THE article in The Leader entitled “Protection for dying praised” (CL 15/10/00) requires a response.
If the visiting American ethicist concerned had been living in Brisbane at the time that the Powers of Attorney Bill making advanced health directives (AHD) legal was being debated in parliament, she may not have been so sanguine.
In fact, there was an incredible effort put in from individual pro-life experts from within Australia and overseas, as well as Queensland Right to Life, Right to Life Australia and the Christian coalition to try and ensure that it was not going to usher euthanasia into Queensland.
Among some amendments that we were successful in getting included was one that prevented the bill being used to effectively plan one’s suicide should any sickness befall them. The bill didn’t then, and still doesn’t, take into account the problem that intentional death can be produced by omission, not just commission.
That “living will” type legislation is considered valuable to the euthanasia lobby is demonstrated by a recent letter to a medical indemnity company from the Voluntary Euthanasia Society of Queensland. This letter praised advanced health directives saying, “We feel that the AHD is such a great step forward that medical opposition to its implementation must be countered” (United Medical Protection newsletter, Issue 2, 2000).
There is little practical difference between living wills and the AHD. In the Queensland legislation, it is a doctor who will follow the directions given.
However, this is not necessarily cause for comfort. As one doctor of my acquaintance put it, “Making choices carries with it … two assumptions. We assume all relevant facts are known, and that we have the wisdom to judge appropriately. Neither of these assumptions is correct. Thus with advanced directives, one is asked to make a choice of presumed results of unpredictable events in unforeseen circumstances over all of which one has no control. And this is called wisdom!”
There is not enough space here to consider AHDs fully. However, people should not allow themselves to be persuaded to fill one out without understanding fully their ramifications and pitfalls, even in the best of hands. It is a legal document, and binding on those whose duty it is to follow it through, and there is no guarantee that it would be the family doctor.
Knowing that AHDs are a vehicle for the euthanasia lobby should be food for thought.
DR DONNA PURCELL President Queensland Right to Life Toowoomba, Qld
