Charles Sturt University (CSU) medical ethicist Dr Alberto Giubilini believes voluntary euthanasia would promote a morally acceptable, more humane and more compassionate treatment of the terminally ill.

 

The Rights of the Terminally Ill Bill 2013, to legalise medically assisted suicide or euthanasia is set to be debated in the NSW Parliament this week.

 

A member of the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics (CAPPE), Dr Giubilini’s research focuses on medical ethics and end-of-life decisions.

 

He said while patient autonomy has become one of the core principles of medical ethics very few countries apply this principle consistently when it comes to voluntary euthanasia.

 

“It’s widely accepted, both by medical practitioners and by society, that people have the right to decide not to undergo certain medical treatments,” said Dr Giubilini. “To most of us, it seems overly paternalistic of doctors to impose treatments, even life-prolonging treatments, that patients do not want.”

 

Dr Giubilini argues that if it’s acceptable to hasten death by honouring a patient’s wish not to be treated, there is no good reason why the same principle should not be applied when medical intervention is needed to help them die.

 

“Allowing patients to die in the name of autonomy by withdrawing or withholding treatments, while at the same time denying them active medical help to die, is inconsistent from a moral perspective,” he said. “It can also be cruel, considering that we might condemn patients to a period of suffering.”

 

Dr Giubilini believes the proposed legislation contains some reasonable safeguards including that voluntary euthanasia be restricted to the terminally ill.

 

“This will ensure a patient’s request is grounded in good reason and is not due to a transitory depression.

 

“The provision that two medical practitioners and one psychiatrist must certify that the patient meets the eligibility criteria, in terms of both physical and mental health, should also guarantee an impartial and objective assessment of the circumstances and reasons for the request,” he said.

 

While acknowledging the issue is divisive, Dr Giubilini said that it’s one of personal morality that should not be imposed upon those who have different moral views.

 

“Pro-life supporters are certainly entitled to stick to their own morality in their personal decisions, but not to impose it on others,” he said.

 

Concerns have been raised that voluntary euthanasia may be misused but Dr Giubilini points to the experience overseas where legalisation has not led to an increase in the number of patients whose death has been hastened without their explicit consent.

 

Outside of the current parliamentary debate, voluntary euthanasia poses a dilemma for medical professionals.

 

“Euthanasia is currently condemned by many medical deontological codes, including that of the Australian Medical Association. The Hippocratic Oath, the ancient Greek medical code that many still consider a milestone of medical ethics, also commands not to use medicine to bring about death.

 

“However, deontological codes are not set in stone and should constantly be re-examined, discussed, and, if necessary, changed.