Analysis

0
World-first report of VAD use amongst minors is now available for download.

Differences of opinion continue to be expressed regarding law reform to permit voluntary assisted dying (VAD) for minors: persons under the age of legal majority or adulthood, which in most jurisdictions is 18 years. Some claims are florid and ill-informed. To date, no cohesive report has been published regarding the actual use of VAD by minors in jurisdictions where it is lawful. This research aims to address that shortfall.

This study examines official evidence from lawful jurisdictions regarding the extent and nature of VAD amongst minors. Its aim is to facilitate calmer public discourse and more fully inform legislators considering VAD law reform proposals.

Findings

  • VAD is currently a lawful choice for minors in the Netherlands, Belgium, Switzerland and Colombia.
  • Dutch and Belgian legislation, and Colombian regulations, stipulate additional requirements regarding minors.
  • Available Dutch and Belgian data reveal very low rates of use, between zero and three cases per annum, with parental involvement in decision making.
  • There are no cases of VAD amongst minors on record in Switzerland.
  • No official case data is available from Colombia. However, given the extremely low rate of VAD use overall, cases amongst minors are highly unlikely.
  • While use of VAD laws by minors is rare, a review of case records reveals — as for adults — severe refractory underlying illness with extreme, unrelievable suffering.

 

Conclusions

Use of VAD by minors in lawful jurisdictions is rare, but nevertheless occurs with parental involvement in decision making, and otherwise as for adults: in cases of severe, refractory underlying illness with extreme, unrelievable suffering.

 

Download the full report PDF (270k)

Share This Post:
0

A recent article in The Guardian reports that most Queensland churchgoers support voluntary assisted dying (VAD), citing a recent YouGov poll commissioned by the Clem Jones Trust.

In fact, attitudes in support of VAD have been strengthening across Australia for many years, and the last few are no exception. In this analysis I explain, using impeccable Australian Election Study (AES) data gathered by a specialist team at Australian National University.

Each federal election, the AES gathers extensive demographic and attitudinal data from a substantial sample of Australians. That means we have comparable snapshots from each election in recent times, including 2019, 2016, 2013, 2010 and 2007 (though attitudes toward VAD have been asked only since 2016).

First up, given the well-documented strong connection between higher religiosity and less favourable attitudes towards VAD, let’s take a quick look at Australia’s changing religious landscape.

Abandoning religion: from trickle to torrent

Since federation, periodic census data collected by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) confirms a long-term decline in religious affiliation (Figure 1).

ABS Census data of religion since FederationFigure 1: Religious affiliation in Australia by census year (ABS data)
NOTE: Figures are nett of typically 10% non-response

Even this data generally overstates actual religious affiliation, compared with repeated good-quality polls. Census data has pegged religious affiliation typically 4-8% higher than do most polls.

That’s because until the most recent census (2016), collections had primarily or exclusively used a single, massive booklet for household completion. Mr Jones was unlikely to upset Mrs Jones by ticking the “No religion” box when he thinks she’s sure the family is Anglican, and she can see his answers. In contrast, relatives are not looking over the shoulder of an opinion poll respondent, which allows them to be more frank.

Additionally, a formal booklet is more likely to prompt respondents to answer in terms of historical household identity (a lagging indicator), while ad hoc surveys are more likely to prompt answers in terms of recent, pragmatic attitudes and practices (current indicator).

Abandoning religious identity

AES data clearly shows that for major denominations, Australians are leaving institutionalised religion in droves (Figure 2).

Religious affiliation by federal election yearFigure 2: Religious affiliation by federal election year (AES data)

Over just 12 years Catholic affiliation has dropped from 28% to 21% (a drop of 26% of its flock); Anglican from 21% to 15% (-29%); and Uniting/Methodist from 8% to 4% (-52%). In total, minor Christian denominations have remained around the same, while non-Christian denominations have experienced a small increase, mostly from immigration.

But by far the most dramatic change over the 12 years is that No Religion has soared from 26% to 41% of the population, an increase of 61%. The largest increase was between 2016 and 2019, most likely a result of Australians’ dismay at the 2017 reports of the royal commission into institutional responses to the sexual abuse of children. It found that most offenses occurred in religious institutions, more than half of them in the Catholic church alone.

Abandoning religious practice

Not only have Australians been abandoning religious identity, but for the most part increasingly abandoning religious practice (Figure 3).

Religious service attendance by denominationFigure 3: Almost never/never attend religious services (AES data)

At the same time as many Australians have abandoned religious identity, those still identifying with Catholic, Uniting, and non-Christians faiths are attending services less than before.

Overall, service attendance has remained about the same amongst minor Christian denominations, and there has been an increase amongst Anglicans (actually because far more Notionals — people who identify with a denomination but never attend religious services — have “left” the Anglican church).

Indeed, in 2019, fewer than half of Australians (47%) ever attend religious services, just a third (32%) attend more often than once in a blue moon, and a mere 16% are consistent attenders.

Clerics might still be talking, but fewer Australians than ever want to listen.

Abandonment to continue

Australians will continue to abandon religion given that most younger Australians reject religion at the same time that older, more religious Australians pass away (Figure 4).

Religion by age cohort 2019 (AES data)Figure 4: Religion by age cohort 2019 (AES data)

This picture is even more dire for clerics than it was just three years earlier in 2016 (Figure 5).

Religion by age cohort 2016 (AES data)Figure 5: Religion by age cohort 2016 (AES data)

Over the next 25 years the Catholic church and minor Christian denominations will struggle, while the Anglican and Uniting churches will almost cease to exist if current trends continue.

An integrated measure of religion

For further analysis, we’ll use the Australian Religious Identity 6-Factor (ARI6) model. It segments on the combined basis of religious attitudes and behaviour across a spectrum from Rejecters to Devouts.

Unsurprisingly over the past decade, Devouts have remained firmly entrenched in their faith (Figure 6), while there has been a small downward trend amongst Regulars.

ARI6 by year (AES data)Figure 6: Australian Religious Identity 6-Factor (ARI6) by year (AES data)

Most of the abandonment of religion in recent years has been amongst Occasionals, those who identify with a religious denomination but rarely attend services. This begs the question as to whether clerics were right to assume that they spoke for many in their flocks in the first place.

Attitudes toward VAD — Overall

Between 2016 and 2019 there was a small but statistically non-significant increase in total support for VAD, while there was no change in total opposition (Figure 7).

Australian adult VAD attitudes by yearFigure 7: Australian adult attitudes toward VAD by year (AES data)

What is readily apparent, though, is a substantial increase in the number of Australians strongly in support of VAD (from 43% to 53%), while total opposition has remained tiny at fewer than one in ten Australians (9%).

