Euthanasia is once again up for debate. The subject can arise for families anywhere, whenever relatives watch someone they care for suffer a lingering, painful death. Surely some means can be devised, the thinking goes, to shorten this suffering by earlier termination of life.
The reaction is completely understandable. When voluntary assisted dying enters public debate, therefore, there is a groundswell of support for it which is based on the memory our society has accumulated of this harrowing experience.
![Terminally ill Sydney man Dr John Elliott, with his wife Anjelika Elliott, sought assisted dying in Switzerland in 2007.](http://web.archive.org./web/20170624033527im_/https://www.fairfaxstatic.com.au/content/dam/images/g/t/r/u/a/d/image.related.articleLeadwide.620x349.gtsg8h.png/1484574795378.jpg)
Last November the South Australian Parliament decided by one vote – the Speaker's casting vote – against a bill to legalise euthanasia. It was the 15th time in recent years that the issue had been voted on. Victoria's Premier, Daniel Andrews, announced last month that MPs in his state would be free to vote according to their conscience on a bill to be introduced into Parliament later this year. Now NSW is go through the same debate and decision: as we reported yesterday, a working group from all parties is drafting legislation which it plans to release for public discussion next month. That is entirely appropriate.
There are many questions about euthanasia – who decides if a life is to end; who is consulted for their approval; who is eligible; what procedure is followed to end a life; who carries it out? Those questions, and no doubt others, are important and should be covered in the drafts which are to be drawn up for the state MPs to debate. They are all subordinate, however, to the overarching question: should euthanasia be available at all? We acknowledge that the issue is raised in good faith by proponents of euthanasia. On the other side, its opponents have been criticised recently for their intransigence on the issue. We do not believe the criticism is fair. Arguments from absolute positions, like those backed by a religious dogma, are – perhaps paradoxically – of little help on this issue to our political leaders, or to anyone except those who hold to that dogma. Views held by some as articles of faith will not satisfy a wider public which is accustomed to testing public policy of all kinds, including on this issue, according to reason and argument, not the pronouncements of clergy or interpretations of scripture.
There can be no place in this debate for diatribes which impugn the motives of those on the opposing side. Undoubtedly there are those who oppose euthanasia from motives based on dogmas which they hold as a matter of faith. But that they defend an essentially dogmatic position does not vitiate their arguments – provided those arguments are based on evidence and reason, not faith alone.
And the arguments on both sides are powerful. Supporters can draw, as mentioned, on the frequent experience of families forced to watch helplessly the painful last days of a dying relative. Their opponents can point to the possibility that making death easier will tempt some to decide to end a relative's life before it can be properly justified. This has not been shown to have occurred significantly in jurisdictions overseas where euthanasia has been legalised, but it remains a possibility. The motive need not necessarily be the greed of heirs anxious to inherit. The rising cost of aged care, and medicine's growing ability to prolong life beyond its natural term combine to form a different motive for the same action. There is scant evidence now that the effect has been produced, but euthanasia has been legal only for a short time. Will that always be the case?
Whatever choice our society makes must be shown to work on a practical level: it must achieve its stated objectives in managing the lives of the dying, and not anything else. Opponents of euthanasia cannot argue that it should be banned only if some condition is met – for example, that governments boost palliative care. No doubt Australia's palliative care services can do with improvement. But the issues raised by euthanasia are fundamental to the human condition, and cannot be decided by reference to the state of our health services.
What is most important, as our society engages once again in a debate on this important issue, is that all issues related to it are canvassed, and that all participants acknowledge the legitimacy of the opposing view, and the sincerity with which it is held.