Voluntary Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide information


Preview the
Peaceful Pill Handbook


Exit News & Forum 18Aug14

Exit in the News



Follow Exit on Twitter

Exit News & Forum

Exit News and Forum is a free email newsletter delivered twice a week to subscribing email boxes. Exit News & Forum offers a summary of local and global news in relation to Voluntary Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide with sections marked: 'International' and 'Austalia & New Zealand.'

A Forum is also included which allows members of the list to make comments or ask questions with replies posted by relevant experts at Exit International.

To subscribe to Exit News & Forum, submit your email address to the box on the Exit website home page then confirm the automated email.

You can also keep abreast of updates by subscribing to the Exit News and Forum RSS feed 

View the most recent edition

Review recently archived Exit News and Forum Newsletters

To review earlier listings - commencing 2004 - contact Exit

To ask a question or make comment on the Forum contact Exit


Exit News and Forum Newsletter

Exit in the News

Exit in the News

Nitschke Q&A: in defence of a rational exit - 15Aug14

Nitschke Q&A: in defence of a rational exit


By Ali Winters
15 August, 2014

Voluntary euthanasia campaigner Dr Philip Nitschke is fighting his suspension by the Medical Board of Australia, which moved against him after the suicide of a 45-year-old Perth man who was not terminally ill.

Nigel Brayley, who had attended one of Dr Nitschke’s workshops on assisted suicide, had been in email contact with Dr Nitschke, alerting him to his planned death “within . . . two weeks”.

The board used its emergency powers to suspend Dr Nitschke from practising medicine last month, claiming that he presented “a serious risk to the health and safety of the public”.

At the core of Dr Nitschke’s defence is his belief in so-called “rational suicide”, in which people who decide to end their lives may not necessarily be mentally impaired or depressed.

The case of Mr Brayley, who died in May, has been muddied by suggestions that he was being investigated for the alleged murder of his former wife.

In an email to Dr Nitschke, dated April 15, he said that although he did not fit the profile of those people being helped by Dr Nitschke’s group Exit International – essentially, the terminally ill and the elderly – he was nevertheless “suffering and have been now for some nine months”.

Around this time, WA police had raided Mr Brayley’s premises apparently in search of the banned euthanasia drug Nembutal. Searches were also carried out by police in South Australia following the suicide last month of terminally ill Adelaide man Max Bromson, who had also been in contact with Dr Nitschke. 

Dr Nitschke has described the raids as political. He spoke to Ali Winters about his current predicament.


The Medical Board of Australia has long held a belief that you are working outside the system. Why did the board suspend you now and not earlier? 

There have been three complaints over the course of four years that have been lodged to the medical board to investigate me. Nigel Brayley was just the latest justification to initiate action. 


Did the complaints start when you began running your voluntary euthanasia information workshops?

No, my organisation, Exit International, has been running the workshops for well over a decade. We started the workshops after the Howard Government overturned the Rights of the Terminally Ill Act of the Northern Territory. 
The Nigel Brayley issue appears to have been the incident that I think allowed the Medical Board to sweep up all these issues at once. 


Did the ABC 7.30 report prompt the suspension action by the MBA? 

Yes.  The 7.30 report in Perth contacted me and they told me that “Nigel Brayley, a young man who attended one of your workshops has ended his life”. They also told me that Nigel Brayley was being investigated for the murder of his wife. I had no prior knowledge of this. I agreed to do an interview about Nigel’s death and the fact that younger people who are not sick do come to my workshops occasionally, and we don’t try to talk them out of having access to good information.  

During the interview, they produced some emails between me and Nigel Brayley. Mostly, the emails were about the police searching his residence for the drug Nembutal. We had 10 raids to various members of Exit International over the course of about two weeks, all in Perth. We wanted to get some publicity, so I asked Nigel via email would he go public about the police raids. He replied that he wouldn’t, and more or less told me to mind my own business.  That was the last I heard from him. 

The 7.30 report used the emails to say Nigel was depressed, and that I’d given him information about how to die. 

The emails didn’t say he was depressed at all; [they] said he was distressed. They accused me of assisting his death, and I said: “All he effectively did was come to a workshop.”  Then the ABC said: “You are helping young, depressed people die.”  

The MBA suspended me not long after this program went to air. 


What are your views on people who are being investigated for murder like Nigel Brayley, convicted criminals or people serving life sentences, in the absence of illness wanting to end their life?

People who are facing difficult situations whereby it is in the best interest to die should have access to information that would allow them to carry out this step efficiently, peacefully and reliably.    

We will get people, not many, but we will get people who make a rational decision about suicide, because they believe quite rationally that their circumstances are so bleak in the future, that they think death is a wiser course than life. Anyone has a right to rational suicide. 


Rational suicide is heavily linked to your practice and beliefs. Did you coin the term ‘rational suicide’? Can you clearly define it? 

I didn’t invent the term at all. There are a lot of articles in the medical literature, psychiatric journals about it and it is becoming an increasingly argued point in medicine. Opposed to the idea is that all suicide is associated with some kind of mental impairment, usually depression. That is the line that beyondblue and Jeff Kennett, and many other organisations have come out to say. In fact, Jeff Kennett said there is no such thing as rational suicide.


Is rational suicide a philosophy?  

Well, yeah, I think it could be seen in that context. And certainly I don’t have any trouble with [the] concept. I see plenty of examples where if I was in that position, I would see myself taking the same steps and I don’t think we have to postulate any sort of psychiatric impairment to explain suicide.


Is it hurtful that the voluntary euthanasia movement has turned their back on you now? Why are they against you? 

That’s been upsetting, but that issue has been around for some time because in the movement there are a spectrum of opinion, but the most common stance is that there should be a change in the law, so that people who have terminal illness, under strict conditions, can choose to die. Working towards that political change through legislative reform is the biggest part of the voluntary euthanasia movement.  [To] try to make it possible for people who are sick to access good information to end their life, as we have done – regardless of the law — this has led to friction between what I do and other pro-voluntary euthanasia groups, who see changes to the law as being the goal, because if your goal is to change the law, you don’t want anyone out there working outside and against the law. They think the right thing to do is sit at the feet of politicians and lobby for a change of the law.


But you have done that yourself. You were very involved in the Northern Territory legislative change. Can’t you see where they are coming from?

Yes that’s right. If your only goal is to change the law, then you don’t want someone like myself running workshops, because it doesn’t help in the process of changing the law. Changing the law is a political process which is why we have registered the Voluntary Euthanasia Party, that’s a political process, but it’s not helped by people running workshops, and it’s not helped by the Nigel Brayleys of the world. But on the other hand, telling people in their 70s they have to wait another 20 years for the law to change while they live in pain and suffering, isn’t helpful either. We’ve had 17 attempts to change the law and they’ve all failed. 


What duty of care do you feel as the distributer of Nembutal information at your workshops?

Obviously there is some obligation that vulnerable people don’t get exposed to dangerous information. The idea of trying to screen out these people is almost impossible. We try to screen people out who make contact when it is clear through their communication that our information, isn’t the sort they should be receiving. This is based on a judgment call, based on emails and phone conversation. You can see right away that these are not the sorts of people would necessarily benefit from a workshop, they’d probably benefit from a stay in a psychiatric ward. 


Your vetting process for vulnerable people sounds very subjective and not at all fool-proof. Does this outweigh the benefits of the workshop?

 You’re right, it becomes logistically impossible to vet without doubt, but there are immense benefits to people who are not vulnerable, so trying to trade off the benefit the majority will derive, against the possible dangers the small minority might also be exposed to, is quite a difficult one and my feeling is that we shouldn’t disenfranchise the majority because there is in existence people out there who might misuse the information.

 The question of freedom of information is absolutely vital and that’s what this medical board case is going to focus on – who should have access to information, who should decide who dolls it out and why should doctors be the arbiters? 


Tell me about your crowd funding campaign for legal costs?

We are using Go Fund Me. We set a target of 100k (currently at $95,000). There are two possible legal actions that the money will go towards. There is the medical board deregistration going on up here in Darwin and there is a possible legal action of the assisted suicide of Max Bromson, which again I’ve had to get lawyers for with the police raiding my place in Adelaide. So we are going into very important legal battles and we are going to need the best legal representation, especially when the Adelaide body of the MBA have hired an eminent QC. We need to be able to counter that and it’s going to cost.


Tell me about the legal concerns around Max Bromson, a terminally ill man connected to your organisation?

He was a very ill man. His family travelled from all over the world to be with him when he took his Nembutal. The next day, the police were called.  Seventeen South Australian police turned up and confiscated phones, computers etc.  It was extremely distressing for the family. It smacked of political interference. Then it was announced that the police wanted to interview me.  I am currently under investigation for the death of Max Bromson.  They are seeking the charge of  ‘assisting suicide’, a conviction that can carry up to 14 years in prison.


What will you do if your appeal is not successful and your licence to practice medicine is not given back to you? Will it have an effect on your livelihood? 

It won’t change much in terms of my running of workshops and provision of information. I haven’t done general practice in a long time. Most of my income comes from my organisation Exit International, and the sale of the book I wrote, The Peaceful Pill Handbook.  

It’s been a suggestion in the communications with the MBA that my being registered gives a certain validity to the workshops I run, thus needs to be stopped. But there is no substance to that, people will come, and they are coming in greater numbers because they want this information.  If you can provide the information, they will take it.



Philip Nitschke holds first public workshop about assisted suicide since deregistration - 19Aug14


Philip Nitschke holds first public workshop about assisted suicide since deregistration


By Jo Skinner, Emma Cillekens and Jon Coghill
14 August, 2014

Voluntary euthanasia advocate Philip Nitschke has hosted his first public seminar since being deregistered by the medical board.

Dr Nitschke said he had been inundated with requests for information about assisted suicides since being deregulated last month.

Dr Nitschke will be appealing the medical board's decision and on Thursday hosted a public workshop on Queensland's Sunshine Coast about assisted suicide.

Speaking on 90.3 ABC Sunshine Coast, Dr Nitschke said the appeal revolved around what constituted medicine.

"If they're going to suggest, as the [Medical Board of Australia] has, that talking to large groups of people somehow or the other constitutes a medical practice, we'll be disputing that clearly," he said.

"Obviously they cannot ... simply define every aspects of a person's life as if they happen to be a doctor, as a medical activity - they need to draw their line somewhere.

"I'm strongly going to be arguing that the sorts of activity that we're going to be carrying out and did carry out, which led to the problems in the first place in Western Australia, were not medical practice.

"The things that we'll doing on the Sunshine Coast won't be either."

The MBA used its emergency powers to suspend Dr Nitschke's medical licence after he emailed a man to support his decision to take his own life.

Dr Nitschke said negative publicity had not deterred public interest in euthanasia.

"There's been a rush of requests for information from people all over the nation," he said.

He said people attending the workshops were usually elderly people.

The Australian Medical Association (AMA) said it did not support Dr Nitschke's views, but he was entitled to hold public meetings on the issue.

"At this stage we firmly believe that medical practitioners should not be involved in interventions that have a primary intention of ending a person's life - in other words causing them to commit suicide - we feel that's inappropriate," Queensland president Dr Shaun Rudd said.

"We look on it that that's [Dr Nitschke's] business and he can do what he wishes to do, but we're not in agreement with voluntary euthanasia at this time."



Peter Singer questions ethics of suspending Dr Philip Nitschke - The Age, 17Aug14

Peter Singer questions ethics of suspending Dr Philip Nitschke

August 17, 2014
Julia Medew
Health Editor
Professor of Ethics Peter Singer. Photo: Joe Armao


Ethicist Peter Singer has questioned the Medical Board of Australia’s decision to suspend euthanasia campaigner Philip Nitschke’s medical registration, and says the only way to protect vulnerable people from him is to legalise voluntary euthanasia. 

In an interview with Fairfax Media, the professor of bioethics at Princeton University said it would be both ‘‘concerning’’ and ‘‘extraordinary’’ if the medical board had suspended Dr Nitschke because he believed people without a terminal illness could make a rational decision to die.

‘‘I think suicide can be rational in the absence of terminal illness and I think I could find you dozens or hundreds of philosophers who would think that ... I think if you know you are going to spend the next 20 years in prison, suicide is a rational option - not for everybody, but for some people,’’ he said, referring to the case of Nigel Brayley, a Perth man who communicated with Dr Nitschke before taking his own life while he was being investigated over his wife's death.
Euthanasia campaigner Philip Nitschke.

Euthanasia campaigner Dr Philip Nitschke. Photo: Ryan Osland

In July, Dr Nitschke said the board suspended his registration because his view that ‘‘people have a right to choose suicide is incompatible with his responsibility as a doctor” and because he posed “a serious risk to public health and safety that needs to be managed”.

This followed media reports that Mr Brayley, 45, was suspected to be suffering depression, had attended an Exit International workshop in February ,and communicated with Dr Nitschke before he took his own life in May.

Dr Nitschke has confirmed that Mr Brayley attended an Exit workshop, but said he had not lost his capacity to make a rational decision. He said he did not give Mr Brayley medical advice and had no obligation to refer him to a psychiatrist. He said Mr Brayley was a "wife killer" and that his death was "a clear case of rational suicide".

Dr Nitschke has appealed the board’s ‘‘political’’ decision and says those who claimed Mr Brayley was depressed were fundamentalist Christians.

The case has intensified criticism of Dr Nitschke, with several Australian parents claiming their adult children took their own lives after accessing Exit International information. The Australian Medical Association, beyondblue and Dying with Dignity have all since questioned his actions, too, with some accusing him of being irresponsible.

The Medical Board of Australia has not detailed its reasons for suspending Dr Nitschke’s registration, except to say it is trying to ‘‘keep the public safe, while other investigations or processes continue’’.

Professor Singer said it would be strange for the board to make ‘‘a moral judgment and by no means a universally accepted moral judgment’’ about rational suicide.

‘‘Using that as a grounds for suspending a doctor’s medical licence, I think is very strange,’’ he said.

In response to concerns about depressed people accessing Exit International information, Professor Singer said: ‘‘I think the solution to that is to legalise voluntary euthanasia and restrict it to medical practitioners, and then Philip won’t have to do this ... I think he feels he is a crusader against a law that unnecessarily restricts people's right to die.''

Professor Singer, who was in Australia to attend the Queensland University of Technology’s International Conference on End of Life last week, said he believed the legalisation of voluntary euthanasia or assisted suicide was inevitable in Australia. ‘‘I think it will come as the population ages ... I think we'll get voting pressure for it,’’ he said.


Philip Nitschke holds first public workshop - ABCNews, 14Aug14

Philip Nitschke holds first public workshop about assisted suicide since deregistration

By Jo Skinner, Emma Cillekens and Jon Coghill

Thu 14 Aug 2014,
Philip Nitschke Photo: Dr Nitschke said people have the legal right to refuse treatment. (AAP: James Elsby - file photo)


Voluntary euthanasia advocate Philip Nitschke has hosted his first public seminar since being deregistered by the medical board.

Dr Nitschke said he had been inundated with requests for information about assisted suicides since being deregulated last month.

Dr Nitschke will be appealing the medical board's decision and on Thursday hosted a public workshop on Queensland's Sunshine Coast about assisted suicide.

Speaking on 90.3 ABC Sunshine Coast, Dr Nitschke said the appeal revolved around what constituted medicine.

"If they're going to suggest, as the [Medical Board of Australia] has, that talking to large groups of people somehow or the other constitutes a medical practice, we'll be disputing that clearly," he said.