Attitudes toward VAD — Religious affiliation

Amongst Australians who still count themselves as religiously affiliated in 2019, a majority of all religions except minor Christian denominations clearly favour VAD (Figure 8), including three quarters (74%) of Catholics, four in five Anglicans (78%) and Uniting/Methodists (81%), and almost all non-Christian religious (96%) and non-religious (92%).

Even amongst the minor Christian denominations with nearly half (49%) in support, just one in five (20%) were opposed to VAD, the rest being neutral.

VAD attitudes by religion 2019Figure 8: Attitudes toward VAD by religious affiliation 2019 (AES data)

Strong support amongst Catholics increased massively from 36% in 2016 to 48% (close to half in strong support) in 2019, highlighting the irony of Catholic clergy continuing to actively oppose VAD law reform.

Given the tiny minorities opposed across the religious spectrum, those clerics who continue to vocally oppose the legalisation of VAD — including some employing serious misinformation — in no way are speaking for the majority of their flocks.

Attitudes toward VAD — Religiosity

Unsurprisingly, given the vast body of existing scholarly research evidence, opposition to VAD is largely religious (Figure 9).

VAD attitudes by ARI6, 2019Figure 9: Attitudes toward VAD by ARI6 2019 (AES data)

Nearly half of all opposition to VAD (44%) is of Devouts, with an additional quarter (26%) amongst Regulars and Occasionals, and a smaller proportion (17%) from Notionals.

Tellingly, even amongst the most religious, opposition to VAD has dropped significantly in just three years since 2016 (Figure 10). Opposition to VAD amongst Devouts dropped from nearly half (46%) to just over a third (35%), and amongst Regulars from 25% to just 15%.

VAD attitudes by ARI6, 2016Figure 10: Attitudes toward VAD by ARI6 2016 (AES data)

For 2019, proportions of the most opposed religious segment, Devouts, are almost evenly split amongst supporters, neutrals and opposers.

Amongst the next most religious, Regulars, supporters outnumber opponents by three to one, and in all the other segments supporters outnumber opponents by more than ten to one.

The evidence is clear: even amongst the most religious Australians, opposition to VAD is melting away.

The lowdown for politicians

What does this mean for legislators, who the community is asking to legalise VAD with responsible safeguards? Figure 11 shows VAD attitudes of Australians by the political party they identify with.

VAD attitudes by political party identity 2019Figure 11: Attitudes toward VAD by political party identity 2019 (AES data)

It’s obvious why VAD Bills have been sponsored by Greens members and/or facilitated by Labor governments.

In contrast, Australian Coalition parliamentary parties (with notable exceptions of a handful of Coalition members) have steadfastly obstructed consideration and passage of VAD Bills. This is not because the party machinery is representing the broader Coalition voter, whose overall support stands at 74% versus a tiny 13% opposed. Rather, it’s because of the (widely reported) takeover of the party machinery by the religious right.

The natural home of VAD opponents is minor right parties, comprising overall a slight majority (53%) opposed to VAD. [Addendum: those identifying with minor right parties comprise just 3.1% of the adult Australian population.]

Given that minor right party voters are most likely to give their major party preference flow to the Coalition, the real concern for Coalition election strategists is to minimise first preferences going to a minor right party in the one or two electorates (if any) in which such a minor party win might even be on the cards.

The lowdown for election candidates

It’s been a firm belief among the political class for a long time that candidates openly supporting VAD would be punished at the polls on election day, with little to no downside for candidates opposed to VAD. That, however, is fake news.

A 2012 Newspoll survey asked voters if, all other things being equal, they would change their vote if their otherwise preferred election candidate’s stance was the opposite of their own (support vs opposition). (Full disclosure: as CEO of YourLastRight.com I commissioned the survey.)

VAD-supporting voters stated they would punish their preferred candidate (opposing VAD) at three times the net rate that VAD-opposing voters would punish a supporting candidate. I’ve subsequently published various other observations that are consistent with this finding.

Now that strong support for VAD amongst the Australian public is significantly higher than it was in 2016 (let alone 2012), it would be foolhardy for any supportive politician to hide their light under a bushel, or for an opposed candidate to effectively thumb their nose at the majority of voters.

I’m reminded of a favourite remark of Sir Humphrey Appleby (Nigel Hawthorn) in the 1980s British political comedy series Yes Minister, who would gently point out his Minister’s policy folly (Jim Hacker played by Paul Eddington) with the light remark, “that would be very courageous, Minister!”

It’s now a very courageous candidate indeed who believes their personal opposition to VAD ought to trump the support of the vast majority of their constituency. And, given the ongoing abandonment of religion in Australia, such candidates will soon find themselves on the wrong side of history.

The lowdown for campaigners and voters

Given that most Australians — increasingly including the religious — are in favour of responsible VAD law reform, and with a growing proportion strongly in support, it’s more important than ever to determine election candidates’ real attitudes toward VAD.

Some candidates provide prompt and candid responses to help voters decide. But many candidates obfuscate, either failing to respond at all or responding with non-answers such as they haven’t seen specific legislation yet so cannot answer, or cynically stating only the obvious such as “opinions vary” and it can be “an emotive issue”.

The key action with obfuscators is to get a real answer to the question “could there be any version of a VAD Bill that could enjoy your support?” And assume those who still obfuscate would have said “no”, had they been candid.


Share This Post:
0
Terminal sedation is not an argument against assisted dying law reform.

Opponents of assisted dying often claim that the appropriate response to refractory symptoms at end of life is terminal sedation — also known as palliative sedation or continuous deep sedation.e.g. 1 Terminal sedation is the administration of sedatives so as to render the patient unconscious until death. Thus, the patient’s active experience of suffering is removed, even if the underlying causes of the suffering are not.

Terminal sedation can help in some cases of end-of-life suffering, but it remains a problematic practice — and not a substitute for lawful assisted dying — for eight broad reasons.

1. Directly and foreseeably causing death

Unless the patient is already likely to die of her illness within a few days, it is the withholding of artificial nutrition and hydration during terminal sedation that causes the patient’s death. Lack of fluids causes circulatory collapse and organ failure within 14 days; less if the patient is frail.

In addition, at least one study has found that the terminal sedation medication itself can cause depression of respiration and/or circulation, directly resulting in death in 3.9% of cases.2 Another study purporting to show no survival difference in patients given terminal sedation3 has been exposed as deeply scientifically flawed.4

While opponents of assisted dying usually claim that the intention of terminal sedation is the relief of symptoms and not the hastening of death (their fundamental objection to assisted dying), in practice, terminal sedation can directly and foreseeably cause death.

