Tasmania may get legal euthanasia

Tasmanians are once again gearing up for a debate over euthanasia. Labor Premier Lara Giddings and her Greens Deputy Nick McKim released a report this week arguing that euthanasia and assisted suicide are compassionate responses for “patients who are dying in prolonged suffering”.

After a failed attempt in 2009, they hope that a revised private member’s bill will pass before the end of 2013.

Estimates of how many people would choose euthanasia are as high as 120 a year, but the Premier said it was more likely to be fewer than 10.

She said that her bill had numerous  safeguards, including several checks to confirm that the patient’s intention would be persistent, consistent and voluntary. There is a two-week cooling off period and no provision for advanced directives. An independent body would oversee the process. “I think the model we have got here is the right model for Tasmania, Ms Giddings said.

Tasmania does need tailor-made legislation. It is an island of only 500,000 people, with a large rural population and a growing proportion of elderly. Although critics are sceptical, Giddings and McKim claim that there is no “sound evidence that there is a heightened risk for people who may be vulnerable due to their age, disability, mental illness or isolation”. The term “elder abuse” is not even mentioned in the report.

Giddings and McKim believe that the case for legalised euthanasia is overwhelming. “In general, we are disappointed with the quality of claims and arguments [of opponents] and have found that many of them do not meet the standards required by parliamentarians when considering legislative reform.”

Discarding almost everything written before 2009 as out-of-date and irrelevant made their job considerably easier. They drew most of their arguments from four sources: a 2011 report from the Royal Society of Canada, a 2011 report from the Commission on Assisted Dying in the UK, a 2012 report from the National Assembly of Québec, and the 2012 judicial decision in Carter v. Canada.

This article is published by Michael Cook and BioEdge.org under a Creative Commons licence. You may republish it or translate it free of charge with attribution for non-commercial purposes following these guidelines. If you teach at a university we ask that your department make a donation. Commercial media must contact us for permission and fees. Some articles on this site are published under different terms.

comments powered by Disqus

 Search BioEdge

 Subscribe to BioEdge newsletter
rss Subscribe to BioEdge RSS feed

 Best of the web

 Recent Posts
How can neuroethics combat ‘fake news’?
24 Jun 2017
Texas gives green-light for experimental stem-cell therapies
24 Jun 2017
CIA waterboarding was illegal human experimentation: report
24 Jun 2017
Should medics embed with Iraqi Army for safety?
24 Jun 2017
Going commercial with three-parent babies
24 Jun 2017

Home | About Us | Contact Us | rss RSS | Archive | Bookmark and Share | michael@bioedge.org

BioEdge - New Media Foundation Ltd © 2004 - 2009 All rights reserved -- Powered by Encyclomedia