"Obviously they cannot ... simply define every aspects of a person's life as if they happen to be a doctor, as a medical activity - they need to draw their line somewhere.

"I'm strongly going to be arguing that the sorts of activity that we're going to be carrying out and did carry out, which led to the problems in the first place in Western Australia, were not medical practice.
"The things that we'll doing on the Sunshine Coast won't be either."

The MBA used its emergency powers to suspend Dr Nitschke's medical licence after he emailed a man to support his decision to take his own life.

Dr Nitschke said negative publicity had not deterred public interest in euthanasia.
"There's been a rush of requests for information from people all over the nation," he said.
He said people attending the workshops were usually elderly people.

The Australian Medical Association (AMA) said it did not support Dr Nitschke's views, but he was entitled to hold public meetings on the issue.

"At this stage we firmly believe that medical practitioners should not be involved in interventions that have a primary intention of ending a person's life - in other words causing them to commit suicide - we feel that's inappropriate," Queensland president Dr Shaun Rudd said.

"We look on it that that's [Dr Nitschke's] business and he can do what he wishes to do, but we're not in agreement with voluntary euthanasia at this time."

Nitschke asks for legal fund support - 09Aug14


Nitschke asks for legal fund support


August 9, 2014

Euthanasia campaigner Philip Nitschke is asking supporters to help raise $100,000 for his legal fees.

Dr Nitschke was suspended by the Medical Board of Australia after it ruled he posed "a serious risk to the health and safety of the public".

He was also last week interviewed by police investigating the death of Max Bromson who took his own life and died in a Glenelg motel room surrounded by family members.

Dr Nitschke has asked supporters to donate to the "Legal Defense Fund", saying it was "now more important than ever".

"Not only do I need to raise funds for solicitors and senior counsel to appeal against the suspension of my medical licence but I now need, possibly, to mount a criminal defence should politically-motivated charges be brought against me," Dr Nitschke said in an email sent on Saturday night.

"Don't get me wrong, I knew life as a voluntary euthanasia activist would never be easy, I didn't realise the insidious length of the arms of those who, for religious or other reasons, oppose end of life choice.

"Our target is $100,000, we have currently raised $55K."

Mr Bromson ran for the senate last year for the Voluntary Euthanasia Party.

He suffered from a rare and terminal form of bone cancer and said he lived with excruciating pain and wanted the right to end his life peacefully at the appropriate time.

Dr Nitschke has said Mr Bromson took an imported drug which had been tested at Exit International laboratory at Gilberton in Adelaide.

"Max made an informed, considered decision to end his suffering from cancer and die with his family present," Dr Nitschke also said in the email on Saturday.

"No one encouraged him. No one assisted him. It was his decision, and his alone."

Police are investigating whether any criminal offence involving assisting in a suicide had been committed.



Philip Nitschke argues suspension appeal should be heard in Darwin - 06Aug14


Philip Nitschke argues suspension appeal should be heard in Darwin


By Melissa Davey
August 6th, 2014

Euthanasia campaigner Philip Nitschke, who has had his medical registration suspended by the South Australian branch of the Medical Board of Australia, has appeared at a medical tribunal in the Northern Territory to argue his appeal against his suspension should be heard there.

Legal arguments in medical tribunal hearings about which state or territory a case should be heard in are extremely uncommon.

Nitschke, who is the director of the pro-euthanasia group Exit International, had his medical registration suspended on 24 July after the SA board ruled he posed a serious risk to the health and safety of the public and took immediate action to suspend him while investigations into his conduct took place.

As the hearing takes place over the next few weeks, the tribunal will decide whether to recommend Nitschke be formally stripped of his medical registration. The exact timetable for the hearing was being determined by the tribunal Wednesday afternoon.

Nitschke, who is registered in the Northern Territory, was last Friday questioned by police in South Australia after a terminally ill man, Max Bromson, took his own life.

Bromson, a Senate candidate for the state’s Voluntary Euthanasia party, used an imported drug to take his life and had it tested at an Exit International clinic in Adelaide.

Bromson died in a Glenelg hotel room after ingesting the drug himself, surrounded by his friends and family members. South Australian police have since seized phones and computers from Nitschke’s Adelaide offices.

Nitschke was also being investigated by the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency, which provides support to the Medical Board of Australia, after it was alleged in an ABC television story he had counselled an apparently depressed but otherwise healthy Perth man, Nigel Brayley, to take his own life.

Under legislation changes in 2010, one medical board can investigate a doctor on behalf of several jurisdictions to avoid a situation where multiple investigations are being carried out at once.

Brayley, 45, died in May after taking a euthanasia drug he illegally imported from China. He had made contact with Nitschke in the lead up to his death.

A discussion began on Wednesday afternoon in front of the medical tribunal in Darwin about whether Nitschke’s case should be heard in the state where he is alleged to have been involved in unethical behaviour, or in the state where he is registered to practice.

Nitschke said his lawyers would be arguing for the latter. “We want this hearing to happen in Darwin in front of the medical tribunal here,” Nitshke said.

“There aren’t many hearings here, and this is a chance for them to play out where quite a few of our [Exit International’s] members are, some of whom will be turning up today.”

“I’m a Darwin person, I’m registered here, I’ve spent my whole life here, and for those reasons alone I don’t think the idea of dragging this case elsewhere just because it suits the medical board is ideal.”

Nitschke said he believed he and his lawyers had an “extremely good case” for having his suspension overturned.

A decision about where the case should be heard is yet to be reached and is expected to come in the next week.



Philip Nitschke's Darwin appeal hearing dominated by argument over jurisdiction - 06Aug14


Philip Nitschke's Darwin appeal hearing dominated by argument over jurisdiction


By Jesse Dorsett
August 6th, 2014

Philip Nitschke's lawyers have argued an appeal against his suspension by the Medical Board of Australia (MBA) should be held in the Northern Territory where he has been registered as a doctor for 25 years.

A directions hearing in Darwin on Wednesday was dominated by arguments over jurisdiction, with lawyers for the MBA saying the appeal should be heard in South Australia.

Dr Nitschke was in South Australia when he emailed 45-year-old Perth man Nigel Brayley to support his decision to take his own life.

Following an ABC investigation, the board used its emergency powers to suspend Dr Nitschke, saying he presented "a serious risk to public health and safety".

Dr Nitschke immediately vowed to appeal against the decision.

"Twenty years ago nearly, the world's first law on voluntary euthanasia was passed in this city," he said on Wednesday.

"I've been living in Darwin ever since.

"This is where the supposed practice which makes me such a danger to the public took place.

"I've never had much of a clear understanding of the points the Medical Board of Australia are trying to make.

"They'll have to tell us in detail and do it in an open and transparent way, so not just I can understand it but the rest of Australia can understand."

His lawyers have been given until August 15 to respond to arguments about jurisdiction.

A date for the next hearing has not been set.


Police raid Nitschke’s clinic - 01Aug14


Police raid Nitschke’s clinic


By Suzie Keen
August 1st, 2014

South Australian police have raided voluntary euthanasia campaigner Philip Nitschke’s premises in Gilberton.

Witnesses told InDaily that six police cars pulled up at the Gilbert Street property just before 11am, and around 12 officers entered the building.

Nitschke began leasing the building last year, telling media at the time that he was setting up a clinic to advise people on various methods of voluntary euthanasia.

A SAPOL spokesperson confirmed to InDaily that officers were at the property “making inquiries”.

Earlier today, Dr Nitschke was accompanied by his lawyer Michael Woods when he was interviewed by SAPOL detectives investigating the death of terminally ill man Max Bromson, who took his own life in a Glenelg motel room on Monday. Bromson, a former businessman who ran for the Senate last year for the Voluntary Euthanasia Party, was suffering a rare and terminal form of bone cancer and died after taking drugs which had been tested at the Exit International laboratory in Adelaide.

Mr Woods told reporters no charges had been laid.

Dr Nitschke told AAP this afternoon that detectives took his phone at the interview and told him police were at the Gilberton property. They spent about three hours searching the premises before taking items including laptops.

“I feel pretty violated,” Dr Nitschke said.

Police confiscated laptops and mobile phones from the scene of Bromson’s death and said earlier this week that detectives were making “a full assessment of the facts” to determine whether any criminal offence had been committed.

Max Bromson’s sister, Kerry, said yesterday that her brother had been in “excruciating pain” leading up to his death.

The Medical Board of Australia last week suspended Dr Nitschke’s registration over an unrelated incident.

The decision followed the suicide of Perth man Nigel Brayley, 45, who died in May after communicating with Dr Nitschke.

In its ruling, the board said it believed he posed “a serious risk to the health and safety of the public”.


Euthanasia advocate Dr Philip Nitschke will meet with police over death of terminally ill man - 31Jul14


Euthanasia advocate Dr Philip Nitschke will meet with police over death of terminally ill man


By Brad Crouch
July 31, 2014

VOLUNTARY euthanasia advocate Dr Philip Nitschke will meet with police on Friday as they investigate whether he should face charges of assisting in a suicide.

It follow Monday’s death of terminally-ill man Max Bromson , 67, using the imported drug Nembutal.

Dr Nitschke said he had advised Mr Bromson how to obtain it and had tested it for purity at his Gilberton workshop.

But he insisted he did not encourage Mr Bromson to use it — or discourage him.

Dr Nitschke will attend Wakefield St police station at 10am with his lawyer, Michael Woods.

Philip Nitschke suspended

Police also are investigating whether Mr Bromson’s brother, Garry, sister, Kerry, and children Matthew and Pip should face charges.

They were with Mr Bromson to offer comfort when he took his life in a Glenelg motel room.

Police have seized the family’s mobile phones, iPads, laptops and a video the family said showed Mr Bromson voluntarily taking the drug without assistance.

They have been told they are unlikely to get them back for about two years as the investigation proceeds and that they may face criminal charges of assisting a suicide.

Major Crime detectives rang Dr Nitschke on Wednesday asking him to attend the police station for questioning and Dr Nitschke agreed to cooperate once he had sought legal advice.

Dr Nitschke is currently fighting suspension by the Australian Medical Board over his alleged involvement in an unrelated suicide of a 45-year-old man in Western Australia, which Dr Nitschke has labelled a politically motivated witch-hunt.

He has also raised allegations of political interference in the police investigation into Mr Bromson’s death.

“I am very concerned political weight will come to bear with these inquiries,” he said. “A raid by 18 police smells of political ­interference.”

Health Minister Jack Snelling labelled Dr Nitschke’s claims of political interference in the investigation as “utterly abhorrent”.
“I completely reject Philip Nitschke’s suggestion that there has been any political interference in the investigation by the police of the death of Mr Max Bromson,” he said.

“I think his suggestion shows signs of desperation on his part.

“It is completely abhorrent not only to the State Government but to the professionalism of the South Australian police to suggest they might be susceptible to political involvement in an investigation of this nature.”

Asked if Dr Nitschke should be charged, Mr Snelling said: “That is entirely a matter for the police.”

He said he had complete confidence the police will always act professionally and independently.

“Dr Nitschke is suggesting the State Government has somehow pressured police into this investigation,” Mr Snelling said.

“I utterly refute that, it is abhorrent. I don’t think there has been any suggestion before that the Government could or would interfere in a police investigation.”


Voluntary Euthanasia Party's Max Bromson dies in motel room: Philip Nitschke - 30Jul14



Voluntary Euthanasia Party's Max Bromson dies in motel room: Philip Nitschke

July 30, 2014

A terminally ill South Australian man who ran for the senate for the Voluntary Euthanasia Party has taken his life in a Glenelg motel room, says campaigner Philip Nitschke.

Former businessman Max Bromson was the lead candidate in SA for the VEP, which backs the introduction of voluntary euthanasia laws across the country.

In the run-up to the September 2013 election, the 66-year-old said it was vital for Australia to understand the importance of right-to-die laws.

Mr Bromson, who suffered from carcinoid tumours, a rare and terminal form of bone cancer, said he lived with chronic, excruciating pain and wanted the right to end his life peacefully at the appropriate time.

Dr Nitschke said Mr Bromson died early on Monday morning after taking drugs which had been tested at the Exit International laboratory in Adelaide.

He said Mr Bromson’s closest family travelled to be with him.
They included his brother - to whom Mr Bromson had donated a kidney to keep him alive - who travelled to Adelaide from Vienna.

His sister Kerry travelled from Sydney, his son Matthew from Broken Hill and his daughter Pip from Lorne in Victoria.

After police were notified of the death, detectives confiscated the family’s mobile phones, tablets and laptop computers, Dr Nitschke said.

He said Mr Bromson filmed his own death and left a message on his phone saying: ‘‘Hello this is Max Bromson, I am deceased as of the 27th July, please do not leave a message.’’

Dr Nitschke said he was one of more than 100 people who attended Mr Bromson’s wake on Monday night to say goodbye to a friend they all loved.

Last week, Dr Nitschke was suspended by the Medical Board of Australia which ruled he posed ’’a serious risk to the health and safety of the public’’.


ABC 7.30 Report on serial killer Nigel Brayley breaches 11 of their own Codes of Practice


ABC 7.30 Report on serial killer Nigel Brayley breaches 11 of  their own Codes of Practice



Australian Broadcasting Corporation

GPO Box 9994

Darwin NT 0801


15 July 2015

I am writing to complain of the 7.30 Report TV Program on 3 July 2014 by Caitlyn Gribbin and Dale Owens in which I believe the ABC failed to present information according to the recognized standards of objective journalism. As such I believe the ABC is in breach of its code of practice.

My complaint is as follows:


Standard 2.1 Make reasonable efforts to ensure that material facts are accurate and presented in context.

The ABC made no reasonable effort to ensure the facts of the story were accurate or presented in context.

An example of this is the issue of my alleged assistance to Nigel Brayley.

In the interview the ABC alleges that I provided assistance to Nigel Brayley without disclosing the extent of this ‘assistance’ was one of 250 people in an audience at an Exit workshop. These facts go towards the absolute lack of objective and fair reporting by the ABC.


Standard 2.2 Do not present factual content in a way that will materially mislead the audience. In some cases, this may require appropriate labels or other explanatory information.

Re 2.1, the way in which the material was presented has materially misled the audience to believe that I assist depressed people to die.


Standard 3.1 Acknowledge and correct or clarify, in an appropriate manner as soon as reasonably practicable:

a.       a) significant material errors that are readily apparent or have been

The ABC has made no effort to correct and clarify the misleading information they put to air.


Standard 4. Impartiality

The ABC has a statutory duty to ensure that the gathering and presentation of news and information is impartial according to the recognised standards of objective journalism.

The ABC breached this duty by failing to give due weight to the interview testimony of others interviewed for the program; namely Jeany Penfold and Lina Brayley’s mother. (Lina is now deceased).

This has led to unfair treatment of me as the interview subject and unbalanced reporting which is more akin to muck raking than the high standards of professional journalism the Australian public expects of its publicly funded broadcasting.


Standard 4.1 Gather and present news and information with due impartiality.

The ABC failed to present a balanced report. It did this by failing to include interview material in its possession in its report in which other witnesses who knew Nigel Brayley and who testified that he was not depressed. The testimony of these witnesses state that Nigel was a desperate man under investigation for the murder of three former partners and wives.


Standard 4.2 Present a diversity of perspectives so that, over time, no significant strand of thought or belief within the community is knowingly excluded or disproportionately represented.