2. Inapplicable prior to 2–14 days before death

A standard of practice in terminal sedation in many jurisdictions is that it should be used to address refractory symptoms only if the patient’s death is anticipated within hours or days, and in any case less than 14 days.5

However, intolerable and intractable symptoms often occur much earlier, for example amongst those with metastatic cancer where death is still weeks off, or those with a progressive degenerative neurological condition such as motor neuron disease, who may have several months to live.

Thus, terminal sedation is not a practical solution to intractable symptoms in many cases.

3. It doesn’t always help

Palliative Care Australia’s acknowledgement that even best practice can’t always alleviate intolerable suffering at end of life6 is confirmed by a study into terminal sedation practice which found that, in contrast to popular belief that it alleviates (the patients’ conscious awareness of) all suffering, it was ineffective in 17% of cases.7

4. It may violate the patient’s value system

Most calls for terminal sedation as “the answer” to assisted dying law reform focus on the views of the doctor, for whom this is another familiar “intervention”. However, terminal sedation may be unacceptable to the patient.

A patient may deeply believe that being forced to dehydrate to death — unconscious in a bed for a couple of weeks — to be an anathema to her most deeply-held values and sense of self as an active participant in her own life trajectory. This patient may profoundly prefer another route whose equally caused and foreseeable consequence is death: voluntary assisted dying, an option that gives her the chance to say goodbye to loved ones at a time of her own choosing.

5. It extinguishes the patient’s decisional capacity

Rendering the patient unconscious extinguishes her decision-making capacity. The patient can no longer participate in her own treatment decisions unless terminal sedation is ceased, she regains consciousness and becomes aware of her intolerable suffering once more.

6. Doctors’ intention not always clear-cut

When a doctor administers terminal sedation to a patient, the doctor’s intention is not always clear-cut. The doctor may intend to alleviate the patient’s suffering and/or intend to hasten death.

The administration of a single large bolus of sedatives is generally indicative of an intention to hasten death, in which case the doctor in likely to be investigated and prosecuted. However, the administration of increasing doses of sedatives is less clear: significantly increasing titrations of sedatives may be necessary to alleviate intractable symptoms, or they may be an intention to hasten death.

7. Risk of coercion

There is a conceptual risk that greedy relatives, service providers who need the patient’s bed, and others, might inappropriately persuade the patient to opt for a death hastened by terminal sedation, a similar theoretical risk to that in assisted dying.

However, unlike assisted dying which under statutory law is an express, fully informed, independently examined and documented desire and intention to hasten death, there are no statutory requirements in Australia regarding testing of desire, informedness, intention or possible coercion in terminal sedation. This is incoherent.

8. Worse experiences for the bereaved

Studies have found a significant minority of relatives of patients receiving terminal sedation are quite distressed by the experience. Problems causing distress include concern about the patient’s welfare and terminal sedation’s failure to address symptoms, burden of responsibility for making the decision, feeling unprepared for changes in the patient’s condition, short time to the patient’s death and whether terminal sedation had contributed to it, feeling that healthcare workers were insufficiently compassionate, and wondering if another approach would have been better.e.g. 8,9 Periods of longer terminal sedation may be more distressing than shorter periods.10

In contrast, an Oregon study found that the bereaved from assisted deaths appreciate the opportunity to say goodbye, to know that the choice was the deceased’s wish, that the deceased avoided prolonged suffering, that the choice was legal, and they were able to plan and prepare for the death.11

Another Oregon study found that the mental health outcomes of bereaved from assisted deaths were no different from the bereaved from natural deaths.12 Bereaved from assisted deaths were more likely to believe that the dying person’s wishes had been honoured and were less likely to have regrets about the death.

A Swiss study found the rate of complicated grief after assisted death was comparable to the general Swiss population,13[^] while a Dutch study found bereavement coping in cancer was better after assisted death than after non-assisted death.14

Incoherent professional association standards

Neither the Australian Medical Association nor Palliative Care Australia have guidelines for doctors for the practice of terminal sedation.[*] Indeed, even Palliative Care Australia’s carefully reviewed and updated national standards released in late 2018 don’t mention sedation at all.15

In contrast, in countries where assisted dying is now lawful, clear and specific frameworks have been developed to guide the practice of terminal sedation: in the Netherlands,16 Canada,17 and Belgium.18 This deliberative development and implementation points to continued improvement in (not deterioration of) professional medical practice across the board when assisted dying is legal.

Given the profound issues in terminal sedation as in voluntary assisted dying, the failure of the peak Australian medical associations to publish guidelines on terminal sedation, while opposing assisted dying for perceived issues in its implementation, is incoherent and indefensible.

Summary

Palliative and medical care can never address all profound suffering at the end of life, regardless of funding or organisation: some kinds of suffering have no relevant or effective medical interventions, and even terminal sedation may be inapplicable or ineffective. To claim that palliative care is always the answer is a “monstrous arrogance19 and “represents the last vestiges of [medical] paternalism”.20

 

"It is clear that improving palliative care will not remove the need for legalizing assisted dying, and that legalizing assisted dying need not harm palliative care.”21

 

While terminal (palliative) sedation may help a minority of patients, it's a problematic practice that is often not a practical solution to refractory symptoms at end of life.

Terminal sedation is not a substitute for lawful assisted dying choice.


[^]     Slightly elevated levels of PTSD were found amongst the bereaved (compared to the general population), but it was not established whether this would have been different from the trauma of experiencing continued suffering and deterioration or different from PTSD rates of those who had recently lost a loved one by any other means, including terminal sedation.

[*]     Revealed through direct correspondence between myself and the two associations.

