As reported in Sky News, and validated by myself from the Australian Medical Students’ Association (AMSA), that the AMSA members have voted to endorse a policy which supports Voluntarily Assisted Suicide (VAS) should it become legal in Australia.
The press release (which can be accessed here) details that the association recognizes that VAS is not yet legal in Australia, and can only be implemented once legalized. Additionally, VAS should not be a replacement for a quality palliative care program; nor should it be implemented unless all other treatment options have been exhausted.
The press release by the AMSA is a measured and logical approach to the idea of physician assisted euthanasia. There has been discussion recently in the media regarding this issue, with quite far-flung statements being made both ways. Here is my opinion on the matter which has come from work as a palliative care social worker, aged care manager, aged care nurse and emergency department nurse:
- Reasonable and sound-minded individuals do not want to end their life.
- Certain illnesses and chronic conditions can cause such pain and suffering that NO palliative treatment can mitigate the debilitating symptoms and lead to a good quality existence.
- All treatment options, assisted suicide amongst them, need to be measured against that quality of life test.
- In this country, as in many others, when the family pet has become too sick to lead such a quality existence their owners are given the choice to end the animal’s life with dignity and without suffering. However, because we are human and not a domesticated animal some are meant to suffer a painful and meaningless existence while their body deteriorates to the point of failure. If our beloved pets are given such an option why not our human family members?
- Voluntarily assisted suicide (or physician assisted suicide) does not mean the doctor or health professional is condoning people ending their life. Neither is it (as I heard on the radio yesterday) a violation of the Hippocratic Oath. It is a trained health professional allowing a person-centered care plan which details how they wish to proceed with their medical care. This, to me, is similar to how we now implement not-for-resuscitation orders.
The Australian Medical Association’s code of ethics expands on the Hippocratic Oath, and point 1.4 section c I think says it succinctly
Respect the right of a severely and terminally ill patient to receive treatment for pain and suffering, even when such therapy may shorten a patient’s life.
For those in the medical community I can hear you already saying “but Ray, that’s not what this statement is intended for.” I know that. But what it does is highlight the need for ALL health professionals to recognize that there comes a point where we must pull back and allow patients to shorten their life; if that shortening comes with dignity, control and comfort.
I have been, and always will be a supporter of a balanced and reasonable assisted dying policy. Let us make sure there are safeguards in place to prevent misuse. Let us make sure there are processes in place to ensure death is peaceful and quick. But most of all let us allow an individual with no hope of recovery and only staring at a prolonged existence of suffering and decay to choose when they decide to end their life.
I would very much like to hear your opinions.
Until next time,
Ray
Sky News- Doctors in training support assisted dying
Nuntium Salutis 