Re the 4.1 omission, the ABC failed to present a diversity of perspectives on the subject of Nigel Brayley’s death.  Despite interviewing the mother of Lina Brayley, they knowingly excluded this from the community.


Standard 4.4 Do not misrepresent any perspective.

Re the 4.1 omission, the ABC misrepresented Nigel Brayley as a depressed victim when there is no evidence for this diagnosis.

The ABC represented me as assisting depressed people to die. This is not and never has been true.


Standard 4.5 Do not unduly favour one perspective over another.

Re 4.1 omission, the ABC has duly favoured the perspective of the O’Neil family who were reported as family friends of Nigel Brayley.  The view put forward by the O’Neil family is disputed by Jeany Penfold and Lina Brayley’s mother.


Standard 5.3 Where allegations are made about a person or organisation, make reasonable efforts in the circumstances to provide a fair opportunity to respond.

At no time during filming was I - Dr Philip Nitschke - offered a break from filming to consider the material that was put before me.  I was alone at my home for the interview with a crew of 5 ABC staff.

The material before me – an email from Nigel Brayley to me – was misrepresented to me as containing the word depression.  While I was sure there was no mention of depression – the fact that the cameras were rolling made me think I had missed this important fact.

When the journalist leaned towards me and pointed ‘there, it says he was depressed there’ she pointed to a sentence that said he was suffering.

Suffering is not depression and suffering per se does not deprive a person of capacity.

This important points were ignored by the ABC in preference of depicting Nigel Brayley as a depressed victim.  On this note, please see attached email correspondence from Robin Penfold, husband of Jeany Penfold.


7. Harm and Offence

The ABC acknowledges that a public broadcaster should never gratuitously harm or offend and accordingly any content which is likely to harm or offend must have a clear editorial purpose.

The ABC has gratuitously harmed me reputation without clear editorial purpose.

The biased, subjective report has since been used as the basis for complaints about me to the Australian Health Practitioners Regulation Agency (Medical Board).  This has the potential to cause further harm and offence, possibly resulting in my deregistration as a medical doctor.  It is irrelevant for present purposes that I have not practiced full time as a doctor since 1997. This has the potential to damage my reputation.


7.7 Avoid the unjustified use of stereotypes or discriminatory content that could reasonably be interpreted as condoning or encouraging prejudice.

There is no justification for broadcasting what is clearly discriminatory content.  This content can be reasonably interpreted as condoning a view on my part that I assist depressed people to die.  This is not true.


In summary

The 7.30 Report program by Caitlyn Gribbin and Dale Owens presented a program which deliberately suppressed a body of evidence that did not suit their highly political agenda of discrediting me as a voluntary euthanasia political activist and educator.

The apparent sole purpose of the program was to allege that a) Nigel Brayley was depressed (this lay diagnosis was made on the basis of an email that contained the word ‘suffering’) and b) that I assisted Nigel to die.

The email in question did not support a claim that Nigel Brayley said that he was depressed.

The program did not enquire of my other 2 meetings with Nigel Brayley. 

I was given insufficient opportunity to provide a considered response to the allegation put. In short I was ambushed by the 5-man ABC crew.

In closing, the program that was broadcast lacked all semblance of balanced, fair and objective reporting.

The ABC has therefore breached its code of practice.  This breach forms the basis of this complaint.

I look forward to your timely response.


Yours sincerely

Philip Nitschke


Exit International

PO Box 37781

Darwin NT 0821












Nitschke report before ACMA - The Australian 21Jul14

Nitschke report before ACMA


EUTHANASIA advocate Philip Nitschke claims the Perth man whose suicide he assisted was a serial killer attempting to escape from justice.

The claim is included in a written complaint to the Australian Communications and Media Authority over a report by the ABC’s 7.30 that he says could lead to his deregistration as a medical practitioner today.

The 7.30 story exposed Dr Nitschke’s role in the suicide of Nigel Brayley, who did not have a terminal illness, prompting an investigation by the Medical Board of Australia.

But, in his written complaint, Dr Nitschke claims the ABC report “deliberately suppressed” pertinent information about the victim, including that he was allegedly “a serial killer attempting to escape from justice”. Dr Nitschke said the ABC also failed to reveal there was a police investigation into Brayley for domestic violence and the murders of his three former wives.

Dr Nitschke told The Australian the Medical Board of Australia would make its decision at five o’clock this afternoon, but he said the board had “effectively made up its mind” and the detailed nature of the complaints suggested “they’d been looking around for the opportunity” to deregister him.

The complaint to ACMA, which has the subject “Unbalanced, muck raking, tabloid spray of 7.30 Report,” alleges the ABC breached 11 standards of its Code of Practice. He accuses 7.30 of purposely suppressing information “that did not suit their biased political agenda whose sole aim was to discredit my reputation”. Dr Nitschke said the ABC presented a “biased and incomplete report which in no way represented a balanced view of Nigel Brayley”.

The complaint outlines two pieces of information Dr Nitschke alleges were “deliberately suppressed by the ABC”. First, Nigel Brayley was under investigation by police for domestic ­violence and the murders of three former wives. Dr Nitschke repudiates the idea Brayley was a “depressed victim”, instead labelling him “a serial killer attempting to escape from justice”. Second, Dr Nitschke argues the ABC omitted interviews which indicated Brayley was not suffering from depression.

According to Dr Nitschke, the 7.30 report was used as a “trigger” to allow the medical board to begin its investigations.

In the complaint to ACMA, Dr Nitschke maintains the assistance provided to Brayley was his attendance in February of a workshop conducted by Exit International, a non-profit organisation founded by Dr Nitschke.

Dr Nitschke also contends the ABC did not give him adequate opportunity to answer to the allegations raised in the program. He told The Australian “It was basically an ambush” and he was given no warning or invitation to respond.

Philip Nitschke linked to wife-killer Nigel Brayley - The Australian 22Jul14

Philip Nitschke linked to wife-killer Nigel Brayley



EUTHANASIA advocate Philip Nitschke could be suspended from practising medicine as early as today following an investi­gation into his dealings with a Perth man who killed himself after police started treating his wife’s death as a suspected homicide.

The Medical Board of Australia will hand down its decision on Dr Nitschke’s contact with Nigel Brayley, who was found dead next to his mother’s grave on May 2. Under the rules governing medical practice, suspension by the board can lead to deregistration.

West Australian police suspected Brayley of killing his wife in 2011.

Since his death, it has emerged that Australian Federal Police was investigating the 2005 dis­appearance of his then live-in girlfriend in East Timor.

In his defence to the medical board, Dr Nitschke claimed Brayley was a “serial killer” who was determined to end his life when police began closing in on him. He said Brayley had ordered suicide drugs from China on February 17, before he attended one of Dr Nitschke’s workshops on February 24.

“He didn’t need me at all — in fact I don’t know why he came to the workshop, he had everything well and truly in place,” he said.

The board has told Dr Nitschke that it is concerned about his general advocacy of suicide but in particular his contact with Brayley.

The board began its investi­gation after a report on ABC1’s 7.30.

Dr Nitschke is aggrieved by that report and has complained to ACMA that it was unfair to him.

The board said Dr Nitschke knew the 45-year-old was neither elderly nor terminally ill yet did not endeavour to obtain much or any information about him.

Dr Nitschke said Brayley was not his patient.

In his defence submitted yesterday afternoon, he ­argued there was nothing he could have said to dissuade Brayley from killing himself. “There was no way he was going to tell a counsellor or anyone else what was worrying him because what is he going to say? ‘I’m a serial killer and I am worried the police are on to me?’ ” he said.

Dr Nitschke said he asked Brayley what was wrong and he “basically told me to mind my own business”.

Police initially did not tell Brayley that they no longer believed his wife, Lina, had slipped down a quarry while taking photographs in 2011.

They announced in the media that they now believed she was murdered.

Since his death, it has been ­reported that AFP officers travelled to Dili, at the request of West Australian police, to investigate the 2005 disappearance of Brayley’s then live-in girlfriend.

She disappeared while he was working as an airport manager in Dili and is still missing.

WA Police did not comment on their investigations yesterday.

Lina’s friends and family have repeatedly appealed for answers.


'Dr Death' Philip Nitschke to lead euthanasia workshop in Horsham - 21Jul14



'Dr Death' Philip Nitschke to lead euthanasia workshop in Horsham

By Sarah Scully
July 21, 2014

CONTROVERSIAL doctor Philip Nitschke will run an assisted suicide and voluntary euthanasia workshop in Horsham when he tours Victoria in September.

Dr Nitschke announced the workshop on Friday while addressing the Wimmera Association of Independent Retirees at Horsham RSL.

Dr Nitschke – the founder and director of Exit International – discussed his new autobiography Damned If I Do and the banned Peaceful Pill Handbook.

He also spoke about the legislative history and current political status of assisted suicide and voluntary euthanasia across the world.

In 1996, Dr Nitschke became the first physician in the world to administer a legal, lethal voluntary injection under the short-lived Rights of the Terminally Ill Act of the Northern Territory.

Wimmera Association of Independent Retirees chairman Lyall Wheaton said Dr Nitschke’s talk was well received.

He said about 130 people attended.

“We’re very happy with the turnout,” he said.

“Dr Nitschke talked about the four cases he was involved in in the Northern Territory before the legislation was overturned.

“A few people had frowns on their faces through most of it, but a lot of people also expressed interest in joining the Voluntary Euthanasia Party.”


Did euthanasia advocate Philip Nitschke help a murder suspect kill himself? 19Jul1



Did euthanasia advocate Philip Nitschke help a murder suspect kill himself?

By Julian Morgans
July 19, 2014

Philip Nitschke is the 66-year-old doctor spearheading Australia’s legalized euthanasia debate. He sells cylinders of nitrogen for self-suffocation and advises people on how to get a banned drug called Nembutal, which can cause respiratory arrest. Back in May, we made a documentary in which Nitschke explained how he screened his potential customers to make sure he wasn't providing assistance to suicidal young people. According to him, he’d only provide advice to individuals over 50, and even then only after they were found to be sane.

Recently, these measures have been called into question. In early July Nitschke admitted that he’d given advice to a man named Nigel Brayley, who was neither old—45, according to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC)—nor particularly sane. As it turned out, Brayley was being investigated over two mysterious deaths, including that of his former wife.

As might have been expected, a good deal of controversy has ensued. Jeff Kennett, the chairperson for mental health advocates Beyond Blue, described Nitschke’s actions as “absolutely abhorrent,” while a scathing segment on 7:30 Report, a show on the ABC, concluded that the doctor is basically helping vulnerable people commit suicide. This accusation has now prompted the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency to try and suspend Nitschke’s medical registration.

So what does Nitschke think about all this? Has he changed his position since the last time we spoke? We went to a conference of his in Melbourne on Wednesday where we found him signing up swaths of new elderly members.

VICE: Last time we spoke you assured us that your operation had safety nets in place. What happened with Nigel Brayley?

Philip Nitschke: He attended a workshop and that’s not a crime. I mean, the question is, where’s the cut-off point? He gave a very good account of himself in the very brief conversation that we had, and there wasn’t anything about him that suggested he didn’t know what he was doing. And he did know what he was doing!

But you told him how to get Nembutal, although you’d only just met.

He didn’t actually get any advice from me. He talked to me and then he bought his own drugs. He didn’t ask me anything. He didn’t ask me a single question. So, no, he didn’t get any advice.

Why didn't you try to stop him? You’re not a psychologist. How did you know he was sane?

Oh come on. I’m a doctor. You’re not, and certainly the 7:30 Report journalist wasn’t. And she came to the conclusion that he was depressed based on an interview. Anyway, this idea that only a psychologist can decide whether a person should receive information brings out the worst elements of medical paternalism. This idea that unless you’re a very experienced psychologist, absolutely anyone could be harboring a yet-to-be diagnosed psychiatric malady is rubbish. I am also a person who can decide if someone is of sound mind, and Nigel was.

Why do you get to decide?

Why do I get to decide? I simply said he could stay. I didn’t chuck him out of the meeting. Is that a decision? We try to get as many people to these meetings as we can. That’s all.

It seems that you're saying you don’t need a psychologist to determine whether someone can receive suicide information. So where is the age cut-off? What is the safety net that you speak about?

Well, we say 50, but that’s an arbitrary benchmark. It makes sense for every adult to know how to end their life. I don’t just mean when you’re 50, 40, or 35. Everybody should have access to this information.

Even if they’re not sick?

Oh, hell no. In fact, do it before you’re sick. Once you leave it until you’re sick, then you’re leaving it up to that point where you might need assistance and then you’ll really run into trouble with the law. Plan ahead while you’re not sick.

So let's say a young person who is perfectly healthy but suicidal comes to you. They should have access to suicide info?

Of sound mind is the criteria. If they then lapse into depression after that diagnosis, that’s a risk, but it’s not a good reason to be unprepared. And people say that could happen to someone, so therefore no one should have access to this information. And that’s why it’s a false argument and I dispute it. But of course, much of the opposition that’s coming in is predominantly from doctors. And they’re saying that no one should have access to this information except for doctors. It’s just medical paternalism. And that stuff has prevailed for 100 years where doctors know what’s best for everyone. They pat everyone on the head. There, there. We know what’s best. People want to be empowered. They want to make their own decisions and the best that a doctor can do is give out accurate information, but not to judge it. And this judgment by the medical profession is actually offensive, yet it goes on all the time.

Sanity aside, Brayley was being investigated for murder. Doesn’t his suicide get in the way of justice?

Well, I don’t think you can tell someone to stay alive to face 20 years of jail if he doesn’t want to. He made that decision. Should we have stopped him from making that decision because we wanted him to rot in prison? I don’t know. That’s a very hard question to answer.

Do you now regret having anything to do with him?

Oh, only because of the media reports. And especially the ABC. In the case of Nigel, I simply talked to him and he decided he was going to get his own drugs. As was pointed out, Nigel was a person who loved guns. If he hadn’t taken his Nembutal, he would have shot himself or hung himself. He was not going to jail.


Nitschke blames AMA for speech cancellation - 11Jul14


Nitschke blames AMA for speech cancellation


By Flynn Murphy
July 11th, 2014

AN ELEVENTH-hour decision to drop a speech by Dr Philip Nitschke from the Australian Medical Students’ Association (AMSA) national convention this week was taken due to pressure from the conference sponsor the AMA, the euthanasia advocate has claimed.

Dr Nitschke told Medical Observer he suspected AMSA had been “pressured” to drop the talk.

AMSA president Jessica Dean disputed this.

“The AMA is one of the sponsors of the event but the AMSA is politically independent,” said Ms Dean.

She said the decision to cancel Dr Nitschke’s speech was made in consultation with the convention team, executive and board independently of any other organisation and was based on reports that Dr Nitschke was being investigated by AHPRA over the death of 45-year-old Nigel Brayley.

AMA president Associate Professor Brian Owler contacted Ms Dean last week about Dr Nitschke’s appearance at the conference but a spokesman for the AMA denied he pressured the student group.

“Associate Professor Owler offered his opinion that it may not be a good idea for Dr Nitschke to speak to medical students. Any decision on speakers is up to the AMSA convention organisers,” the spokesman said.

Dr Nitschke was due to deliver a speech on rational suicide on Thursday but was emailed by conference organisers on Tuesday cancelling the event.

“Unfortunately... we have been instructed by the board to make a change in our program... I am extremely apologetic about this and disappointed that this had been the decision imposed on us,” conference organisers told Dr Nitschke in an email seen by MO.