 

References

  1. Somerville, M 2009, 'We can always relieve pain', Ottawa Citizen, (24 Jul).
  2. Morita, T, Chinone, Y, Ikenaga, M, Miyoshi, M, Nakaho, T, Nishitateno, K, Sakonji, M, Shima, Y, Suenaga, K, Takigawa, C, Kohara, H, Tani, K, Kawamura, Y, Matsubara, T, Watanabe, A, Yagi, Y, Sasaki, T, Higuchi, A, Kimura, H, Abo, H, Ozawa, T, Kizawa, Y, Uchitomi, Y, Japan Pain, PMR & Psycho-Oncology Study, G 2005, 'Efficacy and safety of palliative sedation therapy: a multicenter, prospective, observational study conducted on specialized palliative care units in Japan', J Pain Symptom Manage, 30(4), pp. 320-8.
  3. Maltoni, M, Pittureri, C, Scarpi, E, Piccinini, L, Martini, F, Turci, P, Montanari, L, Nanni, O & Amadori, D 2009, 'Palliative sedation therapy does not hasten death: results from a prospective multicenter study', Ann Oncol, 20(7), pp. 1163-9.
  4. Francis, N 2016, How bad research fuels dodgy claims, DyingForChoice.com, viewed 11 Mar 2016, http://www.dyingforchoice.com/f-files/how-bad-research-fuels-dodgy-claims.
  5. Twycross, R 2019, 'Reflections on palliative sedation', Palliative care, 12, pp. 1-16.
  6. Palliative Care Australia 2006, Policy statement on voluntary euthanasia, Canberra, pp. 2.
  7. Davis, MP 2009, 'Does palliative sedation always relieve symptoms?', Journal of Palliative Medicine, 12(10), pp. 875-877.
  8. Morita, T, Ikenaga, M, Adachi, I, Narabayashi, I, Kizawa, Y, Honke, Y, Kohara, H, Mukaiyama, T, Akechi, T & Uchitomi, Y 2004, 'Family experience with palliative sedation therapy for terminally ill cancer patients', Journal of Pain and Symptom Management, 28(6), pp. 557-565.
  9. Bruinsma, SM, Brown, J, van der Heide, A, Deliens, L, Anquinet, L, Payne, SA, Seymour, JE, Rietjens, JAC & on behalf of, U 2014, 'Making sense of continuous sedation in end-of-life care for cancer patients: an interview study with bereaved relatives in three European countries', Supportive Care in Cancer, 22(12), pp. 3243-3252.
  10. van Dooren, S, van Veluw, HT, van Zuylen, L, Rietjens, JA, Passchier, J & van der Rijt, CC 2009, 'Exploration of concerns of relatives during continuous palliative sedation of their family members with cancer', J Pain Symptom Manage, 38(3), pp. 452-459.
  11. Srinivasan, EG 2009, Bereavement experiences following a death under Oregon's Death With Dignity Act, Human Development and Family Studies, Oregon State University, pp. 127.
  12. Ganzini, L, Goy, ER, Dobscha, SK & Prigerson, H 2009, 'Mental health outcomes of family members of Oregonians who request physician aid in dying', J Pain Symptom Manage, 38(6), pp. 807-15.
  13. Wagner, B, Müller, J & Maercker, A 2012, 'Death by request in Switzerland: Posttraumatic stress disorder and complicated grief after witnessing assisted suicide', European Psychiatry, 27(7), pp. 542-546.
  14. Swarte, NB, van der Lee, ML, van der Bom, JG, van den Bout, J & Heintz, AP 2003, 'Effects of euthanasia on the bereaved family and friends: a cross sectional study', British Medical Journal, 327(7408), pp. 189-192.
  15. Palliative Care Australia 2018, National Palliative Care Standards, Griffith ACT, pp. 44.
  16. Verkerk, M, van Wijlick, E, Legemaate, J & de Graeff, A 2007, 'A national guideline for palliative sedation in the Netherlands', J Pain Symptom Manage, 34(6), pp. 666-70.
  17. Dean, MM, Cellarius, V, Henry, B, Oneschuk, D & Librach, LS 2012, 'Framework for continuous palliative sedation therapy in Canada', J Palliat Med, 15(8), pp. 870-9.
  18. Broeckaert, B, Mullie, A, Gielen, J, Desmet, M, Declerck, D, Vanden Berghe, P & FPZV Ethics Steering Group 2012, Palliative sedation guidelines, Federatie Palliatieve Zorg Vlaanderen, viewed 18 Sep 2015, http://www.pallialine.be/template.asp?f=rl_palliatieve_sedatie.htm.
  19. Hain, RDW 2014, 'Euthanasia: 10 myths', Archives of Disease in Childhood, 99(9), pp. 798-799.
  20. Horne, DC 2014, 'Re: Why the Assisted Dying Bill should become law in England and Wales', BMJ, 349, p. g4349/rr/759847.
  21. Downar, J, Boisvert, M & Smith, D 2014, 'Re: Why the Assisted Dying Bill should become law in England and Wales [response]', BMJ, 349, p. g4349/rr/760260.
Share This Post:
0
Margaret Somerville's latest and repeated misinformation deserves censure.

If there’s one thing you have to admire about Margo Somerville, Catholic Professor of Bioethics at the University of Notre Dame Australia, it’s her persistence in the face of being called out for misrepresenting facts about assisted dying. She’s at it again.

Today in the Sydney Morning Herald, Somerville was quoted spruiking her credentials via a recent publication in the peer-reviewed Journal of Palliative Care.1 Since I study the professional literature, I’m aware of said article, which was published several weeks ago. It's a shocker.

The authority bias

Somerville shows herself to again to not care much for the full facts. She seems more comfortable with calling on the ‘authority bias’: advancing her credentials as a “Professor of Bioethics” along with nine “international counterparts” in the authorship of said paper.

I’ll spare you a blow-by-blow analysis of how the JPC article skilfully employs reassuringly professional tones to stake a wholly one-sided and shockingly ill-informed stance against assisted dying law reform.

A very telling example of misinformation

Let’s look at just one very telling example: the statistics that the authors quote about non-voluntary euthanasia (NVE) rates in Belgium and the Netherlands. NVE is a doctor’s act of hastening a patient’s death without a current request from the patient. The authors say that:

“Administration of lethal drugs without patient request occurred in 1.7% of all deaths in the Flanders region of Belgium alone and 0.2% of all deaths in the Netherlands.”

Are these figures correct? Yes indeed they are... as at the date of the cited sources. However, they are just cherry-picked tidbits from a larger and very different smorgasboard of evidence.

A throbbing great falsehood with warts

Do the figures mean what the authors say they mean? In no uncertain terms, absolutely and incontrovertibly not.

The authors don’t just coyly suggest, imply or impute that those NVE rates are caused by the legalisation of assisted dying, they directly claim it. Right in front the statistics, they state categorically that:

“Allowing voluntary euthanasia has led to non-voluntary euthanasia.”

Let’s put this the politest way we can: that’s a throbbing great falsehood with warts on it. The authors would have known this if they’d paid attention to published research facts beyond their own opinions.

Comprehensively ignoring peer-reviewed facts

Had the paper’s authors (and the supposed peer reviewers) actually known much about the subject matter, they wouldn’t have referred to those figures, because they’re massively unhelpful to the case the authors attempt to prosecute. Here are three central published facts about the case:

Fact 1: Before the Netherlands’ euthanasia Act came into effect, the NVE rate was 0.7%. Then in the next research round with the Act in place it had dropped to 0.5%, and the round after that, to 0.2%. The last is the figure the authors quote as evidence that “VE leads to NVE”, despite the fact that the rate had massively dropped, not risen.

