Sometimes a bad criminal law can produce and create more social mischief than that which it was intended to overcome."
Frustration over the slow pace of legislative change has led to an increasing number of terminally ill people prepared to speak publicly about their plight. EXIT estimates that less that
1 per cent of those who are dying, and wanting to access voluntary euthanasia, are prepared to speak out. This percentage has now risen significantly. Also, among the supporters of voluntary
euthanasia, there is also an increasing preparedness to challenge existing laws directly rather than simply adopting the usual strategies of lobbying politicians and writing to the press. Nancy
Crick’s case has brought both of these trends together.
Nancy made it clear when she found bowel cancer was ruining her life, she was not going to die quietly. She sought out and employed new strategies to get her story out in an unedited form. Her Internet diary was launched in February and has been a spectacular success. Thousands of people from nearly 60 countries have been in touch with her commenting
in her Internet guest book on her public account of her dying. As support grew, many heartened by her stand, decided to directly challenge the existing laws and planned an act of mass civil
disobedience. Such strategies have not previously been employed by the supporters of voluntary euthanasia. Twenty-odd people were in the room with Nancy when she took the legal step of ending her
life with lethal barbiturates she'd obtained. The group consisted of friends and relations, some quite sick and some very elderly, and they all risk a possible penalty of life imprisonment. They
will not physically help Nancy consume the drugs, however the legal advice obtained from several sources is consistent: they all risk prosecution.
Advertisement
Just how the Director of Public prosecutions will react in such a situation is unclear. While the legal circumstances may warrant action, the national and international political fallout that
will result from such a trial is something the Queensland government may wish to avoid at all costs.
Commenting on this Terry O’Gorman QC, President of the Australian Council of Civil Liberties, has said:
"There is always a discretion of the DPP to prosecute but, as you know better than most, agitation by particular pressure groups may force the DPP to charge.
If charges were laid at committal hearing, there inevitably would be a case to answer found against those charged.
Whether a jury would convict or not is a matter which is extremely hard to predict. There are some cases in history where juries have acquitted against the face of overwhelming evidence
because a jury disapproves of a particular prosecution which they see as oppressive. However, my knowledge of such cases is that they are historical rather than current."
This new radicalism that is beginning within voluntary euthanasia movement is a direct consequence of the political suppression of this social movement. For over 30 years polls in Australia
have showed that nearly 80 per cent of Australians want legislation that would allow the provision of help to assist a terminally ill person to die. Most politicians, and the major political
parties, fearing the inevitable backlash from powerful and organised religious groups sit on the fence and close their eyes. In the most recent vote, the NSW upper house voted on a Bill
essentially the same as the Northern Territory's. Here 75 per cent of politicians voted against what 75 per cent of people in NSW, when asked, say they want.
Advertisement
Leaving things unchanged though, is to condone the current system where the well connected and affluent get help if required and access to lethal drugs that will guarantee a peaceful death,
while the rest are left to take their chances. It’s no surprise that the commonest way the elderly sick voluntarily end their lives in Australia is by hanging. The reasons are simple: anyone can
do it, you need no special skill, it always works and rope is readily available.
This month, the Australian Medical Association will debate the issue at its annual general meeting in Canberra. This is the first time since 1997 that this body has considered the issue and on
that last occasion they overwhelmingly rejected physician assisted suicide and euthanasia. As they acknowledge in the background paper being distributed prior to the conference,
"With the impact of chronic diseases and an aging population, end of life decisions will be an issue of concern to most Australians. It is important that AMA members engage in the
discussion of these issues and that the AMA contribute to the broader debate."
It remains to be seen if Nancy and the actions of her supporters have moved us any closer to the goal of a more just and equitable society, one that truly recongnises the rights of the
terminally ill. My suspicion is that in the current climate, more Nancy Crick’s are necessary and inevitable, along with increasingly direct and confrontational challenges to a legal system that
simply does not reflect the wishes of the people.
Discuss in our Forums
See what other readers are saying about this article!
Click here to read & post comments.