Dr Nitschke was offered the opportunity to still take part in a panel discussion as planned. “After long and tiring discussions, we have managed to ensure that the panel session is still able to go ahead as planned,” the email said.

But Dr Nitschke said the “panel consolation prize was a poor substitute” for a speech, and declined to participate, saying he had returned early from a trip to Europe to attend the conference.

“I think the refusal of many in the medical profession to engage on the topic, even denying that rational suicide exists, even though it features more and more in the medical literature, is the medical equivalent of climate change deniers,” he said.

According to Dr Nitschke, AHPRA is investigating him over three issues, including whether he advised Nigel Brayley on methods of suicide and failed to refer him to a GP or psychiatrist as well as whether he inappropriately promoted and provided advice via his publication, The Peaceful Pill Handbook, on methods of suicide.

He has until 5pm on Wednesday 16 July to respond to AHPRA.


Philip Nitschke claims increase in support from followers after contact with Perth man Nigel Brayley - 06Jul14



Philip Nitschke claims increase in support from followers after contact with Perth man Nigel Brayley

July 06th, 2014

Euthanasia campaigner Philip Nitschke says he has received increased support from followers after it was revealed he had contact with a Perth man who committed suicide.

Nigel Brayley, 45, was not terminally ill but took his life in May this year after communicating with Dr Nitschke.

The president of the Australian Medical Association's West Australian branch, Michael Gannon, says Dr Nitschke did not provide the appropriate duty of care and claimed the incident would lead to his supporters abandoning him.

But Dr Nitschke, who arrives back in Australia from Europe next week, says he has had increased sales of his euthanasia e-book and extra bookings for future workshops since Mr Brayley's case was made public.

"We actually never had such high sales of the book in the eight years that the book has been on sale," he said.

"It's a banned book in Australia but of course it sells online.

"I get back next week and we're running workshops and they're both now totally booked out."

Dr Nitschke, who has been criticised for not referring Mr Brayley to psychiatric help, says he was not "practicing medicine" during their dealings.

"I've listened to many comments by eminent doctors over the last few days and all of them I think they fall into the same trap," he told the ABC from Brussels.

"They've been presented with a situation and they've immediately assumed this person is ... rather sick and therefore needs to be treated as a patient.

"This is about people taking control of their lives."

Medical professionals 'misguided' on euthanasia: Nitschke

Dr Nitschke says Mr Brayley's case is evidence of "how misguided many in the medical profession are about [euthanasia]".

"They simply can't get over the idea that sometimes suicide has got nothing to do with depression and nothing to do with medicine," he said.

But Dr Nitschke says this was not the case with Mr Brayley.

"I was not his doctor, he was not my patient, he was not a sick man in my estimation, and why should I in any way suggest that he go see a doctor?"

The Black Dog Institute also believes Dr Nitschke had an obligation to recommend psychiatric help to Mr Brayley.

The institute's Dr Caryl Barnes says it may make a formal complaint to the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (AHPRA), which supervises the registration of doctors qualified to practice.

Dr Barnes says that, as a psychiatrist, she was "absolutely horrified and appalled" that Dr Nitschke did not recommend counselling.


Nitschke defends handling of depressed man - 04Jul14


Nitschke defends handling of depressed man


July 4, 2014

Euthanasia campaigner Philip Nitschke denies he went too far in helping a fit and healthy but depressed man end his life.

PERTH man Nigel Brayley, 45, died in May after taking euthanasia drug Nembutal, because he feared he would be charged with his wife's murder.

His former wife Lina, 37, died in February 2011 after she fell from the top of Statham's Quarry while taking photographs.
Her death was initially believed to be an accident, but, after Mr Brayley died, it was revealed he was being investigated for his alleged involvement in her death.

Dr Nitschke said in a statement on Thursday that Mr Brayley had attended an Exit International workshop in Perth in February and purchased the banned Peaceful Pill eHandbook.

He said it was "a clear case of rational suicide".

"While Exit may not condone his reasons for taking this step, we fully support his right to be able to exercise this option."

Dr Nitschke defended his handling of the matter.

"I support his right to have access to that information and ultimately those drugs," Dr Nitschke said on Fairfax radio on Friday.

"It looks as though he did it to prevent a worsening situation which he detailed in the email he sent to me. He was looking at significant financial loss, he was looking at some dreadful outcome but didn't explain why.

"In retrospect, it looks as though he was fearful of a long period of incarceration.

"A person that's confronting that sort of dire circumstance, can well, I would argue, make a clear rational decision that death might be the preferred option.

"I don't think we should define that person as sick and certainly we shouldn't be sending him off to a psychiatrist."

Beyondblue chairman Jeff Kennett labelled Dr Nitschke's actions reprehensible.

"Equally unacceptable is Dr Nitschke's comment that he did not see it as part of his responsibility to refer the young man to an appropriate specialist for further treatment," Mr Kennett said.

"As a long-time supporter of euthanasia for the terminally ill, for those for whom the dignity of life has been lost, and under special conditions, I believe Dr Nitschke's latest act has crossed the line of decency and professional conduct.

"He has done his more general cause for euthanasia a great deal of harm."

Dr Nitschke said it would be a case of "paternalistic medicine" if he had insisted Mr Brayley seek psychiatric help.
"I didn't give him his drugs - I simply gave him information and he went and did it."

Mr Brayley illegally imported the Nembutal from China.

He also dismissed the suggestion it was inappropriate to assist a man involved in a legal matter.

"Whether we should have somehow kept him alive so he could face the court is a rather strange way of looking at it."

* Readers seeking support and information about suicide prevention can contact Lifeline on 13 11 14 or MensLine Australia on 1300 78 99 78


Lainie Anderson: Voluntary euthanasia is everyone’s right - so why don’t politicians support campaigners such as Dr Philip Nitschke? - 29Jun14


Voluntary euthanasia is everyone’s right - so why don’t politicians support campaigners such as Dr Philip Nitschke?


By Lainie Anderson
June 28, 2014

Two Melbourne women recently took their own lives in a suicide pact. One was 75 and suffering from the onset of Alzheimer’s disease. The other was 66 and completely healthy.

So why did both women choose to die?

Well, there are two reasons.

The first is that politicians in this country are either pathetic or totally unrepresentative when it comes to voluntary euthanasia and, despite overwhelming community support, will not legislate to allow terminally ill people to die with dignity.

The second reason is that some elderly Australians are opting to die on their own terms anyway.

And loved ones or medical specialists who help them to achieve their wishes then face between five years and life imprisonment for assisting suicide (depending on the state or territory).

In a letter circulated after the deaths of the two women, the 66-year-old said she’d chosen to die rather than “undergo the harassment and disgrace of a prosecution” if she’d assisted her best friend’s suicide.

Such a sad story. Almost as tragic as the tale of 81-year-old Herbert Erickson, who drowned himself on a Perth beach in 2012, after pleading guilty to the murder of his disabled de facto wife in a failed mercy suicide pact.

Fast forward to Canberra this week, where Greens senator Richard Di Natale introduced a draft Bill as the first step of a new national campaign to legalise voluntary euthanasia.

Under the Bill, the right to die will be granted to terminally ill patients who’ve seen two doctors and received a psychiatric assessment.

“The public is way out in front of politicians on this issue,” Senator Di Natale says. “The Bill won’t succeed if it’s seen as partisan but I’ve already been really surprised by the support across parties.”

WA Labor MP Alannah MacTiernan has co-sponsored the Bill, which will now be considered by a Senate inquiry while Senator Di Natale slowly works to achieve bipartisan support and a vital conscience vote for all MPs.

Interestingly, two of the terminally ill Australians who travelled to Canberra for Senator Di Natale’s launch spoke openly to media about having their own death plans in place – emboldened by advocacy groups such as Exit International which provides information on how to die.

Surely it’s not lost on politicians that Australians are increasingly giving a middle finger salute to their pontificating and procrastination.

Pro-euthanasia campaigner Dr Philip Nitschke says his Exit International workshops regularly attract hundreds of people – all over 50 and with an average age of 75.

He also estimates that more than 1000 senior Australians have either imported the lethal (and illegal) drug Nembutal or purchased gas cylinder equipment for peace of mind that they can one day die on their own terms.

In effect, senior Australians are increasingly saying that politicians are irrelevant – which would be quite funny if the stories we hear weren’t so sad, and if law-abiding elderly Australians didn’t have to become skulking criminals to achieve the death of their own choosing.

In the conservative French-Canadian state of Quebec early this month, a bipartisan Bill in support of voluntary euthanasia was voted into law by an overwhelming majority.

Instead of putting the controversial topic in the too-hard basket, or using the issue as a divisive political football, all parties worked together for two years to research the legislation.

All politicians in Quebec’s National Assembly were allowed a conscience vote and 81 percent voted in favour.

That’s the sort of result we could expect to achieve in Australia if politicians were representative of the public they serve and voted in line with popular support for reform which, for years, has been more than 70 per cent.

It can be done. I live in hope.


Lynn Afotey-Otu pleads guilty to importing euthanasia drug Pentobarbital - 26Jun14



Lynn Afotey-Otu pleads guilty to importing euthanasia drug Pentobarbital


By Thomas Chamberlin
June 26, 2014


A CHILDCARE director of the year has been placed on probation after pleading guilty to importing lethal drugs promoted for euthanasia in the first known case of its kind in Queensland.

Lynn Afotey-Otu was sentenced in Pine Rivers Magistrates Court after bringing forward her appearance date for importing the border-controlled drug Pentobarbital, branded Nembutal.

The drug is a sedative and anaesthetic but euthanasia advocate Exit Australia director Dr Philip Nitschke has promoted Nembutal as the best and most peaceful way to end a life.

Ms Afotey-Otu, 61, twice awarded the Queensland Early Childhood Director of the Year in the Australian Family Early Education Care Awards, was charged in May after Customs officials seized vials of the drug in the mail which had been ordered online.

Nembutal is commonly sold in Mexico for about $500.

Appearing in court as Lynn Denise McGuinness, the Dayboro woman was placed on a two-year good behaviour bond and 12 months’ probation. No conviction was recorded.

She was originally meant to appear in court today.

When contacted by The Courier Mail she declined to comment about the matter.

Dr Nitschke said it was positive the courts had dealt with the case in a “measured, compassionate and humane way”.

“On the other hand the whole business of having police involvement has still sent a chill across the elderly folk of the nation,” he said.

“These are people who have generally not being law breakers, this is their first crime and they are carrying it out in their elderly years.

“That’s why the law in the current state is not very satisfactory.”

Dr Nitschke said there had been a number of people who had their drugs intercepted in the past but not any court cases for people importing the drug into Australia by mail.

Queensland Teacher Merin Nielsen, 50, was the first in the state to be convicted of aiding a suicide after he travelled to Mexico and bought Nembutal for friend Frank Ward, 76, who died in 2009.

In 2012 he was sentenced to six months’ jail.



MEDIA: Terminally Ill Activists to lobby Canberra for Euthanasia law change



Terminally Ill Activists lobby Canberra for euthanasia law change

Exit Member and leukemia sufferer Cath Ringwood will travel to Canberra on Tuesday 24th to lobby politicians on the need for euthanasia law reform. She will meet with Shadow Health Minister Hon Catherine King and also hopes to speak about the urgent need for legislative change to her member Shadow Families’ Minister Hon Jenny Macklin.

She will be joined in Canberra by cancer sufferers SA Exit member Max Bromson and Melbourne man Peter Short and the three will met with Green’s Health spokesperson Sen Richard Di Natale

Exit International director Dr Philip Nitschke said that it was amazing that people so ill we're prepared to spend some of their remaining time making such a difficult journey.

"All three know they have little time left, and that any change to the law on voluntary euthanasia will come too late to be of any benefit to them, but they feel so strongly about this.

"Max has said that having to watch Abbott government Social Services Minister Kevin Andrews on television, knowing the pivotal role he played back in 1996 in overturning the world's first euthanasia legislation was particularly galling”.

Dr Nitschke said that both Cath and Max had put in place their own end of life option by obtaining the premier euthanasia drug Nembutal through the Exit Buyers Club.


For Information:

Cath Ringwood. 0409-007-142
Max Bromson.   0419-819-187
Philip Nitschke. 0407-189-339

END.   23rd  June  2014              mailto:contact@exitinternational.net

Couple found dead together - 07Jun14


Couple found dead together


By Deidre Mussen and Olivia Wannan
Jun 07, 2014

A couple with long-term links to euthanasia group Exit International have been found dead together in their home in the Wellington suburb of Eastbourne.

The bodies of Eneka and Reinier Odinot, aged 89 and 90, were found by a family member at 2pm on Wednesday, police said.

They had been members of the Wellington branch of Exit International for 10 years and attended workshops on suicide methods, said Philip Nitschke, Exit's Australian-based director.

Nitschke, nicknamed Dr Death because of his support for assisted suicide, said the deaths were sad but, as ardent euthanasia supporters, the couple had simply followed through with their intention to end their lives together.

"What was really sad was that they had such trouble."

Eneka Odinot had written to him to describe a failed attempt, using a method he promoted.

"We were so confident that we would end our lives [so] that failure was a severe shock, especially - in our eyes - for our children," she wrote.

"My husband said he saw me struggling for breath, adding to his misery. This experience has made us both more determined to succeed next time.

"Our children have been understanding and supportive throughout. If anything, the failures have brought us closer together. Bless them."

Suzy Austen, Wellington's Exit International branch head, said the Odinots were childhood sweethearts and devoted, active, rational people, who moved from Holland to New Zealand in 1950.

They had a son and two daughters.

"He was a true gentleman," Austen said of Reinier.

"He would stand up when you walked into the room - and absolutely charming. Always bright and cheerful. Eneka was very interested in conservation. She kept herself well informed on all sorts of issues and was quite passionate about helping."

Eneka was a prolific letter writer to The Dominion Post. Her final letter arrived last Friday: "In 1950 I was given an entry visa to New Zealand on condition I was ‘not the type of person who advocates the overthrow of government'. Has this condition been omitted lately?"

Police did not believe their sudden deaths were suspicious, and the case had been referred to the coroner.

The Odinots' family declined to comment.



Police probe Dr Philip Nitschke over supplying equipment to two Melburnians for suicide pact - 06Jun14


Police probe Dr Philip Nitschke over supplying equipment to two Melburnians for suicide pact


By Nick Toscano
June 6, 2014

Police are investigating the deaths of two Melbourne housemates who used suicide equipment provided by euthanasia advocate Philip Nitschke.

Viewbank housemates Val Seeger, 75, and Claire Parsons, 66, died in March in a suicide pact.

Ms Parsons, who was healthy, had agreed to help carry out her friend's wish to die after she began showing early signs of dementia, Dr Nitschke said.

Laws prohibiting assisting a suicide, and the thought of living on without her best friend, had spurred Ms Parson's decision to also die, he said.

"Claire said she couldn't live with the risk of criminal charges for assisting suicide ... and she said Val is my closest friend and I don't really want to go on without her," Dr Nitschke said.

The pair, who had been friends for more than two decades, had sent a letter to Dr Nitschke saying they had decided to take their own lives, and asked that it be circulated.

Heidelberg police this week questioned Dr Nitschke over the deaths.

Dr Nitschke said he has admitted providing the equipment, which is legal, but can be used for suicide.

"I've answered all their questions," he said.

