Euthanasia:

Wil Stracke writes: Re. “Rundle on the politics of euthanasia: Part 2” (yesterday, item 4).  Guy Rundle’s arguments against euthanasia appear, on my reading, to be founded on a belief that voluntary euthanasia effectively brings the state into what should be the personal realm of suicide and on an assessment that there is a risk that older Australians will choose to end their life under overt or covert societal pressure that they not be a “burden”.

Let me say firstly that I have experienced death of close family from both suicide and terminal illness.

My brother killed himself a few years ago in circumstances that had nothing to do with a terminal illness and everything to do with choices he had made that went terribly wrong.  My father died slowly a number of years ago of cancer. And my mother recently made the choice not to have an operation, meaning that the two options left to her were to die either slowly (if her condition stabilised) or quickly (if it did not).

All of this leads me to the view that “suicide” and “voluntary euthanasia” are very different. In the case of my brother, death was not the inevitable end point to a painful and terminal medical condition. In the case of both of my parents, it was. So based on the laws as they apply in those countries that allow for voluntary euthanasia, my brother would not have been able to ask for a doctor to help him end his life, my parents would.

Secondly, as someone who was with each of my parents when they died and who had to go to the coroner’s office to identify the body of my brother, I do not know how to respond to Mr Rundle’s off hand proposition that “Death is, among other things, a powerful erotic force”.  On what I have seen, death is bloody hard work for those doing the dying. It is an exhausting and messy business, even in hospital with drugs on hand to ease the pain and stop the nausea and minimise the distress.

And none of the doctors, nurses, palliative care specialists, police or coronial staff that I have dealt with ever appeared to get any ‘erotic’ pleasure from being around it.  Certainly, no one involved appeared to me to be even slightly erotically aroused as they increased the morphine to stop the pain of my fathers lungs slowly filling with blood that he struggled to cough up.   And no one involved appeared to get even a flash of momentary enjoyment out of administering ever increasing pain relief as my mother’s aorta ripped itself apart.

It also feels like somewhere inherent in Mr Rundle’s arguments is a faintly patronising view of those people who might consider voluntary euthanasia. After all, if older folks could so easily be pressured into deciding to end their lives in circumstances where, as Mr Rundle points out, the overwhelming, inbuilt bias is towards continuing to live, then what does that mean about their ability to make other, less consequent decisions?

What I know is that my father, dying with cancer, still chose to have aggressive treatment right up till his death and would never have exercised the option of voluntary euthanasia. My mother, dying in hospital, signed a living will years ago and had told every member of the family over many years that in the event that she came to that point, she wanted to exercise this option if it was available. Bottom line — both were strong willed people, both knew their own minds, both made their own decisions about their medical treatment based on their beliefs and experiences and both had different, equally valid views.

Surely the first question to be answered in this debate is: Should a person with a terminal illness be able to ask their doctor to help them to end their pain at a time and place of their choosing? If the answer to that question is “yes”, then the next step is to look at the issues that Mr Rundle and the other opponents to voluntary euthanasia raise to see if we can deal with them — properly, safely. If the answer to that question is “yes” then I think that we should give people like my mother the option.

Craig Iedema writes: This has been a good set articles by Guy Rundle, no doubt he will cop some flack over them. In principle, I believe that the people have right to choose what to do with their body. In the case of abortion we respect the rights of women to have control over their own bodies, yet we don’t want to extend this to the terminally ill. However I do have some concerns about this.

This mainly stems around people feeling obligated to end their life as they have become a burden on those caring for them. To go back to abortion, outside of religious circles it seems somewhat anathema for someone to have strong feelings that abortion represents the taking of a life.

I have seen firsthand pressure being placed on someone to have an abortion, despite her strong feelings against this choice, with complete lack of understanding of her position. Her body, her choice yet this hasn’t seem to be respected when her choice is to keep the baby.

If we were to legalise euthanasia could we possibly reach the same point? Would people be expected to take their lives rather hang on with every last breath? You are free to choose as long as your choice is the affirmative one? Maybe not a straight up as first appearances give.

AFL and NRL TV ratings:

Jim Hanna writes: Re. “Media briefs: 3AW law and order quiz … student pollies list … grand final ratings …”  (yesterday, item 17). Could Glenn Dyer please clarify something that I’ve wanted to know for a while?

Do the ratings figures for major sporting events like the Grand Final or State of Origin matches take into account the multitudes watching in pubs and clubs?

Is there an estimate that’s added to the “household” ratings figures?

Just wondering…

Glenn Dyer responds: No there’s not. There’s no way of measuring how many people are watching in pubs and clubs. It’s an impossibility. Everyone knows there are quite a few, possibly in the millions…

The big outdoor screens that were erected in Melbourne for the AFL grand final (Fed Square, for example) and at St George’s home ground, Jubilee Oval in Sydney, for the grand final on Sunday evening were not measured.

There’s no way of measuring and no estimate added in. Just homes, where it’s easier to measure people because those watching in the panel homes have to be logged in while watching and, from memory, they have to update every 15 minutes.

Ecuador:

Russ Hermann writes: Re. “Ecuador survives an all-too-familiar Latin coup” (yesterday, item 13). It’s a great article, except for the section on the former President Manuel Zelaya. The country was Honduras, not Nicaragua. Daniel Ortega of the Sandinistas has recently returned as president of Nicaragua.

Bear Grylls:

John Band writes: Re. “Daily Proposition: get wild with Bear Grylls” (yesterday, item 16). I’m disappointed you ran a whole piece on Bear Grylls without running the gag “how many bears would Bear Grylls grill, if Bear Grylls would grill bears? As many bears as Bear Grylls’ grill would bear”.