CTindex - Christian Today Australia Interactive Catalogue
Society

Nitschke testimony to Tas euthanasia inquiry reveals breach of law

Tuesday, 13 October 2009, 14:56 (EST)
Font Scale:A A A
Share |
Tasmanian parliamentarians should carefully consider euthanasia campaigner Dr Philip Nitschke’s startling testimony to a Parliamentary inquiry into ‘dying with dignity’ when the committee’s recommendations are tabled today.

Australian Christian Lobby (ACL) Tasmanian Director Nick Overton, who attended the hearings on August 31, said Dr Nitschke admitted under oath that a breach of the law might have occurred when he euthanised a patient in 1997.

Under questioning from Liberal MP Brett Whiteley, Dr Nitschke admitted to euthanising an unnamed man – a ‘socially isolated’ English migrant – on the same day he was subjected to a ‘cursory’ psychiatric assessment.

The Northern Territory’s short-lived Rights Of The Terminally Ill (ROTI) Act contained strict ‘safeguards’ regarding psychiatric and medical assessment of patients before euthanasia could be legally granted.

“Maybe it was a breach, but it was a breach motivated, I would say, by compassion,” Dr Nitschke told the inquiry. Hansard of Dr Nitschke’s evidence can be found here (scroll to page 112 for his admission of a breach of the ROTI Act).

ACL is also concerned that Nitschke may have misled the Parliament by claiming that under the NT law any specialist could perform the role of the second medical practitioner who had to examine the patient to confirm the existence and terminal nature of the illness.

Dr David Kissane, who co-wrote an article for the Lancet with Dr Nitschke, has long alleged that Janet Mills died in breach of the law because her skin condition was assessed by an orthopaedic surgeon rather than someone with the required expertise in her illness. Again under questioning from Mr Whiteley, Dr Nitschke told the Inquiry ‘any specialist could do it’ under the ROTI Act.

However, both the ROTI Act and Regulations made it clear that the specialist had to be qualified and/or experienced in treating the terminal illness from which the patient was suffering. Section 3 of the Regulations clearly states that: “the medical practitioner shall hold a qualification in a medical specialty related to the terminal illness of the patient recognised by a medical specialist college in Australia and which entitles the medical practitioner to fellowship of that college”.

“That Nitschke was so easily able to bypass this important requirement, and later misrepresent its meaning, is truly astounding,” Mr Overton said. “His testimony makes a mockery of the safeguards for the vulnerable promised by Greens Leader Nick McKim in any future Tasmanian legislation.

“Dr Nitschke’s cavalier attitude to safeguards to protect vulnerable and depressed people from misdiagnosis before they are killed should make all Tasmanian MPs consider the idea of euthanasia very carefully.”

The Tasmanian Parliament's Community Development Committee is scheduled to table its report in Parliament today.


More articles