Fact 2: Before Belgium’s euthanasia Act came into effect, the NVE rate was 3.2% [typo 3.5% corrected]. Then in the next research round with the Act in place it had dropped to 1.7%, the figure the authors quote. Again, the rate had massively dropped, not risen.

Fact 3: The rate of NVE in the United Kingdom was researched around the same time as the later Dutch figures, and found to be 0.3%.2 The UK has never had an assisted dying law, so the 0.3% NVE rate, which is higher than the Dutch 0.2% rate the authors quote, can't have been caused by one.

So, these three key published facts — known to most of us with an interest in lawful assisted dying — squarely contradict the authors' VE-causing-NVE claim. It's at the very least astonishing and inexcusable that all the numerous authors and peer reviewers of this “scholarly” article either didn’t know, or “overlooked”, them.

Indeed, despite holding one of the world’s largest scholarly libraries on published assisted dying research, I know of no study that establishes a VE-to-NVE link. All the evidence is contrary.

Not the first time

We could perhaps be a little forgiving if the authors just got a statistic wrong. After all, we're all human. But there are ten authors, plus peer reviewers. And there’s the egregious offence the authors committed in making an unequivocal but false claim about the data. Did none of them know what they were talking about or bother to check?

In this case I’m wholly unforgiving. That's because I’ve called Somerville out multiple times before for misrepresenting data, including for misrepresenting Belgian and Dutch NVE data precisely as she does again in this JPC article. We’ve even publicly exchanged words about it via the ABC’s Religion and Ethics portal. It’s not like she simply didn’t know.

I’ve also called Somerville out for wrongly claiming that Dutch Minister of Health Dr Els Borst regretted the euthanasia law; and wrongly claiming the Dutch elderly go to German hospitals and nursing homes for healthcare for fear of being euthanased in the Netherlands, including that NVE actually does occur in German nursing homes, despite, as Somerville notes, “their strict prohibition on euthanasia”.

This rubbish deserves censure and ridicule

While I argue strongly that different views about assisted dying law reform are welcome in a robust democracy, repeatedly spreading such egregious misinformation about assisted dying is an embarrassment to and unworthy of scholarly attribution to professorship. Such rubbish deserves to be rejected, censured and ridiculed.

 

References

  1. Sprung, CL, Somerville, MA, Radbruch, L, Collet, NS, Duttge, G, Piva, JP, Antonelli, M, Sulmasy, DP, Lemmens, W & Ely, EW 2018, 'Physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia: Emerging issues from a global perspective', Journal of Palliative Care.
  2. Seale, C 2009, 'End-of-life decisions in the UK involving medical practitioners', Palliat Med, 23(3), pp. 198-204.

Share This Post:
0
DyingForChoice has translated the entire 2016-2017 report into English

Belgium's Federal Commission of Control and Evaluation of Euthanasia this week published its full 2016–2017 biennial report. The report is published only in French and Dutch, which places English-speaking jurisdictions at something of a disadvantage.

DyingForChoice has translated the entire report, as well as a copy of the Belgian Euthanasia Act (2002) as it currently stands with amenedments, so that English-speaking audiences can read and understand it.

A summary of key points, the full report in English, and a full copy of the Euthanasia Act, can be found in this Fact File.


Share This Post:
0
DyingForChoice has translated the Belgian 2016-2017 report into English

The Belgian Federal Commission of Control and Evaluation of Euthanasia has released its full 2016–2017 report. Its reports are published only in Belgium's two national langauges: French and Dutch. So that English-speaking countries can read the report in full, DyingForChoice.com has translated the entire 70 page report into English.

Major takeouts of the 2016–2017 report include:

  • There is ample evidence that doctors take diligent care by often consulting more widely than the Act requires.
  • Assisted dying by advance directive remains very uncommon (1.3% of 2016/17 cases): almost all cases are by current request.
  • There has been a significant increase in the ‘poly-morbidities’ category, in part because of a change in the classification system, but also because more folks fall into this category as the population ages.
  • Cancer is still the major reason that patients choose assisted dying (64% in 2016/17), though its proportion of contributing illnesses is falling.
  • The number of assisted dying cases in relation to psychiatric illness went down, not up, compared to previous years.
  • Since changing the law in 2014 to permit assisted dying choice for minors, there have been just three cases: two in 2016 and one in 2017, all of severe and intractable illness. Extensive consultation occurred in each of the three cases, including assessment of decision-making capacity by at least one specialist child psychiatrist or psychologist.
  • The typical age profile of euthanasia cases has in recent years increased a decile, as the population ages. Our own analysis of Belgian official death stats (not the Commission’s) shows that the elderly are not an ‘at risk’ group: the age distribution profile of assisted deaths is still younger on average than total deaths.
  • The Commission notes that cancer diagnoses are increasing, so the counts of assisted deaths are expected to continue to rise in coming years.
  • The Commission discusses several cases that required extended review, but no cases were referred to the public prosecutor in 2016/17.

 

The full (unofficial) English report can be downloaded here: PDF 1.4Mb.

A full (unofficial) English translation of the current version of the Belgium Euthanasia Act can be downloaded here: PDF 0.3Mb.

The authoritative original versions of the Belgian 2016-2017 report can be accessed in French and Dutch.

 

Share This Post:
0
The Parliament of Western Australia is investigating end-of-life choices including VAD. Photo: WA Parliament

DyingForChoice.com's major submission to the Parliament of Western Australia on end-of-life choices, including assisted dying, has now been published and is available online. It contains recent updates to research data about assisted dying.

Download a full copy of the submission PDF.

