What's
it about?
Old controversies sometimes reignite in the strangest circumstances. A featherweight
grandmother recently organised a protest against the law that catapulted her onto the
front pages, and though the event was indeed tragic, she certainly made her point.
Nancy Crick, 69, was a retired Gold Coast barmaid who had been stricken with terminal
bowel cancer. At 8:30 p.m. in the last week of May she drank a lethal cocktail of
barbiturates and died. Mrs Crick had prepared a video for the occasion, in which she
declared, "The thing that most upsets me is that the law says I can kill myself
anytime I want to, but no one can be with me because they might have helped me. Well
that's just rubbish and I don't see why I should die alone. I don't want to die
alone."
And so she did not die alone - in fact, she passed from this world with 21 friends and
family by her side. Now the Queensland police must decide whether to charge the 21
witnesses - who included voluntary euthanasia supporters - with assisting Mrs Crick's
death. Following that the Queensland Director of Public Prosecutions will have to make
some decisions of their own.
Who can be
charged?
It's easy to say that the 21 witnesses may be charged, but it is at best questionable
whether this will happen. Although it is entirely up to the authorities, it may be
arguable whether the witnesses were a functional part of this suicide. Mrs Crick
apparently administered the drugs herself, and some of the witnesses, though perhaps there
to make a political statement, may be characterised as providing comfort to a terminally
ill patient. As Voluntary Euthanasia Society spokesman Rodney Syme said, "If the
Director of Public Prosecutions simply says that under these circumstances there is no
need to prosecute these people because on the information we have there is no case to
answer, then that is a test case without it ever going to court." This is a neat
dilemma that the witnesses have handed to the police and Director of Public Prosecutions,
who could be in a no-win situation.
The case against
Much to the surprise of many observers, apparently including the witnesses, it has been
reported that Mrs Crisk may not in fact have been stricken with cancer at the time of her
death. Certainly she had been subject to surgery that attempted to arrest the bowel
cancer, but according to some activists this issue is mute because she was allegedly in
pain and had lost a significant amount of weight. True or not, it makes one wonder whether
laws can be formulated that give patients the greatest chance to live, rather than die. In
the United States it has been reported that some of the patients of Dr. Jack Kevorkian,
following their assisted suicides, were found on autopsy not to be terminally ill.
It is common for law reformers to paint a pro-euthanasia scenario where a person is in
the terminal stages of a fatal disease such as cancer, but surely it is hard to clinically
draw the line between terminal and chronic illness. For example, the Northern Territory
legislation that was rejected last year by the Federal Parliament could have been
interpreted to include people who are dependent on medication and only technically in the
grip of a terminal illness. Pro-euthanasia legislation might also open the gates for
people who have suffered a traumatic illness or injury, and, as is often the case, cannot
bear the suffering in the short term but may be able to survive to a better quality of
life.
The case for
There is a straightforward libertarian argument in favour of legislative reform - many
people believe, perhaps more today than ever before, that the Government should interfere
in the lives of its citizenry only so far as is required to protect them from real harm.
It is also undeniable that every day, in many hospitals throughout Australia, families
of patients participate in procedures that hasten death. But this is not the focus of
assisted suicide. Euthanasia legislation would only apply to mentally competent patients,
who are fully informed of their rights and alternative available treatments. And although
it is sometimes difficult to be specific about the prognosis of a terminal patient,
legislation could ensure that at least two independent medical practitioners concur on a
diagnosis and prognosis. As well, patients could be compelled to seek permission for an
assisted suicide on at least three occasions, with significant waiting periods in between.
A reasonable debate
Polls show that a majority of Australians are open to a reasonable debate on assisted
suicide. But if they are to accept any legislative change, they also want to be assured
that fundamental safeguards apply to protect patients and doctors. What we don't want is a
rash of suicides played out in the press to achieve maximum political pressure to promote
euthanasia. Clearly many policy makers will be looking closely at the reaction of the
police and prosecutions divisions in Queensland, because a law that is not enforced is
either redundant or ambiguous. In that case the lawmakers have to decide whether the law
should be strengthened, changed, or reconsidered completely. Whatever the response, Mrs
Crick wanted to be heard beyond the grave, and she has certainly achieved this.
By Geoffrey Winn
Creative Director
www.law4u.com.au