do they consider the effect on families of finding a loved one who has seen no choice but to escape the pain and end their life...alone?

As Dad said, "Don't feel sorry for the dead ones, look after the ones left behind."

Yes, when the times comes -- and if I need to make a choice about how I want the end to be -- I don't want to be told any anyone, especially politicians, how it's going to be.

As my dear old Dad would say, "They can go to buggery!"

The Senior

A Reader Responds

While I agree with the first part of Cheryl Field’s article ‘No pollies at my bedside’ (My View, May), I must strongly disagree with her views on voluntary euthanasia.

Her disparaging comments about politicians are not based on fact. Politicians uphold the law and all laws are based on moral views.

Our society has always held to a Christian morality, based on the Bible, and that morality teaches that all human life is sacred. That is why we spend lots of money saving people who overdose trying to commit suicide, and we finance police investigations into murders.

Our police do not pick and choose whose murder is more deserving of their attention. That is because they work on the belief that all life is sacred and no one should have it taken from them.

Ms Field is supporting relativism, where someone, including politicians, arbitrarily decides who shall live and who shall die, and there is no absolute right or wrong.

Many old people have dementia. How easy it would be to say they asked to die, or that they would be better off dead... which is the next logical step. And history has shown that that next step has been taken in many societies.

Of course we can ask people how much treatment they want. But willingly assisting in prematurely killing someone or not trying to save their life if they overdose etc, is against our moral framework.

Helen Kuiper

DWDV Comment

Helen Kuiper has confused a number of issues. DWDV wholeheartedly agrees that those who are not terminally ill yet who overdose are worthy of care and support. However, Cheryl Field was talking about a terminally ill person -- her father. He was going to die shortly anyhow. DWDV's Legislative Charter requires a person to be terminally or hopelessly ill with profound suffering, and able to participate competently in their own medical decisions, in order to qualify for medical assistance to die.

Kuiper is wrong in stating that "politicians uphold the law"-- though we would certainly like to think they do in their personal lives. She is confusing the legislature with the executive -- part of the Westminster system of the separation of powers. Politicians (and the judiciary) make the law; the executive (including the police) uphold the law.

Kuiper also makes the assertion that police act "on the belief that all life is sacred." This is a religious assertion and police in fact act on the basis of the laws they are sworn to uphold--not any religious beliefs. While DWDV endorses Kuiper's right to hold her own views, such generic claims do nothing but hide the fact that many people in Australia are not Christian yet their views should also be respected, and that a majority of Christians actually do believe in physician assisted dying for the terminally ill, anyhow.

Finally, in Field's criticism of politicians, it is important to remember that Federal Parliament voted (a majority of Liberal, National and Labor members) to overturn the Northern Territory's Rights of the Terminally Ill Act 1996, in 1997, despite the fact that 80% of Australians were in support of the Act.

DWDV's polling of Victorian politicians indicates that a majority are in support of its Legislative Charter.