Table of Contents

Terms of reference. p5

Definitions. 6

Statement of Barbara Roberts, former Governor of Orergon. 7

Part A: Introduction. 8
  A critical principle. 8
  Decision-making biases to be avoided. 8
  Potential bias 1: Strong emotional language diminishes critical faculties. 8
  Potential bias 2: Repetition doesn’t make a falsehood true. 8
  Potential bias 3: Use of ‘authorities’ as undeserved ‘evidence’ cues. 8
  Assisted dying law reform is necessary. 9
  Consequences of denying lawful assisted dying choice. 10
  Overmedicalisation and institutionalisation of death. 12
  Choice to die can be rational 13
  Regulation of existing underground practice. 14

Part B: Overwhelming support. 16
  Australian voter attitudes by demographic. 16
  Assisted dying a major issue for voters. 20
  More supporters than opponents think reform important. 20
  Voters will punish opposing MPs more. 20
  Not just a silver-hair issue. 21
  Summary of Australian public attitudes. 22
  Australian health professional opinion.. 23
  AMA opposed stance indefensible. 23
  RACGP supportive stance. 23
  Nurses & Midwives’ Federation supportive stance. 23
  Australian Psychological Society supportive stance. 24

Part C: Opposing arguments critiqued. 25
  Time to name up filibustering for what it is. 25
  Hippocratic Oath fictions. 25
  ‘First do no harm’ fails in the real world. 26
  Assisted dying is not about ‘saving money’. 27
  Assisted dying is consistent with the right to life. 28
  Palliative care availability improves. 28
  Trust in doctors remains high. 28
  Ample evidence against ‘slippery slope’ theories. 30
  Failure 1: Rhetorical sham. 30
  Failure 2: Unsupported by overseas evidence. 32
  Failure 3: Unsupported by domestic evidence. 33
  Opposing world views can be concurrently accommodated. 35

Part D: Correcting misinformation about lawful jurisdictions. 37
  Dr Els Borst remains proud of euthanasia law reform. 37
  Dutch elderly happy with nursing homes. 38
  Non-voluntary euthanasia rates fall, not rise. 39
  No suicide contagion. 42
  Not in Oregon. 42
  Not in Switzerland. 45
  Not in the Netherlands. 46
  Not in Belgium. 48
  Belgian nurses are like anywhere else. 49
  Dutch happy to go to hospital 51
  Groningen Protocol a wise policy. 52
  Theo Boer always an assisted dying law sceptic. 52
  Women are not vulnerable to voluntary euthanasia laws. 53
  Victorian MP publishes extensive misinformation..\ 54
  Opponents admit no slippery slope ‘cause and effect’. 54

Part E: Potential models of assisted dying law reform. 56
  Oregon/Washington model. 56
  Benelux model. 56
  Swiss model. 57
  Options for Western Australia. 58

Conclusion. 59

Statement of Ginny Burdick, Acting Senate President, Parliament of Oregon. 60

Summary of recommendations. 61

References. 62

Share This Post:
0
The deeply-flawed Jones & Paton, and Kheriaty articles purporting to show suicide contagion.

In the ongoing political campaign against assisted dying law reform, opponents have spread one piece of egregious misinformation after another. One of the most common is supposed “suicide contagion” from assisted dying laws to general suicide, a theory popularised by Catholic Prof. Margaret Somerville. Despite the nonsense of her claim being comprehensively exposed, she still believes that her opinion “will prove to be correct.” Two journal papers published in 2015 purported to, but didn't, establish suicide contagion in Oregon and Washington states.

Note: the report is now published here.

Assisted dying law reform opponents are still relying on a 2015 paper by Catholics David Jones and David Paton, bolstered by a glowing editorial of it written by Catholic psychiatrist Aaron Kheriaty, published in the Southern Medical Journal, as continued ‘proof’ of suicide contagion theory, at least in respect of USA states Oregon and Washington (since data from other lawful jurisdictions contradicts the theory).

Jones & Paton’s article reported the use of econometric modelling to test for ‘suicide contagion’ from Oregon and Washington’s Death With Dignity Act (DWDA) laws. But, in an exposé to be published this week, no fewer than ten ‘deadly sins’ of the study are peeled back to reveal the rot within.

The very deep flaws and biases of the original articles include:

  • Cherry-picking information from cited sources to argue their case, while omitting information from the same sources that contradicted their case;
  • Including test and control subjects whose consequence was likely to maximise the likelihood of finding a positive association;
  • Demonstrating a poor understanding of suicide and its risk and protective factors and failing to control for most confounding effects in their econometric model ‘pudding’;
  • Overegging the “causative suicide contagion” interpretation when no correlation between assisted dying and general suicide rates was found; and
  • Failing to use direct, robust and readily-available evidence that showed their study couldn’t possibly have hoped to return scientifically valid “contagion” proof.

 
The USA’s National Violent Death Reporting System (NVDRS), of which Oregon is a founding member, shows that even if “assisted dying suicide contagion theory” were true, fewer than 2 of 855 Oregon “total suicides” in 2014 could have been attributed to “contagion” from DWDAs.

Further, both Oregon and Washington state rankings for suicide rates have improved, not deteriorated, since their DWDAs came into effect, while the suicide ranking for a relevant control state — Oklahoma — has deteriorated substantially over the same time.

Ultimately, through numerous and deep methodological flaws, the Jones, Paton and Kheriaty articles reveal a bias to promote “assisted dying suicide contagion theory” while ignoring the robust evidence from multiple lawful jurisdictions, including in their own ‘study,’ that contradict it.

The exposé, titled “The ten deadly sins of Jones, Paton and Kheriaty on ‘suicide contagion’,” will be published by DyingForChoice.com later in the week.

Note: the report is now published here.


Share This Post:
0
With a handful of exceptions, the Coalition has demonstrated itself to be 'unrepresentative swill' on assisted dying law reform.

It was with tongue in cheek that I recently quoted former Prime Minister Paul Keating to wonder if politicians voting on assisted dying Bills were ‘unrepresentative swill.’ The now-obvious answer to this question has become more than just humorous, with the publication yesterday of the Hansard record of Victoria’s Legislative Assembly vote on the Voluntary Assisted Dying Bill 2017.

How ironic it was that the very day after I quoted Keating’s slight against his then-hostile Senate, Keating himself, a conservative Catholic, would come out against voluntary assisted dying (VAD) reform.

Hansard record makes compelling reading

But, more importantly, the Hansard record of votes on the Victorian Bill in the lower house make for compelling reading.

Figure 1 shows Victorian voter support for VAD (from ANU Australian Election Study 2016 data) by political preference, and MP votes in support of the Victorian Bill (lower house, 2017).

Chart: Victorian electorate support and MP vote support for VAD (lower house, 2017)Figure 1: Victorian electorate support and MP vote support for VAD (lower house, 2017)
Sources: AES 2016; Hansard

It’s quite obvious that Greens MPs (100% v 91%) , Labor MPs (86% v 84%) and minor/independent MPs (67% v 76%) approximately represented the proportion of voter support. (It’s unsurprising that all Greens MPs vote in favour of VAD Bills: it’s Greens policy; while it’s a ‘conscience’ matter for other parties.)

The yawning Coalition chasm

But the yawning chasm of Coalition MPs not representing their own voters (14% v 73%) is even more stark. That’s a gap of nearly sixty percentage points. Surely that would be enough to raise the eyebrow of any conservative voter?