Fairfax Media has obtained a copy of a letter written by Ms Parsons before her death.

In the letter, Ms Parsons says her friend was suffering from the onset of Alzheimer’s disease and due to her background as a health professional sought to avoid an ‘‘undignified end’’.

She also outlined why she decided to join Ms Seeger in taking her own life.

‘‘Under the current (and we believe outdated) law in this land, the police are obliged to charge me with aiding and abetting a suicide and I am not prepared to undergo the harassment and disgrace of a prosecution,’’ the letter reads.

‘‘This leaves me no choice but to join my friend at her time of death.’’

The maximum penalty for assisting suicide in Victoria is five years' jail, but in other jurisdictions it is life imprisonment.

Dr Nitschke, the director of pro-euthanasia group Exit International, said the deaths were in a "murky" area between suicide and euthanasia.

He said prosecutors in the UK were able to consider compassionate circumstances in cases of assisted suicide.

"I think there needs to be a look at ways of dealing with these compassionate acts ... when someone feels obliged to help someone they love or care a great deal about then they shouldn't find themselves subjected to these penalties."

Dr Nitschke said the two women were prominent Victorians – Ms Parsons was a renowned medical anthropology academic and published author, and Ms Seeger a highly respected nurse.

The two women were members of their local Exit International group.

Dr Nitschke said the women had spoken about their suicide pact at their last Exit International meeting.

A Victoria Police spokesman said police investigate all unsuspected deaths for the Coroner.

"If a death is deemed non-suspicious, then a brief is prepared for the Coroner," he said.

"The Coroner may direct police to investigate further or may make a finding based on the available evidence."


Probe on euthanasia campaigner Dr Philip Nitschke after friends’ suicide pact - 05Jun14


Probe on euthanasia campaigner Dr Philip Nitschke after friends’ suicide pact


By Shelley Hadfield
June 05, 2014

A POLICE investigation has begun into the deaths of two Melbourne women who obtained suicide devices from controversial euthanasia campaigner Dr Philip Nitschke.

A letter left by one of the women details their suicide pact. One of the pair had Alzheimer’s disease, but the other was healthy.

Detectives this week asked Dr Nitschke, known as “Dr Death”, to explain how the friends obtained equipment they used to die.

Viewbank housemates Val Seeger, 75, and Claire Parsons, 66, died in March, but their case was never made public by authorities.

In a note posted to Dr Nitschke and signed by both women, Ms Parsons said they decided to take their own lives after Ms Seeger was diagnosed in March last year.

Ms Parsons said that after agreeing to help her friend end her life, she felt existing laws left her no choice but to take her own life too.

Dr Nitschke admitted the women obtained equipment from him that he knew could be used as a suicide device. He said he had sold the equipment - which the Herald Sun has chosen not to detail - throughout Australia.

And Dr Nitschke has defiantly revealed plans to open a euthanasia clinic in Melbourne, having inspected a potential site in Essendon this week.

A coronial probe on the deaths “including whether this was assisted suicide” is also under way, Coroners Court spokeswoman Sheree Argento said.

Dr Nitschke said the women - friends for 24 years - took their lives.

It is understood Ms Parsons, an academic and published author, forwarded the letter, titled “I Have a Friend”, to Dr Nitschke, asking it be passed on to news media.

Dr Nitschke says he received the letter after the women had died.

Assisting a suicide carries a maximum five-year jail term in Victoria.

Six people have been prosecuted for their involvement in a suicide pact, inciting suicide and aiding or abetting suicide in Victoria since 1997.

Senior Detective Emma Bennett, of Heidelberg CIU, said Dr Nitschke might be asked to make a statement in the investigation.

“The matter has to be thoroughly investigated to establish where they got (the equipment) from,” Sen-Det Bennett said.

Dr Nitschke said Ms Parsons felt she could not live without her best friend.

The two women were members of their local Exit International group.

Dr Nitschke, its founder and director, is a focus of three Medical Board of Australia inquiries.

“Suicide is not a crime. This is the only example of where assisting someone to do something lawful is a crime,” Dr Nitschke said.

“We are languishing in the dark ages here.”

Dr Nitschke, who has a clinic in Adelaide, said his proposed Melbourne advisory clinic would operate one day per month.

“It would be talking to people who are sick and considering what their options are,” he said.

His Voluntary Euthanasia Party was registered in Victoria yesterday. He hopes to run candidates at the election.


CLAIRE Parsons could not be talked out of the pact she had with her best friend, euthanasia campaigner Philip Nitschke says.

Dr Nitschke said that people who had seen her the day before she ended her life reported that she was adamant, despite being perfectly healthy.

Her friend of 24 years, Val Seeger, was diagnosed with Alzheimer’s disease in March last year.

Dr Nitschke said the women were quite open about their plan at the last meeting of a local Exit International group they attended. He said Ms Parsons and Ms Seeger went to a euthanasia workshop in Melbourne in September, attended by about 300 people.

Ms Seeger was an award-winning and highly respected nurse.

Ms Parsons qualified with a doctorate in medical anthropology and did postdoctoral studies at Harvard University.

The pair volunteered with the Australian Red Cross emergency and disaster program for four years.

In a letter the women wanted distributed to the media, Ms Parsons wrote that after Ms Seeger’s diagnosis her friend said she did not want to be sent to a nursing home or lose her sense of dignity.

“She knows that she cannot wait too long and forfeit her ability to reason, as to ask for assistance would constitute homicide on my part, and neither of us believes that to be acceptable,” Ms Parsons wrote.

“Having said this, we are also aware that under the current (and we believe outdated) law in this land, the police are obliged to charge me with aiding and abetting a suicide and I am not prepared to undergo the harassment and disgrace of a prosecution.”

Ms Parsons wrote that their decision had been a rational one made by two people who had worked with people who have Alzheimer’s and who had a full knowledge of contemporary research in the field.

“We imagine that at the turn of the century, euthanasia/dying with dignity will be regarded as a normal, rational, ethical and legal action, accessible to all who wish to avail themselves of this option, while still protecting the vulnerable and their friends and family.”


“Given the laws that exist at this time in history, what I am obliged to do, I will do, and do willingly.

“Who would consider a loyal friend to be someone who walks away when their friend is in need?

“What is loyalty when one abandons others in order to protect onself? I find I cannot do that.

“None of our actions has been taken lightly.

“But neither have they been taken with sorrow or regret.

“We are just two ordinary people, content and fulfilled with our lives but who have planned how to manage the disease confronting us and have chosen to leave this world before all dignity and integrity is lost.

“We will have a wonderful final day and share a meal together before we wish each other well on our final journey.”



Breaking the law for a certain end - 29May14


Breaking the law for a certain end


By Philip Nitschke
Thursday, 29 May 2014

This week will see the first case of the state prosecuting an elderly Exit member simply because he had the good sense to plan ahead; to put a safety net in place, just in case his health deteriorated. At 10am on Thursday 29th, 68 year old pensioner Rupert Ward will front the Albany magistrates court in West Australia, charged with being in possession of a prohibited substance, namely the euthanasia drug Nembutal.

In the past month, Rupert, along with 11 other Exit members in three states, has been visited by State police, acting, they say, in collaboration with the Federal police. They claim they have 'reasonable grounds of suspicion' that lethal drugs from China, or Mexico have been imported and that they are concerned for 'the person's welfare', but the problem is, the treasured euthanasia drug, Nembutal, is prohibited. Its importation, even for personal use, is a serious crime. At least that's what the Misuse of Drugs Act says.

We don't know whose email or bank accounts are being monitored, and what is driving this new enthusiasm on the part of law enforcement officers, but we do know this has spread alarm and concern through the Exit community. Where many of our members, frustrated by the glacial pace of legislative change in euthanasia laws, have elected instead to prepare their own end of life plan, just in case.

Perhaps this 'welfare check' is part of the new community policing strategy we hear so much about. Maybe this new-found concern is grounded in mental health community care? Who would know.

What we do know is that these mentally well, although aged, members of Exit are currently undergoing police scrutiny like never before. We know also that it's not nice.

So why are these hitherto law-abiding elderly citizens delving into this life of crime you say?

While the evidence may be anecdotal, the verdict is increasingly clear. Having lethal drugs locked away safely in your medicine cabinet helps you live out your later years with peace of mind and security. You know you are back in control. No lying in hospital so out of it on drugs that you are stripped bare of what remains of your dignity. You want to die at home, surrounded by your loved ones and when you, not your doctor says? I bet the majority of Australians want the same.

And this is the reason why the importation of Nembutal has become so popular amongst the elderly. Their contempt for the politicians becomes clear. With 86 percent of the Australian community supporting voluntary euthanasia, what is stopping the politicians from doing what our taxes pay them to do?

Here we have even seen the WA Parliament in the ridiculous position of recently debating legislation not to legislate! Upset by Belgium's enlightened steps to extend their euthanasia laws to children has thrown the politicians of the West into a tailspin, seeking to outlaw any possibility of changing current legislation that makes assisting a suicide, for whatever reason, a crime

And this is the sort of contingency that the twelve Exit Members who had their homes raided in the past month are hoping to avoid. They want an exit plan in place that doesn't depend on the assistance of others. And they are certainly not members of the community 'in need of protection'.

Understandably impatient with the current younger generation of politicians who fail to understand what it's like to get old (and sick), these elderly folk are planning for their futures while they are still able.

Just because they are importing their lethal drugs, doesn't mean they will take them. It simply means they will stash them away, hoping they will never use them but drawing immense comfort from knowing they are there. Just in case. What is so hard to understand?

Yes they know they have broken the law, probably for the first time ever. Yes they know they are naughty. But in most states of Australia, police discretion to lay charges turns on two factors. First there must be sufficient evidence, second the charge must be in the public interest.

I invite the State and Federal police to explain. How is putting 70 year old first time offenders on trial for importing a single 10gm dose of Nembutal, in the public interest? Perhaps I'm missing something, but it smells very odd to me.


Euthanasia advocates fear police raids - 23May14


Euthanasia advocates fear police raids


By Tammy Mills
May 23, 2014

Victorian members of a pro-euthanasia group are fearful of police raids after warrants were executed across Australia over the importation of a lethal drug, group head Dr Philip Nitschke says.


Two people, from Western Australia and Queensland, have been charged with importing the illegal drug Nembutal, and state police have spoken to 10 others in WA, Queensland and South Australia in the past month.


Dr Nitschke, director of Exit International, said on Friday morning that the police action had spread a ripple of fear through the group's 6000 members, which include more than 1000 Victorians.


He said Victorians fear they are on a police hit-list and are concerned that police have accessed the group's database.

"Victorian members are saying they want to know if their information has been compromised," he said. "It has caused a lot of alarm."


Dr Nitschke said the raids may also shut down one of the easiest ways people can access the drug, which is used by veterinarians to put animals down.


He said some of the group's members were able to order the drug online from a Chinese company and have it mailed to them.


"Members are very keen to access this drug, not because they're sick, but because they're getting on in years," Dr Nitschke said. "They think it's a very good idea to have this in place in case they might need it, in case they get to the stage where they're too sick and have to ask their husband or wife to do the ordering and the person assisting can be looking at very serious legal consequences."


Since the raids, Dr Nitschke said, the Chinese company had stopped supplying to Australia because it's "not worth it".


Rupert Ward, 69 of Albany, was charged about a month ago with possessing an illegal drug while Brisbane woman Lynn Afotey-Otu, 64, was charged with importation of the drug on Thursday last week.


Mr Ward will face a WA court next Thursday while Ms Afotey-Otu will face a court in Queensland on June 2.

Lynn Afotey-Otu charged for importing border-controlled drug Pentobarbital - 17May14


Lynn Afotey-Otu charged for importing border-controlled drug Pentobarbital


By Thomas Chamberlin
May 17th, 2014

Doctor Philip Nitschke demonstrates the use of his suicide machine to cancer sufferer Cath Ringwood while in Tasmania for the euthanasia debate in parliament.

A BRISBANE woman has been charged with importing lethal drugs promoted for euthanasia in a case labelled the first of its kind in Queensland.

Lynn Afotey-Otu, from Dayboro, was charged by police on Thursday for importing the border-controlled drug Pentobarbital, branded Nembutal.

The Courier-Mail believes the 64-year-old used the internet to buy two vials of the drug, which were seized by Customs officials.

Nembutal is commonly sold in Mexico for about $500. The drug is a sedative and anaesthetic but euthanasia advocates recommend the use of Nembutal as the most peaceful way to end a life. It has also been used for capital punishment across the US.

The maximum penalty for importing the drug into Australia is jail time and a fine up to $825,000.

OPINION: Mature debate about end-of-life treatment should include euthanasia

SUFFERING: Experts call for voluntary euthanasia to be legalised

While not commenting on Afotey-Otu’s case, Exit Australia director Dr Philip Nitschke said other people usually bought the drug as a “safety net” and was unaware of any other cases of people being caught in Queensland after allegedly ordering it over the internet.

“It gives them the option of a peaceful death,” Mr Nitschke told The Courier-Mail.

“It has a shop life of about 25 years. If you buy it, it’s a way of getting a security policy in place.”

Afotey-Otu declined to comment.

The case follows another high-profile court case in Queensland two years ago in which a man travelled overseas to buy the drug.

Teacher Merin Nielsen, 50, was the first person in Queensland to be convicted of aiding a suicide and was sentenced to six months’ jail in 2012.

He travelled to Mexico and bought the drug Nembutal for friend Frank Ward, 76, who died in June 2009.

Afotey-Otu is due to appear in Pine Rivers Magistrates Court on June 2.



Nitschke claims police are harassing euthanasia supporters - 24Apr14



Nitschke claims police are harassing euthanasia supporters

By: Peter Caldicot
7News, Adelaide
April 24, 2014

Adelaide’s so-called Dr Death Philip Nitschke claims police are harassing members of his euthanasia group Exit International.

Five members of Exit International claim they have been raided by West Australian Police.

It is understood detectives were searching for banned suicide drug Nembutal, which is often sourced from Mexico, and those importing the drug can face criminal charges.

But voluntary euthanasia campaigner Dr Philip Nitschke says police were cruel and heavy handed to target the elderly.

“The word has spread to all of our members, not only in Western Australia but in other states, people are concerned about who is going to be next in this campaign,” Dr Nitschke said.

He has sent an email to 14,000 followers instructing them to only provide officers with their name and address.

“If the police have a search warrant - and they have in the four instances so far - you’ll have to let them into your house, but don’t just chit chat or have a conversation, say the absolute minimum,” Mr Nitschke said.

He said some material was seized at one property and charges could be laid.

It comes as a senior Perth doctor asks the Medical watchdog to strip Dr Nitscke of his licence.


WA Police reject suggestions of targeting Philip Nitschke's euthanasia group for drugs - 22Apr14



WA Police reject suggestions of targeting Philip Nitschke's euthanasia group for drugs

April 22, 2014

WA POLICE have rejected suggestions they targeted members of Philip Nitschke's euthanasia group Exit in the search for an illegal suicide drug.

The group said some members had their homes raided for the imported euthanasia drug Nembutal in the past week.

“Exit does not know how the police decided to target the members involved,” a statement read.

But a WA Police spokeswoman said officers were acting on the advice of federal police and Customs, which passed on information about any prohibited drug importation.

“If they ask us, on their behalf, or provide us with information, we can do a welfare check depending on what the item is, or (execute) a warrant just to locate a prohibited drug,” she said.

