NSW

COMMENT

Assisted dying laws deserve a dignified debate

In his address last year to the National Press Club, TV producer Andrew Denton offered a reason for the lack of will within the nation's parliaments to back assisted dying legislation.

"On the questions that are most fundamental to how we live, love and die, religious belief trumps everything," he noted. "This is the theocracy hidden inside our democracy."

Up Next

Witness testifies against Sara Connor

null
Video duration
01:37

More National News Videos

Final journey

Dr John Elliott was in pain and wanted to end his life. He also wanted to make a statement about the choice to die and so invited James Button and photographer Kate Geraghty to document his final journey.

Denton also spoke of the anti-voluntary euthanasia religious "network" that is "working against the clear, popular will for assisted dying laws using the old, crude, but sadly effective weapons of denial and deception".

Denton's remarks referred to the Howard government's decision to overturn right-to-die laws passed by the Northern Territory government.

He concluded that, based on his recent experience advocating for assisted dying laws, the forces that succeeded then "are still in play".

The South Australian experience shows just how difficult it is to establish this type of law in this country.

Advertisement

Its state MPs have considered the issue 15 times, most recently last November, when a "Death With Dignity" bill was defeated by only the casting vote of the Speaker at 4am, following a marathon debate.

It is for this reason that the cross-party group of NSW MPs is releasing an early exposure draft of its proposed assisted dying legislation for public discussion.

They say their desire is for an honest and respectful debate on an issue that provokes enormous passion on either side of the argument.

The NSW Parliament, often derided, demonstrated with its 2013 debate over same-sex marriage legislation that it is capable of just that.

The bill narrowly failed to pass the upper house, by 21 votes to 19. But it promoted, for the most part, discussion that left advocates, opponents and the public better informed.

Whatever the outcome, we can only hope the same is true when it's time for our political representatives to consider this important issue.