Aside from a handful of Coalition MPs who voted in support of the VAD Bill, it’s clear that there’s generally no real ‘conscience’ vote across the Coalition benches.

The corridors have been buzzing with stories of threats to Coalition promotions and preselections, and threats to preference deals for the state election next year, though of course there’s nothing public and on the record. Just the serene statement that “our members have a conscience vote.” The discrepancy amongst Australian Coalition ranks has been formally uncovered before in university research.

It’s a national story

However, it’s not like this is confined to Victoria. Here’s the same chart (Figure 2) for all state VAD bills across Australia since 2000 which have had a division on the vote — so we know who voted which way.

Chart: Australian electorate support and state MP vote support for VAD (all state Bills since 2000)Figure 2: Australian electorate support and state MP vote support for VAD (all state Bills since 2000)
Sources: AES 2106; Hansards

Again, the largest and most striking gap between voter desire for reform and MPs opposing their voters’ wishes is amongst the Coalition ranks, at a full sixty percentage points short of proper representation.

It’s a similar picture to that published by university researchers in 2008, who found just 17% Coalition voting support in favour of VAD in the federal parliament, too.

As I’ve explained before, the Party leader’s public statements can be ‘persuasive,’ and Mr Matthew Guy, leader of the Victorian Parliamentary Coalition, has made his entrenched opposition to this reform loud and clear.

Inform your own voting

As debate in Victoria’s upper house commences tomorrow, we’ll be watching who’s in favour and who’s against. And we’ll report the voting record to help inform how you cast your own vote at Victoria’s state election in November next year.

In the meantime, here’s the full record of the Victorian Legislative Assembly votes.

Full voting record – Victorian Legislative Assembly 2017 VAD Bill

Ayes

47

  

Noes

37

Allan, Jacinta

Labor

 

Angus, Neil

Liberal

Andrews, Daniel

Labor

 

Battin, Brad

Liberal

Britnell, Roma

Liberal

 

Blackwood, Gary

Liberal

Bull, Josh

Labor

 

Blandthorn, Lizzie

Labor

Carroll, Ben

Labor

 

Bull, Tim

Nationals

Couzens, Chris

Labor

 

Burgess, Neale

Liberal

D'Ambrosio, Lily

Labor

 

Carbines, Anthony

Labor

Dimopoulos, Steve

Labor

 

Clark, Robert

Liberal

Donnellan, Luke

Labor

 

Crisp, Peter

Nationals

Edbrooke, Paul

Labor

 

Dixon, Martin

Liberal

Edwards, Maree

Labor

 

Fyffe, Christine

Liberal

Eren, John

Labor

 

Gidley, Michael

Liberal

Foley, Foley

Labor

 

Guy, Matthew

Liberal

Garrett, Jane

Labor

 

Hodgett, David

Liberal

Graley, Judith

Labor

 

Kairouz, Marlene

Labor

Green, Danielle

Labor

 

Katos, Andrew

Liberal

Halfpenny, Bronwyn

Labor

 

McCurdy, Tim

Nationals

Hennessy, Jill

Labor

 

McLeish, Cindy

Liberal

Hibbins, Sam

Greens

 

Merlino, James

Labor

Howard, Geoff

Labor

 

Northe, Russell

Ind.

Hutchins, Natalie

Labor

 

O'Brien, Danny

Nationals

Kealy, Emma

Nationals

 

O'Brien, Michael

Liberal

Kilkenny, Sonya

Labor

 

Pesutto, John

Liberal

Knight, Sharon

Labor

 

Richardson, Tim

Labor

Languiller, Telmo

Labor

 

Riordan, Richard

Liberal

Lim, Hong

Labor

 

Ryall, Dee

Liberal

McGuire, Frank

Labor

 

Ryan, Steph

Nationals

Morris, David

Liberal

 

Smith, Ryan

LIberal

Nardella, Don

Ind.

 

Smith, Tim

Liberal

Neville, Lisa

Labor

 

Southwick, David

Liberal

Noonan, Wade

Labor

 

Suleyman, Natalie

Labor

Pakula, Martin

Labor

 

Thompson, Murray

Liberal

Pallas, Tim

Labor

 

Tilley, Bill

Liberal

Paynter, Brian

Liberal

 

Wakeling, Nick

Liberal

Pearson, Danny

Labor

 

Walsh, Peter

Nationals

Perera, Jude

Labor

 

Watt, Graham

Liberal

Sandell, Ellen

Greens

 

Wells, Kim

Liberal

Scott, Robin

Labor

     

Sheed, Suzanna

Ind.

     

Spence, Ros

Labor

     

Staikos, Nick

Labor

     

Staley, Louise

Liberal

     

Thomas, Mary-Anne

Labor

     

Thomson, Marsha

Labor

     

Ward, Vicki

Labor

     

Williams, Gabrielle

Labor

     

Wynne, Richard

Labor

     

 

 

 

 

 

 TOTAL AYES

 

 

 TOTAL NOES

 

Labor

38

 

Labor

6

Greens

2

 

Greens

0

Liberal

4

 

Liberal

24

National

1

 

National

6

Other

2

 

Other

1

TOTAL

47

 

TOTAL

37

         

Abstained

2

     

Asher, Louise

Liberal

     

Victoria, Heidi

Liberal

     
         

Did not vote

1

     

Brooks, Colin

(Speaker, Labor)

 

Note: The vote represents 87 of 88 seats. The seat of Northcote was vacant owing to the untimely death of its representative, Fiona Richardson, from cancer.


Share This Post:
0
The Victorian parliament is debating the Government's Voluntary Assisted Dying Bill

Former Australian Prime Minister Paul Keating once famously branded the Senate “unrepresentative swill” for obstructing his legislative agenda. Today, the question of how representative our political masters are remains moot.

Major community support for VAD

Take voluntary assisted dying (VAD) for example. Poll after poll demonstrates that the overwhelming majority of Australians want this additional choice for people in extremis at the end of life. The impeccable Australian Election Survey (AES) conducted by Australian National University scholars last year confirmed that 77% of Australians want VAD reform, with 13% undecided and just 10% opposed.

Strong support (43%) is ten times greater than strong opposition (4%), and support is high across the political spectrum: amongst minor/independent (69%), Coalition (77%), Labor (80%) and Greens (87%) voters. Public support has been in the majority for more than four decades.

Political support missing in action

But since the Northern Territory Rights of the Terminally Ill Act in 1996, none of the many VAD Bills before various state parliaments has passed. And the Northern Territory’s Act was torn down by the federal parliament just eight months after coming into effect.