“It's something standard.

“It was nothing specific to this group.”



Philip Nitschke: no good deed goes unpunished as hospital turns on me - 04Apr14



Philip Nitschke: no good deed goes unpunished as hospital turns on me

Imagine this: you are visiting from interstate on other matters. Your “colleagues” (you have never met these people but it could be said that you share similar professional interests) hear of your visit and invite you to give up your time for free to present a breakfast talk to a closed meeting at their place of work. They say they have a “poor understanding” of your area of work and would like to learn more. Can you help them out?

You think this is a reasonable and a not uncommon situation, so you agree. You get up early, give what you think is an interesting presentation, engage in an active Q&A session, get thanked by the organiser for making the effort and contributing your time and goodwill to foster greater understanding and intellectual debate within their department. You think that is that.

Only later that same day, the head of the department decides to complain to the national regulatory agency about what you said, claiming you are a risk to life and that you deserve to lose your professional accreditation.

This is the way that Dr Mark Schutze of the department of pain management at the Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital in Perth behaved towards me recently, calling me “a risk to his patients” and saying I did “not deserve registration as a medical practitioner”. He claimed I had promoted “instructions on how to suicide, and instructions on how to kill people” in a complaint to the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency. Schutze used the hospital as his address, and it remains unclear as to whether he is representing the CGH in this matter or it is his personal professional complaint he has made.

In any event, Schutze’s complaint now forms the basis of a “notification” with AHPRA, which in turn will now decide if it will launch an investigation into my medical registration.

Schutze thinks I don’t deserve to call myself a doctor. The question now is: will the Australian Medical Board agree?

Under the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (WA) Act 2010, medical registration is provided under section 3(2)(a) “for the protection of the public by ensuring that only health practitioners who are suitably trained and qualified to practise in a competent and ethical manner are registered”.

Under section 52(1)(c) the person must be “suitable” to hold general registration in the health profession. Section 55 defines “unsuitability” as a person with an impairment, criminal history, lack of competency in speaking English, past experience in practising medicine competently or safely or, under section 55(1)(h)(i), not a fit and proper person.

It could be argued that as this is the third complaint to be made against me in three years, I should be used to the charade. In some ways I am. One of the other current complaints that has gone to the investigation stage with AHPRA in South Australia concerns my fit and proper character. Like the complaint made by Schutze, the other complaint was made by a person with views that don’t accord with my own. I’ve never been a member of the church-sponsored, pro-life sector. Never will be.

Needless to say I believe strongly in choice, and while I appreciate that others may not, I’d be the last person to try and ram my views down their throats. We can all agree to disagree. Naively, perhaps, on February 25 at 7.30am at CGH I thought that was where we’d leave discussion also. Apparently not, but why not?

Like many who speak regularly about the work that they do, I had assumed that a closed breakfast meeting to doctors and nurses at CGH would be governed by Chatham House Rules. These rules are designed to increase openness of discussion and to allow those involved to express and discuss controversial opinions and arguments without suffering the risk of dismissal from their jobs.

Since my presentation to the hospital staff and since Schutze’s vexatious complaint to AHPRA, the convener of the breakfast presentations has stated overtly that Chatham House Rules apply. But then he’s had to do that as also since my presentation he is unsurprisingly short of speakers.

While I don’t practise medicine in any technical sense — my medical insurer has made a point that anything to do with the words “voluntary euthanasia” or “Exit International” is non-medical and hence beyond coverage — and as the founder of my own non-profit, I’m not “employed” by anyone. However, I still wouldn’t want to find myself relinquishing my medical registration simply because someone doesn’t agree with my ideas.

I can fully understand why other invited speakers wouldn’t want to take this risk either. Unlike me, they need their registration to keep their jobs at the hospital.

Speaking of past seminars on controversial topics, the CGH convener has acknowledged that while “I have often released disclaimers protecting the hospital, ourselves, etc. However, I failed to protect the speakers, which is what I now regret”. Indeed you should. Hence his newfound enthusiasm for those attending to agree in writing to Chatham House Rules in an attendance book at the door or be denied entry.

While I applaud CGH’s belated efforts to embrace freedom of speech in their professional development activities — if that is what its breakfast series of talks are — for me this courtesy is too little, too late.

Once again, I am forced to take time out from Exit International’s important work to turn my mind to defending myself and my ideas. I don’t really care that Mark Schutze thinks that voluntary euthanasia and other methods of self-deliverance are not needed because palliative care has all the answers, but I do care that he thinks he is un-categorically right and the rest of us are wrong. You know, Mark, we aren’t wrong. We are just think differently to you.

As the first man to use the Northern Territory’s Rights of the Terminally Ill Act back in 1996, Bob Dent, once said in an open letter to politicians:

“If you disagree with voluntary euthanasia, then don’t use it, but don’t deny me the right to use it if and when I want to.”

The same applies to Schutze. Let’s hope AHPRA agree.

Philip Nitschke tips a full house at Newcastle Writers Festival - 03Apr14



Philip Nitschke tips a full house at Newcastle Writers Festival

EXIT International director Philip Nitschke will demonstrate emerging techniques that allow the elderly and seriously ill to achieve a peaceful death, at a workshop in Newcastle on Monday.

Dr Nitschke said he was expecting an enthusiastic response to the Exit euthanasia workshop following his participation at the Newcastle Writers Festival being held at City Hall over the weekend.

In one of two sessions that Dr Nitschke is involved with at the festival, he will talk about the consequences of having a "dangerous idea".

"To talk openly about the means to achieve a peaceful and reliable suicide is considered by some to be such a dangerous idea that they will attempt to have me silenced by having my medical registration cancelled," Dr Nitschke said.

He was referring to attempts by the Medical Board of Australia to have him deregistered for "normalising suicide" after a talk he gave to medical staff at a Perth hospital last month.

Dr Nitschke talked about the practicalities of self-help voluntary euthanasia methods, and the head of the pain management department immediately made a complaint to the medical board.

"Exit has held workshops in Newcastle for many years now and we always attract a full house," he said.

"People from the Hunter seem to have no problem in calling a spade a spade. The retirees of the region seem always eager to come along and learn."

Material to be discussed at the workshop will include home-testing of the purity of euthanasia drugs.

Dr Nitschke will also discuss the use of nitrogen gas. A shipment of nitrogen cylinders has been sent to Newcastle for the workshop.

Attendance at the Newcastle Exit euthanasia workshop, to be held at Panthers from 10am to 1pm, is restricted to those aged over 50 years and the seriously ill.



Do not name visiting speakers, hospital rules - West Australian 29Mar14

Do not name visiting speakers, hospital rules

Doctors, Nurses gagged

The Weekend West

March 29-30, 2014

Kate Emery

Doctors and nurses at Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital will be gagged from revealing details of talks by visiting experts amid concerns they could leave themselves open to complaints to the medical regulator.

A week after The West Australian revealed a senior Perth doctor had complained to the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency about a talk given by voluntary euthanasia advocate Philip Nitschke, the hospital’s department of pain management has instituted the Chatham House Rule.

The rule aims to prevent attendees from identifying who said what at the department’s regular Tuesday seminars.

According to an internal email, the complaint about Dr Nitschke – that could lead to him losing his medical licence – prompted several speakers, including a cancer researcher, to cancel.

“To many of the invited speakers AHPRA registration is essential so they can continue practising,” the email, which was sent by a staff doctor, said. “We all realise it is unlikely that they would say anything controversial for any of us to contact AHPTA> However they have no idea who is in the audience or how the audience will react. The AHPRA complaint has concerned many of them and (they) have therefore cancelled their talks.

“Anyone who comes to the meeting is free to quote from the discussion, but is not allowed tosay who made any comment.”

SCGH said its pain management department was “seeking to support a culture which encourages open and frank discussion at its weekly meetings without fear of adverse professional impact”.

Nitschke accused of normalising suicide - 25Mar14



Nitschke accused of normalising suicide

By Andrew Bracey
Mar 25, 2014

EUTHANASIA advocate Dr Philip Nitschke is facing a fresh challenge to his medical registration after a complaint that he told colleagues assisted suicide should be made possible for social reasons, like the inability to play golf.

Perth-based pain management specialist Dr Mark Schutze, who lodged the complaint with AHPRA, told MO that during a seminar organised by doctors at the Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital, Dr Nitschke argued that anyone over the age of 70 should have the right to euthanasia.

Dr Schutze alleges that Dr Nitschke advocated euthanasia for those grieving the loss of a spouse or prevented from partaking in hobbies such as golf due to poor health.

“My concern is that he is creating an impression that suicide can be normalised,” Dr Schutze said. “I think that is a dangerous and very extreme view that is not part of medicine. I don’t think he is entitled to hold a medical registration if that is what he is promoting.

“If it becomes a community norm to simply… end it all, then you will see a rise in the number of suicides and an increase in death rates among people who do not have to die, and I think it is really irresponsible.”

However, Dr Nitschke hit back, saying the examples cited by Dr Schutze were actual reasons people had given him when seeking advice or help with euthanasia plans.

Dr Nitschke maintains that he did not advocate euthanasia as a solution when discussing these cases.

He said he used the examples to pose hypothetical questions to the audience to gauge reaction and discuss how such requests would be handled.

“It is an outrageous complaint which AHPRA should have dismissed,” he said.

“In a discussion among medical professionals, there ought to be a degree of ability to speak openly and freely, especially when they have requested to hear about my experiences.”

AHPRA has asked that Dr Nitschke provide a response to the complaint by 28 March but said he planned to seek an extension until after he runs in the federal senate election in WA on 5 April.

Two separate AHPRA investigations into Dr Nitschke regarding the unregistered barbiturate Nembutal and the advocacy of inhaled nitrogen for hypoxic death are ongoing.


Specialist wants Nitschke banned - 20Mar14



Specialist wants Nitschke banned

Mar 20, 2014

A senior Perth doctor wants the medical regulator to strip Philip Nitschke of his medical licence as "a risk to our patients" after the euthanasia advocate addressed doctors at Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital.

Mark Schutze, a private pain specialist who also works in SCGH's department of pain management, wrote to the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency after Dr Nitschke gave a talk at the hospital last month.

The talk was at the request of one of the department's pain medicine consultants.

Dr Schutze, who made the complaint as a private practitioner, said he did not support euthanasia but attended to hear Dr Nitschke's argument.

He said he was "truly shocked by his cavalier approach to what I could describe as nothing else other than promoting suicide".

Dr Schutze said Dr Nitschke had a right to his views but should not be legitimised with a medical licence nor allowed to tarnish the profession.

"I'm very concerned that his views are a significant departure from professional standards and do constitute a risk to public harm," he said.

Dr Nitschke said he was shocked to learn of the complaint and would ask SCGH to respond to the regulator.

He said the talk was a chance to discuss euthanasia from a medical view and explain how the lack of legislation drove elderly people to "seek their own solutions" with drugs bought on the internet. He discussed the phenomenon of people wanting to die for social reasons as well as plans for his Voluntary Euthanasia Party.

Dr Nitschke, who begins his WA Senate campaign tomorrow, said he was suspicious the complaint was political.

"When I found that the complaint came from a doctor in the department that had invited me I was suspicious I had been set up," he said.

Dr Schutze said he was unaware of Dr Nitschke's Senate bid when he complained.

A spokeswoman for AHPRA, which is investigating two complaints against Dr Nitschke from 2012 and last year, said it did not comment on cases.

A SCGH spokeswoman said it did not support Dr Nitschke's views on euthanasia.


Think carefully about your preferences - 14Mar14



Think carefully about your preferences

By Stephen Mayne
March 14, 2014

Dear WA Senate candidates (and a few others interested in politics), apologies for not being able to make it across and join the contest on April 5 - it just didn't quite work out in the end.

However, as a veteran of these intense 24 hour upper house preference negotiation processes in two Victorian upper house contests and the 2010 Victorian Senate race, I thought some final negotiating thoughts would be useful to share.

Firstly, the DLP has done pooly on the ballot paper and won't have as much to offer as usual. It works best for them if they are just to the left of Labor.

The reverse applies for the Liberal Democrats who are well placed in the middle with the real Liberals well out to the far Right. However, the real Liberals will no doubt run a strong education campaign to reduce the accidental Lib Dem votes so expect them to fall below 3% this time around.

The donkey vote will work well for Wikileaks and the Greens but all the talk is of numerous groups not doing the Greens any favours on preferences.

The big one in this regard will be whether Palmer and the ALP swap preferences before going to the Greens. If that happens, it will be very tough for the Greens, especially if the Sex Party continue their recent trend of preferencing Labor ahead of them.

Progressive parties negotiating with Labor should ask them about their Palmer versus the Greens ranking before committing to any deals as this would cut right across the traditional Left-Right divide. Part of the progressive Labor base would shift their primary votes to the Greens if there was a big media storm about Shorten backing a billionaire like Palmer who has donated more than $5 million to the Coalition over the years before going native.

Speaking of the Sex Party, their candidate Fiona Patten is a stand out political performer and would do a great job if elected to the Senate.

Sure, if you're a conservative Christian group, you won't go near her but there's no reason Shooters, Smokers, Pirates or Motoring Enthusiasts wouldn't want to see a feisty women taking it to the uber social conservative Tony Abbott. The Sex Party have considered and consistent libertarian positions and would make natural philosophical allies for the Liberal Democrats. I've debated Fiona in a number of political contests over the years and always found her charming and impressive.

The same could be said for Dr Philip Nitschke who is one of the few candidates not interested in winning, but instead is focused on elevating his favourite issue of voluntary euthanasia.

Dr Nitschke has a lot to offer and would do a great job in the Senate, so why not elevate his preference allocation given his particular lack of ambition to win this contest.

It's a shame the Nationals aren't running the popular David Wirrpanda again, but Geraldton accountant Shane Van Styn is said to have a lot to offer so he is probably worth supporting ahead of the Liberals.

One of the amusing elements of a Senate only election is that the candidates can't just hide in the shadows. This has really exposed factional backroom operator Joe Bullock who heads the Labor ticket but hasn't been blessed with great communication skills. The Conservative Catholics inside the SDA really need to try and find some charismatic political representatives.

If you're fed up with the faceless men, why not preference Labor's number two Louise Pratt ahead of union boss Joe Bullock just to make that point.

Preferences Svengali and long distance cyclist Glenn Druery will no doubt keep talking to some of you but remember his base client is usually the Shooters.

The media and the Big Parties will be all over any arrangements which appear excessively secretive of cynical, so try to make sure earlier preference allocations go to ideological fellow travelers with candidates you can be proud to support.

Former ABC Perth Drive presenter Russell Woolf is one such candidate. I've spoken to prominent ABC people in Perth this week who describe him as a smashing fellow.

Whilst Russell and Verity James will suffer from the lack of party branding above the line, don't be surprised if they finish in the top 8 and end up being decisive in the final count.

As we all know, the only 3 certainties to be sitting on the red leather in Canberra from June 30 are Labor's Joe Bullock, the ABC hating Defence Minister David Johnston and Michaelia Cash. For anyone who listens to the Senate, Michaelia is undoubtedly the most aggressive speaker on the Liberal side. Frankly, just like with the defeated Sophie Mirabella, many people find her way too combative and divisive.

The same could be said for Greens Senator Scott Ludlam whose extraordinary Senate speech about this election is now up to more than 750,000 views.

