ENDEAVOUR FORUM NEWSLETTER No. 109, FEBRUARY 2003

Home | Contact Us | Newsletters

On 27 November 2002 I attended a community meeting being hosted by the Port Phillip Older Person’s Reference Committee and the South Eastern Citizen’s Council (whether these groups actually exist I doubt and suspect they are a front for the Voluntary Euthanasia Society) to discuss the shortcomings of the Medical Treatment Act (Victoria). The meeting was held at St Kilda Town Hall, called in anticipation presumably of the forthcoming State Election in John Thwaites’ electorate.

There was a line-up of speakers, with the opening address given by a lady in her late 50’s telling the story of how her father was deprived of his rights when attending the Alfred Hospital for a fractured hip. She was exceedingly angry that the treating doctors simply treated his problem (his broken hip) rather than asking her first, as his Enduring Power of Attorney, whether he could not rather be allowed to die. Her message was a very blunt one that most doctors and nursing staff do not know about the Medical Treatment Act involving a patient’s right to refuse medical treatment, and in this case she would have preferred her father to die of an eminently treatable problem, rather than suffer the ‘injustice’ of over-interventional medical treatment.

I was amazed at her anger over the matter, which seemed to me a simple one, but there was obviously a lot more going on in her mind than just getting better and getting on with life. Her agenda for euthanasia was quite clear.

"Advance Directives": There were three other speakers of note. Firstly a representative of the Office of the Public Advocate, who presented the legal aspects of the Medical Treatment Act, along with matters such as Guardianship and Enduring Power of Attorney. He also, was clearly in favour of euthanasia, as when later asked what deficiencies he saw in the Medical Treatment Act, he pointed to two simple amendments that could be made to the act to clarify some areas of confusion. Firstly, if the Act could remove the clause ‘current condition’ this would allow a person to refuse medical treatment for a future condition, such as Alzheimer’s disease, which would then make the Act an ‘Advance Directives’ Bill, rather than simply one applying to a current illness. The second change would be to change the definition of ‘Palliative Care’ to remove the term ‘food and fluids.’ This would allow people to be literally starved and dehydrated to death, with the consent of the State. My concern is that these changes seem quite small when you consider the Medical Treatment Act, and could easily be pushed through by a majority Government with NO COMMUNITY CONSULTATION. With the current State Health Minister’s stance on other issues involving community standards (street prostitution, gay rights etc.) it is not hard to imagine this getting slipped through with everyone unaware.

The final two speakers worked in the Public Health system. An ex-intensive care nurse at the Austin Hospital has been appointed to question patients when they are admitted to that hospital as to their views regarding the degree of treatment they would like to receive if they became seriously ill (e.g. would they like to refuse certain forms of treatment, such as intensive care or antibiotics if they become unwell). This is all couched in terms of respecting patients’ rights and autonomy, but patients sign documents which are then placed clearly in the front of their histories, and which the medical and nursing staff use to decide whether treatment is given or not in that event. This is therefore a form of advanced directives. When questioned about this, the nurse acknowledged this fact, yet made no apologies for the fact that the patients would be deceived into thinking they were doing something legal, when in fact the document they were signing has no authority whatsoever.

This is also a point that doctors and nurses should be aware of, because many would simply assume that the patient has refused treatment, when in fact that decision has been made in advance, and the patient should be given the opportunity to change his mind about the matter.

Nursing Homes: A G.P. spoke of a pilot study being undertaken at the Alfred Hospital, to try to prevent Nursing Home Residents being admitted to Public Hospitals (and therefore taking up beds). It was along similar lines to the nurse at the Austin, and she seeks to speak to families and residents about the degree of treatment they would like in the event of becoming seriously ill. Again, forms are signed and placed in the front of patients’ histories, so that an ambulance is not called if a resident falls seriously ill, but the patient is instead allowed to die in the nursing home. Again, this is a form of ADVANCED DIRECTIVES, being used illegally in our State. A lady working in the Aged Care Sector, made the point that many nursing home residents already feel that they are denied access to Hospitals, and that this will simply worsen that problem.

(The author is anonymous because of political repercussions - Editor)

Member Organisation, World Council for Life and Family

NGO in Special Consultative Status with ECOSOC of the UN