A 2008 university study of federal MP voting opportunities found 100% of Greens, 55% of Labor, and a paltry 17% of Coalition MPs voting in favour of VAD.

New analysis

Now, a new analysis of the ten state VAD Bills since 2000 where final divisions were called, offers further insights. It found 100% of Greens MP voting opportunities were in favour, along with 51% of Labor, 29% of minor party and independent, and a similarly paltry 17% of Coalition MPs. Excluding South Australia, whose parliament has debated the greatest number of VAD Bills, the Coalition support rate was just 9%.

Overall, while state Labor MP votes fell 29% short of Labor voter attitudes, Coalition MP votes fell an astonishing 60% short of Coalition voter attitudes. At the state level, Coalition MPs had the most voting opportunities — nearly half (48%). No wonder passing VAD Bills is challenging.

It begs the question, how is it that our legislative representatives fail to reflect clear public majority views on matters of conscience for so long?

Hidden reasons behind MP opposition

Obviously, lobbying on both sides of the conversation in part informs MPs’ views, but there are several more persuasive factors.

For a start, there’s a “truism” held by many MPs that their vote in favour of a VAD Bill would lose them more votes at a general election than would a vote against the Bill. However, the opposite has been demonstrated in multiple studies.

Further, I’ve shown before that opposition to VAD is largely religious.  A university study has also found that those who are more religious and who are politically engaged tend to hold very conservative views. So while there are religious MPs on both sides of politics, Coalition MPs are naturally more inclined to hold much more conservative views.

But that doesn’t fully explain the massive 60% representation gap on the Coalition side, either.

In good conscience?

A key factor lies in the seemingly reassuring principle of the “conscience vote.” The major parties have announced that their members are accorded a conscience vote (also known as a “free vote”) on the VAD Bill. That simply means that there’s no official published party policy on the matter and party members may vote freely on the basis of their own conscience.

There are two significant issues with this state of affairs.

The first is that the member may refer exclusively to their own conscience. But what if the MP’s conscience is at odds with the electorate’s? For my home state of Victoria, the 2016 AES study found 79% of the community in favour of VAD. There are 88 members of the Victorian parliament lower house, and just 40 members in the upper house. Therefore, it’s possible for as few as just 20 Victorian MPs to vote “no” in order to extinguish the will of 3.2 million Victorians (79% of 4.05 million Victorian voters).

If that weren’t enough, the second issue is that the right to ‘conscience’ is granted only in respect of the Bill itself, not on procedural matters about the Bill. It can make a huge difference.

How the parry works

Here’s what happened in 2008 when Victorian Greens MP Colleen Hartland’s VAD Bill was before the Legislative Council. MPs were afforded a conscience vote, and many of them had said they were supportive of VAD in general, but couldn’t support Hartland’s Bill in its current form. (That’s also a common ruse of MPs who in reality oppose the reform in principle but wish to appear ‘open minded’.)

When the final vote on Hartland’s Bill was lost, then Greens MP Greg Barber immediately moved a motion to refer the Bill to a parliamentary committee so that it could be improved to MPs’ satisfaction. Neither Labor nor Coalition parties afforded their members a conscience vote on this procedural matter, instead directing MPs to vote against such motions. The referral, which may have resulted in Victorians having wider end-of-life choices years ago, was cynically buried.

Most voters remain unaware of the shenanigans played in the corridors of power to achieve such results.

Australia’s special political conservatism

They’re not the only shenanigans, though. Another university study comparing federal MP conscience voting patterns in the UK, New Zealand and Australia found Australia to be different, accounting for why the UK and NZ have legalised marriage equality, while Australia hasn’t.

Firstly, the centre-left in Australia has a larger proportion of Catholic members than in the UK and NZ, accounting for some of the shortfall in Labor representation of progressive views.

Secondly, those amongst Coalition ranks, but with more liberal social consciences, had been lashed by Coalition party whips to vote against progressive reform. So while there was a public display of fairness and neutrality, the reality was quite different.

Borne out in state parliaments

These findings are replicated in Australian state parliament votes too, with Coalition MPs rarely if ever voting in favour of progressive social reform. Coalition MP votes on VAD including and since Hartland’s legislative attempt in 2008 are telling: in Victoria 2008 10:5 against, in Tasmania 2009 6:0 against; in Western Australia 2010 19:1 against; in NSW 2013 10:0 against; in South Australia 2016 14:7 against and in Tasmania 2017 13:1 against.

Rather than reflect 77% Coalition voter support for VAD, Coalition MP voting patterns reflect the highly negative stance of party leaders, whipped through the parliamentary party membership. For example, then WA Premier Mr Colin Barnett made it clear he thought assisted dying was “government-sanctioned killing”. Tasmanian coalition leader Mr Will Hodgman said that “protection for [vulnerable] people cannot be guaranteed.” Then-NSW Premier Mr Barry O’Farrell declared himself “strongly opposed”.

Back to Victoria’s Bill under debate

The situation in Victoria is looking somewhat more positive, with Premier Mr Daniel Andrews and many in his Cabinet publicly supporting reform. A lengthy, detailed, professional and well-resourced process has informed the crafting of the Bill.

However, opposition leader and would-be Premier Mr Matthew Guy has stated his resolute opposition to it and that he intends to vote “no”. That would mean he is quite comfortable for his own personal view to extinguish the contrary views also held in good conscience by 34,626 of the 43,831 voters in his own electorate of Bulleen, and 3.20 million of Victoria’s 4.05 million voters. (Electorate numbers as at 10 October 2017.)

An obvious solution

There’s an obvious solution for MPs whose own consciences disallow them from reflecting the overwhelming majority conscience of the electorate.

They could consider abstaining — simply absenting themselves from the chamber during the division. That would keep their own consciences intact while allowing the electorate’s conscience to be reflected.

I’m a constituent of Mr Guy’s. Over a period of months I made six robust attempts to meet with him to discuss these matters, especially the covert whip arrangements and the consideration of abstention. I can be persuasive in obtaining appointments, but my best efforts proved wholly unfruitful.

As I said to Mr Guy’s private assistant after the last failed attempt, voters could be forgiven for believing he’s more interested in meeting allegedly shady characters in fancy Brighton restaurants, than meeting with his own constituents.

Victorians are watching the parliamentary VAD debate. We’re taking notes that will inform our votes at the state election late next year.

Indications are at present there’s a good chance that Victorian MPs won’t be “unrepresentative swill”.


Share This Post:

Pages

Subscribe to RSS - Analysis