It was wrong to call Tony Abbott a homophobe and Scott is clearly quite an angry person, but there's no doubting either his work ethic, integrity or intellect. In fact, Greens talk of him as a future leader who has much more to offer than the likes of Sarah Hanson-Young and Lee Rhiannon.

Of the other micro parties, Anthony Fels from the Mutual Party is worth a look, although he's probably run even more times than me.

Wayne Dropulich from the Sports Party will probably crack 1% this time, but his attraction as an inoffensive vehicle through which to wash early preference allocations probably won't be taken up by quite so many groups this time.

What to do with your preferences

We all know the old saying "power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely". If 3 Liberals get elected to the WA Senate on April 5, Tony Abbott will have less checks and balances for the period ahead. For this reason, it would be preferable to have the Nationals, Palmer or even Family First take the third "Right" spot, so think about that when allocating your preferences.

In terms of the Left, it would be a shame to lose the experienced Louise Pratt and Scott Ludlam from the Senate. If only Labor's machine men (even heard of a machine woman?) would put more capable women at the top of Senate tickets across the country.

However, if one of them was to go, Fiona Patten and Dr Phillip Nitschke would add welcome diversity, experience, passion and communication skills to the current Senate mix. Senator Russell Woolf also has a nice ring to it and he'd do the state proud.

If anyone wants to talk this through before the deadline for lodging your preference tickets at noon tomorrow, feel free to call 0412 106 241 or just reply to this email. Unlike Mr Druery, I'm completely independent and not on anyone's payroll. I also haven't spoken to or communicated with any of the 77 candidates or their nominated representatives before writing and sending this missive.

Best of luck with the negotiations in what will hopefully be the last time in Australian politics we suffer this crazy process of rushed all-or-nothing preference haggling over huge fields on a giant ballot paper.

Come 2016, we will hopefully have optional preferential voting where you can just tick 1 next to your favourite candidate and then not be forced to allocate your preferences to the other 76 candidates in the field in a complex and poorly disclosed system.


Euthanasia campaigner Dr Philip Nitschke to be a candidate in WA's Senate election re-run - 12Mar14



Euthanasia campaigner Dr Philip Nitschke to be a candidate in WA's Senate election re-run

EUTHANASIA advocate Dr Philip Nitschke will be one of the many micro-party candidates to stand at the re-run of the Senate election in Western Australia - but not Wikileaks founder Julian Assange.

Dr Nitschke and his Voluntary Euthanasia Party announced they would be running on April 5 to ``lead the charge in pushing politicians to take a stance on voluntary euthanasia''.

"We are so excited that we'll soon have passionate VEP members and community leaders speaking with Western Australians to spread the word of why a vote for the party is so important this election,'' Dr Nitschke said.

Dr Nitschke, who performed the world's first legally assisted suicides in the Northern Territory in 1996, ran senate candidates in NSW, ACT and South Australia, as well as in the Northern Territory lower house seat of Solomon in last year's federal election. The party did not field a senate candidate in WA in September.

"We're looking to build on our efforts last September and bring together thousands of Australians to run a powerful campaign in our country's biggest state,'' Dr Nitschke said.

Meanwhile, the Wikileaks Party has confirmed Mr Assange would not run, amid reports he was not eligible to contest in WA as he had not spent enough time in the state in past six years.

The Wikileaks founder remains in diplomatic asylum inside the Ecuadorian embassy in London.

Local candidate Gerry Georgatos, who ran in WA for Wikileaks in September, has been selected by the party to lead their campaign.

"In September, WikiLeaks came ever so close to being elected to the Senate from WA but went from the certainty to being elected to missing out due to several reasons now no longer newsworthy,'' Mr Georgatos said.

"However, what Western Australians can realise from the September election is that a micro-party, preferably a progressive one, can be and will be elected.''

Meanwhile, Federal Labor leader Bill Shorten today denied his party's number one Senate candidate and former shop union state secretary Joe Bullock has been kept away from the media and public.

Mr Shorten said all Labor candidates were working hard ahead of the WA Senate by-election on April 5, including Mr Bullock and the second-ticketed Louise Pratt.

Mr Bullock, the former state secretary of the Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees' Association (SDA), has yet to make any media appearances in the lead-up to the re-run election.

"Joe's a very good candidate, as is Louise, as are all of our candidates," Mr Shorten told reporters in Perth today.


Discussing a good death with Philip Nitschke - 23Feb14


Discussing a good death with Philip Nitschke


By Frank Brennan

February 23, 2014

I speak at a writers festival about once a year. These festivals are always good fun, inspiring and mind-expanding. Last weekend I participated in a panel discussion at Perth Writers' Festival on 'A good death'. A panel of four members was deftly facilitated by Anne Summers, asking 'What is to be gained if assisted suicide is legalised? What stands to be lost? Does society need a better approach to dying?' I was the token 'religious' person on the panel, and the only one to express satisfaction with the status quo of Australian law which presently bans physician-assisted suicide and physician administered death. Predictably the audience was pro-euthanasia.

I was able to mix with other writers bemoaning Australia's refugee policy including the confusion and obfuscation about the death of an asylum seeker on Manus Island and Julie Bishop's latest diplomatic initiative asking Hun Sen to accept refugees from Australia for permanent resettlement in Cambodia. I came away wondering how passionate refugee advocates could be so sanguine about physician assisted suicide and doctor administered death even for children.

No doubt many of the audience wondered how I could be a refugee advocate while not extending the right of self-determination to any person wanting assistance to end their life, at a time of their choosing, in a manner of their choosing, and in the company of their choosing.

Despite my insistence on distinguishing personal moral beliefs, voluntarily embraced and espoused, from laws and policies imposed with sanctions on all citizens, I suspect many thought my views on appropriate laws and policies governing death and dying were really predetermined by my Catholic moral upbringing. I did point out that the 85-year-old Hans Kung, a leading Catholic theologian who is increasingly incapacitated with Parkinson's Disease and macular degeneration, has written in the third volume of his autobiography: 'I don't want to go on existing as a shadow of myself. Human beings have a right to die when they see no hope of continuing to live according to their very own understanding of how to go on living in a humane way.'

After the session, a couple of writers expressed bewilderment how Tony Abbott and his fellow Jesuit alumni could espouse their refugee policy and still profess their Catholic faith. Law and religion, politics and policy are always a complex mix.

Dr Philip Nitschke was on the panel promoting his autobiography Damned if I Do. He spoke with some ambivalence about the policy objectives of reformers in this field. On the one hand, he agitates for the right of any person to control their life and to take their life regardless of their physical health or pain.

He suggests that the state should not impede the provision or availability of substances like Nembutal so that citizens might always be assured a simple, dignified way of ending their lives, even if they be simply sick of living. He gave the example of the Victorian couple who decided to consume Nembutal together because one did not want to go on living were the other to die of cancer.

On the other hand, Nitschke concedes that the only prospect of legislative change will be with the design of a law which contains stringent safeguards and preconditions. Presumably he thinks the safeguards can be removed over time once we cross the medico-legal Rubicon of 'Do no harm'.

The focus of the discussion was principally on the needs of those wanting to end their lives. But Nembutal is better than hanging not just for the deceased, but also for those who are left behind. Concerns about others feeling pressured by relatives to consider death as an option were discounted. Many were dubious when I quoted UK research which showed that 35 per cent of persons with a significant disability were worried that a euthanasia law might put pressure on them to end their lives, and 70 per cent feared for others with disabilities.

Recalling the Northern Territory experience in 1997, Nitschke told us that Chief Minister Marshall Perron, who spearheaded the short-lived euthanasia law, did not want to put in too many hoops for people to jump through before requesting a doctor to administer a lethal injection. Many in the audience were dubious about my claim that Aborigines on remote communities were afraid about what doctors might do to them once this law was in place. There was a suggestion these fears were whipped up by the churches and other conservative groups.

I came away wondering why the perceived urgency for changing the law. With the internet and a patchy Customs service, people are able to import Nembutal fairly readily, keeping it on the shelf for their hour of need. Fellow panellist Lionel Shriver gave the salutary warning, 'Don't put it next to the baking soda.'

Attempts at legislative change have recently fallen over in Tasmania and New South Wales. Having failed on the same sex marriage front, the ACT Legislative Assembly this week will consider a motion on dying with dignity. Chief Minister Katie Gallagher reflecting on the recent deaths of her aged parents has said:

If I was ever in a position where I had to make a choice about supporting a proposed model of voluntary euthanasia, I would have to be convinced about a range of safeguards as part of any model. I'm overwhelmingly of the view that the debate about euthanasia should be refocused on improving end-of-life care, understanding the individual person's wishes about their end-of-life care choices and how we as a community ensure that people are able to die with dignity.

Given that the number of Australians aged over 85 will quadruple in the next 40 years from 400,000 to 1.8 million, discussion about euthanasia will continue.

Even though Nitschke was accompanied by security guards, I thought it a good sign that we all engaged in a civil, good humoured discussion, and that there was room at a writers festival for one religious person happy to raise questions about the vulnerable and the common good, though being outnumbered by those who think that the issue should be primarily, if not exclusively, focused on the autonomy of the mentally able, resourceful, determined person wanting a death of their choosing. No doubt we will solve it all at the next writers festival.



Philip Nitschke headlines writers festival - 21Feb14


Philip Nitschke headlines writers festival


THERE was no "road to Damascus moment" for Philip Nitschke, aka Doctor Death.

The thing that motivated Nitschke to speak out about euthanasia for the first time in 1995 was what he describes as the arrogance of another man.

That man was Dr Chris Wake, then president of the Northern Territory branch of the Australian Medical Association, who denounced Australia's first proposed euthanasia bill.

The proposal was "irresponsible", Dr Wake said, and no doctor in the territory would have a bar of it. That raised Nitschke's ire because he, for one, thought it was a very sensible idea.

That's how Nitschke tells it in his new book, Damned if I Do, an autobiography he has written together with Australian crime writer Peter Corris.

Nitschke has been the face of voluntary euthanasia ever since, most recently drawn into the controversy over the Belgian decision to remove age restrictions, now making it available to terminally ill children..

"I think it's very sensible," he says. "I think in Belgium it's been received very well, and there's strong support for it and there's strong support in the parliament and what's interesting is the rest of the world going into paroxysms over it, worrying about what the Belgians are doing.

"The point about it is, and it's been made pretty well by some Belgian commentators, they have lived with their law for 10 years, they can see ways in which to improve it, and the community wants to see those changes and the parliament is happy to reflect the views of the community. It just sounds like democracy, really."

Here in Australia, where 80 per cent of people want the legislation for adults, euthanasia advocates have failed to get the legislation through parliament, despite 18 attempts, says Nitschke.

"So if there is any place where the whole democratic process is failing, it's failing here in Australia."

For many, however, access to voluntary euthanasia at any age remains a dangerous idea.

And it's that topic, dangerous ideas, and why it is essential to challenge the status quo, that Nitschke will discuss with fellow Newcastle Writers Festival guests (Russell Blackford, Clementine Ford, Antony Loewenstein, and Clare Wright) at a morning session at Newcastle City Hall on April 5.

On Sunday afternoon, April 6, he will participate in a discussion about what it means to live a good life.



Euthanasia advocate Philip Nitschke detained at Melbourne Airport. - SMH 21Jan14

Euthanasia advocate Philip Nitschke detained at Melbourne Airport.

Accuses Customs officials of accessing patient records

Date:  January 21, 2014

Mex Cooper and Julia Medew

Euthanasia campaigner Philip Nitschke. Photo: Ryan Osland


Euthanasia advocate Philip Nitschke has accused Customs officials of accessing hundreds of patients' sensitive records on his laptop after detaining him at Melbourne Airport on Tuesday morning.

Speaking from a plane about to fly to Los Angeles, Dr Nitschke said he had only just made his flight after he and his wife were kept by custom and immigration officials for 45 minutes.

Dr Nitschke, the founder and director of right-to-die group Exit International, said his laptop and mobile phone were taken from him after he was stopped about 10.30am.

He said he was told he had been picked out at random to see if he was leaving Australia with excess cash and that his devices were taken to confirm his phone was not stolen.

"I don't believe that at all. It was not random, they were looking through a lot of material and there is a degree of anxiety that they were copying it," he said.

Dr Nitschke said he had handed over passwords to the devices that were taken out of the room where he was held.

He said hundreds of patients' records were kept on his laptop and included names, addresses and other personal information.

"It is medical records, lots of Australians' and Americans' medical records who are wanting access to euthanasia," he said.

Customs refuses to comment on individual passengers, a spokeswoman said.

Dr Nitschke said in the past he had experienced difficulties entering countries but never leaving. His luggage had already boarded the plane and had not been searched.

"I can't wait to get out of [Australia] now," he said.

Dr Nitschke is travelling to the United States with his wife. He said he would be undertaking some activities in relation to his euthanasia work but was mostly going for a holiday.

"I'm very upset about it. There was a great degree of hostility and anger there and I was accused of being angry and less than cooperative when they asked for my passwords," he said.

Dr Nitschke said he would be consulting his lawyers to see if there was anything he could about the incident.

Fairfax Media understands Dr Nitshcke is currently being investigated by the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency for attempting to import a potentially fatal sedative for a terminally ill patient who died in South Australia in December 2011.

In 2012, The Advertiser newspaper reported that police attached to the Coroner’s office planned to interview Dr Nitschke to determine if he had played any role in the woman’s death. It also reported that the woman, who had motor neurone disease, had claimed in a letter that she had obtained fatal drugs to kill herself and resented being made to feel like a criminal in the process. It is unclear where the coronial investigation is at.

Fairfax Media also understands that AHPRA is investigating Dr Nitschke over allegations he developed and is marketing a nitrogen delivery system called Max Dog Brewing solely for the purpose of suicide.

In a complaint to the agency, executive director of anti-euthanasia and assisted suicide group Hope, Paul Russell, said this may make him an unfit person to hold registration as a medical practitioner.

On Tuesday, Mr Russell said the investigation into his complaint continued. He said he did not know why Dr Nitschke had been detained by customs today, but said ‘‘by reputation alone... I don’t think he should be at all surprised that this will happen from time to time’’.

In the past, Dr Nitschke has been detained at various international airports while entering with materials for workshops and while carrying his controversial Peaceful Pill Handbook. Last year, he was detained at Gatwick airport in London and New Zealand’s Auckland international airport where authorities examined his luggage, including his computer.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/national/euthanasia-advocate-philip-nitschke-detained-at-melbourne-airport-accuses-customs-officials-of-accessing-patient-records-20140121-315zb.html#ixzz2tYqhwCgN

Cold War records show who was under surveillance - NTNews 21Jan14

Cold War records show who was under surveillance 

TUE 21 JAN 2014,
NT's spook-y agenda


* NT News editor Jim Bowditch
* NT News reporter John Loizou
* Labor Member for Lingiari Warren Snowdon (described as ``a political extremist'')
* Pearling magnate Nick Paspaley Sr
* Euthanasia advocate Dr Philip Nitschke
* Former NT Administrator Tom Pauling
* Wave Hill walk-off leader Vincent Lingiari
* Activist Rob Wesley-Smith -- more than 300 pages of files -- and that only goes up to 1979
* Anthropologist Bill Day

ASIO SPIED on dozens of Territory citizens including current federal MP Warren Snowdon, former NT News editor Jim Bowditch, pearling magnate Nick Paspaley Sr and activist Rob Wesley-Smith, Cold War-era files released under the Archives Act show.

