Majority will often does not prevail. Some issues excite such passion that the minority will change their vote on that issue alone. Moreover, they will campaign with time and money against politicians who dare support the majority view.
Euthanasia is a good example.
Opinion polls suggest a fairly large majority is in favour. But a dedicated group of vehement opponents who will assuredly campaign against it.
Occasionally, an event like the Chief Minister in a small jurisdiction experiencing the dying agony of a loved one will give embolden a political leader to defy forces of fanaticism and irrationalism.
But nothing like that is on the horizon now, to the contrary.
The chances of Greens Leader Bob Brown’s Bill to repeal the Commonwealth law that overrides the Northern Territory law that allows euthanasia in strict circumstances are quite low. This is despite a change of government since it was enacted. On issues like euthanasia, Kevin Rudd is a John Howard thinkalike.
Of course, Brown does not have to worry about the vehement opponents or whatever campaign they throw at him. Their adherents are unlikely to be among the 16 per cent of the voters Brown needs to keep his seat.
The timing of the political debate this time is unfortunate. The cause of a rational humane result had a significant setback a week ago with the Justins-Jenning case. A jury found Shirley Justins and Caren Jenning guilty of the manslaughter of Justins’s partner Graeme Wylie, 71, who suffered from dementia. They provided Nembutal imported from Mexico. The prosecution revealed a double motive for his death – money and Justins having a female lover.
The case was described as a setback for the euthanasia cause. The theory was that it proved the slippery slope. Once you allow terminally ill people a dignified death at the time of their choosing, before long any slightly ill oldie will be bumped out of the way so the rellies can get their hands on the loot.
In fact the case shows just the contrary. It shows that the law is perfectly capable of defining manslaughter with motive and defining assisted suicide. Equally, the law would be capable of distinguishing between legal euthanasia and murder.
The slippery slope argument does not apply. The Northern Territory law and the Death with Dignity law in Oregon lay down quite precise requirements for euthanasia. And because the requirements are precise it is quite easy to distinguish between a lawful and unlawful killing.
Indeed, it is the absence of a euthanasia law that presents us with a slippery slope or a grey and woolly dangerous area where relatives feel justified in turning off the switch because there is no lawful dignified death.
Worse, without a euthanasia law and with popular support for one, juries rarely if ever convict (for murder or manslaughter) in cases in which relatives and doctors administer fatal does of morphine. It makes a mockery of the law when the evidence clearly shows murder under present law – intentional killing.
The other setback has been the behaviour of euthanasia proponent Philip Nitschke. His enthusiasm is scary. Euthanasia should be a rarely used and absolutely last resort, not something availed of readily or eagerly.
The cause of dignified death for terminally ill people in pain does not need enthusiastic cheer squads. It needs reluctant, calm, compassionate and saddened people – like former Northern Territory Chief Minister Marshall Perron – who see no public interest in making people suffer appallingly when death in the very near future is inevitable.
Medical science, with its MRI scans, blood tests and knowledge of case histories can tell us things about the course of disease that were simply not available several thousand years when a man with beard allegedly walked off a mountain with words on a tablet saying, “Thou shalt not kill”.
Exceptions to that edict are obvious: self-defence is one. Other more odious ones are capital punishment and war – both very much in favour by the religious fundamentalists and fanatics who oppose euthanasia.
The experience in Oregon shows it is quite possible to have a workable, humane, legal exception to “thou shalt not kill”. It has safeguards such as medical certification and patient informed consent. It permits only self-administration.
The overwhelming majority of cases have been cancer patients aged between 50 and 80. And surprisingly few people have taken up the option in the 10 years since it has been in force – less than 300. However, the mere presence of the law gives great comfort to the terminally ill. They know that if it gets unbearable, there is a way out at a time of their choosing.
Of course, the small minority of religious fundamentalists and fanatics who want to impose their will on everyone else have fought to overturn the Oregon law in the US Congress and the courts – without success, unlike in Australia.
Neighbouring Washington state is to vote later this year on a euthanasia law.
The paradox of euthanasia laws being enacted in the US, where fundamentalist religion has a greater hold, and not in Australia, can be explained by the fact that many US states have citizens’ initiative schemes under which citizens can propose laws for referendums which become law if a majority approve.
Our politicians are unlikely to relinquish any power in such a way and they are likely to remain fearful of an active and vehement minority blind to reason who are opposed to a euthanasia law.
So, for some time to come, expect the terminally ill and their families to be at the mercy of religious edicts or dependent on friendly and brave doctors to find a way through the present cruel law.