News reportPosted on Friday 29th May 2015 at 8:24am
Last weekend in Adelaide, Australia, delegates from around the world congregated at a conference convened by Paul Russell's group, "HOPE". The conference's purpose was to share information in opposition to assisted dying law reform. It was held in Adelaide partly because it is described as the 'virtual epicenter' of moves to legalise voluntary euthanasia. That's a great credit to Frances Coombe and her team at the South Australian Voluntary Euthanasia Society, who work tirelessly towards reform that the overwhelming majority of citizens want.
But here's the rub. Despite being an international conference with a public website advertising its value and program, it was open only to "anyone who opposes euthanasia and assisted suicide."
How curious.
When I chaired the global World Federation of Right To Die Societies conference in Melbourne, Australia in 2010, of course we had closed sessions for our people. That's natural and proper.
But we also had a full day of sessions open to the public. Plenty of opponents attended.
Not only that, but I also ensured that a range of voices were heard in the official program, too. Father Bill Uren, naturally opposed from the viewpoint of the Catholic tradition, was gracious enough to participate in a panel discussion. There was of course lively debate, and, I am pleased to say, all conducted with courtesy despite the differences of perspective.
All good, open and healthy stuff.
So the question is, why did the anti-euthanasia delegates in Adelaide feel it necessary to conduct their entire conference in secret? Were they scared of a range of views? Might there have been misinformation that could be challenged? Some other reason?
News reportPosted on Sunday 17th May 2015 at 7:28pm
The launch of DyingForChoice.com, a service dedicated to reasoned argument in supported of assisted dying law reform, and underpinned by sound evidence, has been announced.
Assisted dying law reform leader, Mr Neil Francis, today announced the launch of a new assisted dying service, DyingForChoice.com. Mr Francis said that in addition to solid and reliable evidence about assisted dying practice, a key goal of the new service is to highlight false and misleading arguments used by opponents of assisted dying law reform.
"We can respect deeply-held views in opposition to assisted dying law reform," said Mr Francis, "but it is not appropriate to advance misinformation, however unintentionally, in opposition to reform."
The great majority of citizens of many countries want the right, if faced with the unrelievable torture of a terminal illness, to choose a hastended death on their own terms. In Australia, opinion in favour of assisted dying choice has been in the majority for over four decades.
Initiatives are underway in numerous jurisdictions to bring statutory reform to permit assisted dying choice. Mr Francis said it was the goal of DyingForChoice.com to provide empirical support for reform initiatives. "It's critical that legislators are well-informed, and not swayed inappropriately by specious argument or misleading claims," said Mr Francis.
He stated that while the initial website was fairly simple, a range of services were in planning to deliver enhanced value to campaigners.
The Hon. Bob Such's Ending Life With Dignity Bill 2013, before the South Australian Parliament, contains a strong compliment of safeguards, as Neil Francis explains in this video. The refusal of life-saving treatment, to which Australians are entitled but with the same direct and foreseeable consequence as doctor-assisted dying requests, have practically none of these safeguards, yet there has been NO avalanche of inappropriate persuasion to refuse life-saving medical treatment, as the so-called "slippery slope" hypothesis would have us believe.
This is the third of three videos sent to South Australian MPs in 2013.