The Commonwealth spy agency also interfered with the social lives and possible job prospects of its targets.
Both NT Police and the Federal Police helped ASIO collect information, the
records reveal.

ASIO recruited informants to secretly log conversations and took covert pictures of people meeting at Darwin's Raintree Park, playing football, participating in protests or just walking down the street.

Those targeted had spoken out against the Vietnam War, campaigned for Aboriginal land rights or opposed Indonesia's brutal invasion and occupation of East Timor.
Their partners, friends and colleagues were followed, their phones tapped and mail was intercepted.

Howard Springs resident Rob Wesley-Smith, now aged 71, applied to see his ASIO file under the Archives Act.
He received volumes of material from 1970 to1979 which detailed his life for years -- and revealed the extent to which Australia's domestic spy agency monitors the lives of ordinary citizens.

Unlike other ASIO targets, the agricultural scientist was not a member of the Communist Party. But he did help organise protests against the Vietnam War and campaigned to free East Timor along with his then-wife Jan, a high school art teacher.
One document shows how spooks made orders regarding Ms Wesley-Smith's career prospects.

She was: ``Reported to be encouraging her students at the high school with anti-war paintings and discussions''.
``I recommend that the Secretary, Public Service Board be appropriately advised that although the information is not of great substance it would seem prudent not to employ Jan Wesley-Smith in a position with access to classified information.''
In another instance, Ms Wesley-Smith made friends with a Commonwealth police officer, but her bosses told her not to associate with him.

Later she was sent to Darwin Airport to identify Mr Wesley-Smith when he flew in -- as she would be good at recognising him. Australian Council for Civil Liberties president Terry O'Gorman said using data obtained by spies to wreck careers and personal lives without the target knowing or having any redress was what happened under the Stasi in
East Germany.

``It's the same sort of abuse,'' he said.
Mr O'Gorman said the oversight body set up to scrutinise ASIO -- the Inspector General of Intelligence and Security -- revealed very little information about what it actually did to prevent abuses by the spy agency.

The last time ASIO was scrutinised was by the Hope Royal Commission 40 years ago.``It's time for a major overhaul of the supervision of ASIO,'' Mr O'Gorman said.
FOR more revelations from the Wesley-Smith files, see Saturday Extra in this Saturday's NT News

Philip Nitschke: my airport detention, for reasons unexplained - Crikey.com 22Jan14

Philip Nitschke: my airport detention, for reasons unexplained

Dr Philip Nitschke | Jan 22, 2014


Euthanasia advocate Dr Philip Nitschke was detained and searched at Melbourne Airport yesterday and not told why. He writes for Crikey about the campaign against him.

In its 2010-11 annual report, then-Australian Customs CEO Michael Carmody explained the agency’s approach to conducting business reflected an “increasingly targeted approach”. Directing “our resources on high-risk people … as a part of the intelligence-led risk-based approach”, Carmody stated, is what Customs and border protection is all about. The “potential impacts”, he continued “[i]f we do not manage our responsibilities effectively … may negatively affect the Australian community”.

I couldn’t agree more.

As so it was that my wife and I were selected out of the queue of departing passengers at Tullamarine on Tuesday morning for what we were informed was a “cash search”. Did we lie on our departure card and were really carrying in excess of $10,000 with us? And were our mobile phones stolen goods? Well, no, not to our knowledge.

With a bare 15 minutes to go before boarding, we found ourselves in the detention waiting room. Don’t get me wrong; Fiona and I are quite familiar with the holding pens of various countries’ immigration services, such as London and Auckland. Until now, however, the Australian equivalent had escaped us. All that changed on Tuesday.

Into the austere interview room we went, CCTV mounted on the ceiling. The dirty carpet and grey walls were hardly a welcoming start to our long-awaited holiday. Out came the gloves of Officer Steve and into Fiona’s handbag he delved. My man-bag followed soon after, along with my carry-on roller case.

What section of the act allows you to go searching like this, my budding lawyer wife asked one officer. “The Customs Act,” came the reply. “Yes, of course”, continued Fiona, “but what section?”. Just the act was all the information we were given.

When one laptop, one iPad, one Kindle and two mobiles were neatly piled on the table — the only fruit Officer Steve’s search had borne — off the officers went. No written notice that our possessions were being acquired. And no explanation beyond the question “were our mobiles stolen?”.

After a fair bit more questioning from Fiona in regards to the role her laptop and Kindle played in determining the ownership status of our phones, the officers said the other devices were being scanned for kiddie porn.

As authors of the only Australian book to be banned in 35 years (The Peaceful Pill Handbook was banned on appeal by then-attorney-general Philip Ruddock in 2007), we were half expecting them to say “objectionable material”. After all, that was how I was last caught out, back in 2002.

    “Is this what Australia has come to? Subversion like this should cause the Customs service to hang its head in shame.”

Back then I was also going to the United States. But that time I was carrying with me some pieces of polypipe, which, if assembled in a certain way, could make a fairly efficient carbon monoxide generator. On that occasion I was leaving Australia to attend a right-to-die conference in San Diego; this time I was off to Mexico for a belated wedding anniversary holiday.

And besides, that incident 11 years ago appeared to be a one-off. Yes, the Howard government was in power, and yes, the Customs regulations had, seemingly, been recently changed just for me, making it an offence “absolutely to export a device designed or customised to be used by a person to commit suicide” (s3AA(1)) or a “document that instructs a person how to commit suicide using one of those devices” (s3AA(2)(c)).

As we sat in detention this week, we couldn’t help but think about the family of East Timor’s Finance Minister Emilia Pires, who were detained upon entering Australia in December. They too were searched for cash, and unlike us they didn’t have their phones returned. But the point seemed to be the same.

Arbitrary searches are one clear means to harass. In an era where civil liberties are being increasingly eroded, the need for reasonable suspicion, let alone reasonable belief, is disappearing. If the boys in Canberra don’t like you, they are all too willing to use the public service to do their dirty bidding for them.

In a 2011 profile piece in The Monthly on Immigration Minister Scott Morrison, Nick Bryant described Morrison as a “devout Pentecostal”. While I’ve never had dealings with the man, Christianity is often a commonality among my enemies. And anyway, this directive could equally have come from any number within the Abbott cabinet — not least Eric Abetz or Kevin Andrews or Tony Abbott himself — all of whom have an intolerance for the message of choice that I advocate.

There is lots about Tuesday’s detention that irks me; I’ve not space to go into it here, other than to say the ombudsman will be hearing from me.

But one thing stands out. With the doors of QF93 about to close, we were handed our belongings back and told to get moving. When Fiona asked for the officers’ ID numbers or names, one “Officer Raelene” said she could locate the list but we would then miss our flight. Is that what we wanted? Hardly in the spirit of the act.

Is this what Australia has come to? Subversion like this should cause the Customs service to hang its head in shame.


Euthanasia advocate Philip Nitschke detained at Melbourne Airport - SMH, 21Jan14

Euthanasia advocate Philip Nitschke detained at Melbourne Airport, accuses Customs officials of accessing patient records

Sydney Morning Herald
January 21, 2014

Mex Cooper and Julia Medew

PHOTO: Euthanasia campaigner Philip Nitschke. Photo: Ryan Osland


Euthanasia advocate Philip Nitschke has accused Customs officials of accessing hundreds of patients' sensitive records on his laptop after detaining him at Melbourne Airport on Tuesday morning.

Speaking from a plane about to fly to Los Angeles, Dr Nitschke said he had only just made his flight after he and his wife were kept by custom and immigration officials for 45 minutes.

Dr Nitschke, the founder and director of right-to-die group Exit International, said his laptop and mobile phone were taken from him after he was stopped about 10.30am.

He said he was told he had been picked out at random to see if he was leaving Australia with excess cash and that his devices were taken to confirm his phone was not stolen.

"I don't believe that at all. It was not random, they were looking through a lot of material and there is a degree of anxiety that they were copying it," he said.

Dr Nitschke said he had handed over passwords to the devices that were taken out of the room where he was held.

He said hundreds of patients' records were kept on his laptop and included names, addresses and other personal information.

"It is medical records, lots of Australians' and Americans' medical records who are wanting access to euthanasia," he said.

Customs refuses to comment on individual passengers, a spokeswoman said.

Dr Nitschke said in the past he had experienced difficulties entering countries but never leaving. His luggage had already boarded the plane and had not been searched.

"I can't wait to get out of [Australia] now," he said.

Dr Nitschke is travelling to the United States with his wife. He said he would be undertaking some activities in relation to his euthanasia work but was mostly going for a holiday.

"I'm very upset about it. There was a great degree of hostility and anger there and I was accused of being angry and less than cooperative when they asked for my passwords," he said.

Dr Nitschke said he would be consulting his lawyers to see if there was anything he could about the incident.

Fairfax Media understands Dr Nitshcke is currently being investigated by the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency for attempting to import a potentially fatal sedative for a terminally ill patient who died in South Australia in December 2011.

In 2012, The Advertiser newspaper reported that police attached to the Coroner’s office planned to interview Dr Nitschke to determine if he had played any role in the woman’s death. It also reported that the woman, who had motor neurone disease, had claimed in a letter that she had obtained fatal drugs to kill herself and resented being made to feel like a criminal in the process. It is unclear where the coronial investigation is at.

Fairfax Media also understands that AHPRA is investigating Dr Nitschke over allegations he developed and is marketing a nitrogen delivery system called Max Dog Brewing solely for the purpose of suicide.

In a complaint to the agency, executive director of anti-euthanasia and assisted suicide group Hope, Paul Russell, said this may make him an unfit person to hold registration as a medical practitioner.

On Tuesday, Mr Russell said the investigation into his complaint continued. He said he did not know why Dr Nitschke had been detained by customs today, but said ‘‘by reputation alone... I don’t think he should be at all surprised that this will happen from time to time’’.

In the past, Dr Nitschke has been detained at various international airports while entering with materials for workshops and while carrying his controversial Peaceful Pill Handbook. Last year, he was detained at Gatwick airport in London and New Zealand’s Auckland international airport where authorities examined his luggage, including his computer.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/national/euthanasia-advocate-philip-nitschke-detained-at-melbourne-airport-accuses-customs-officials-of-accessing-patient-records-20140121-315zb.html#ixzz2rSGfeFrk


Euthanasia advocate Philip Nitschke detained at Melbourne Airport, accuses Customs officials of accessing patient records-21Jan14



By Mex Cooper and Julia Medew
January 21, 2014

Euthanasia advocate Philip Nitschke has accused Customs officials of accessing hundreds of patients' sensitive records on his laptop after detaining him at Melbourne Airport on Tuesday morning.

Speaking from a plane about to fly to Los Angeles, Dr Nitschke said he had only just made his flight after he and his wife were kept by custom and immigration officials for 45 minutes.

Dr Nitschke, the founder and director of right-to-die group Exit International, said his laptop and mobile phone were taken from him after he was stopped about 10.30am.

He said he was told he had been picked out at random to see if he was leaving Australia with excess cash and that his devices were taken to confirm his phone was not stolen.

"I don't believe that at all. It was not random, they were looking through a lot of material and there is a degree of anxiety that they were copying it," he said.

Dr Nitschke said he had handed over passwords to the devices that were taken out of the room where he was held.

He said hundreds of patients' records were kept on his laptop and included names, addresses and other personal information.

"It is medical records, lots of Australians' and Americans' medical records who are wanting access to euthanasia," he said.

Customs refuses to comment on individual passengers, a spokeswoman said.

Dr Nitschke said in the past he had experienced difficulties entering countries but never leaving. His luggage had already boarded the plane and had not been searched.

"I can't wait to get out of [Australia] now," he said.

Dr Nitschke is travelling to the United States with his wife. He said he would be undertaking some activities in relation to his euthanasia work but was mostly going for a holiday.

"I'm very upset about it. There was a great degree of hostility and anger there and I was accused of being angry and less than cooperative when they asked for my passwords," he said.

Dr Nitschke said he would be consulting his lawyers to see if there was anything he could about the incident.

Fairfax Media understands Dr Nitshcke is currently being investigated by the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency for attempting to import a potentially fatal sedative for a terminally ill patient who died in South Australia in December 2011.

In 2012, The Advertiser newspaper reported that police attached to the Coroner’s office planned to interview Dr Nitschke to determine if he had played any role in the woman’s death. It also reported that the woman, who had motor neurone disease, had claimed in a letter that she had obtained fatal drugs to kill herself and resented being made to feel like a criminal in the process. It is unclear where the coronial investigation is at.

Fairfax Media also understands that AHPRA is investigating Dr Nitschke over allegations he developed and is marketing a nitrogen delivery system called Max Dog Brewing solely for the purpose of suicide.

In a complaint to the agency, executive director of anti-euthanasia and assisted suicide group Hope, Paul Russell, said this may make him an unfit person to hold registration as a medical practitioner.

On Tuesday, Mr Russell said the investigation into his complaint continued. He said he did not know why Dr Nitschke had been detained by customs today, but said ‘‘by reputation alone... I don’t think he should be at all surprised that this will happen from time to time’’.

In the past, Dr Nitschke has been detained at various international airports while entering with materials for workshops and while carrying his controversial Peaceful Pill Handbook. Last year, he was detained at Gatwick airport in London and New Zealand’s Auckland international airport where authorities examined his luggage, including his computer.

Euthanasia advocates' overkill stymies the right-to-die debate - The Australian 28Dec13

Euthanasia advocates' overkill stymies the right-to-die debate

    by: Jennifer Oriel
    From: The Australian
    December 28, 2013 12:00AM

PHOTO: Philip Nitschke, pictured at his euthanasia clinic in Adelaide, takes a libertarian view of the right to die.


FOR a man on a mission to euthanasia, Philip Nitschke is remarkably pacific.

Despite 20 years of failed attempts to legalise euthanasia, including recently rejected bills in South Australia and Tasmania, Nitschke is resolute. His latest broadside is the controversial opening of Australia's first euthanasia clinic in the sleepy streets of Adelaide.

In a broad-ranging interview, Nitschke describes the moment he chose the deathly vocation, his irritation with the "insufferable paternalism" of the Australian Medical Association and why he is more sure than ever that euthanasia is a fundamental human right.

Questions of child euthanasia, physician-assisted suicide for people who are not physically ill and new categories such as people who feel tired of life are provoking fierce debate across Europe.

While Nitschke's organisation, Exit International, no longer supports the provision of euthanasia to children, he views the recent Dutch medical proposal to introduce a "tired of life" category as reasonable. It is, he says, a growing group.

Nitschke is less concerned about the cause of suicidal ideation than ensuring the choice to die, once made, is realised in a professional manner. The harm minimisation approach extends even to proposed social categories such as euthanasing the poor, should they choose it.

I suggest the relationship between poverty, despair and depression makes euthanasia a problematic option for otherwise healthy people. Nitschke pauses, but is unmoved. He cites a mother who recently confessed she wanted to die because she was "consuming too much money staying alive" and worried about eroding her daughter's inheritance. The mother was not terminally ill. A difficult decision, he concedes, but made by a fully informed adult without any coercion. Who is he to deny her choice?

Nitschke followers are largely people over 70 with cancer, who intend to hasten death only when it comes knocking. But he is untroubled by the prospect of extending euthanasia as a cure for social and financial ills, as long as a person chooses it freely.

Nitschke's road from a liberal to libertarian stance on euthanasia is sustained by his philosophical influences. He demurs when I ask their names. But the following morning a message in the inbox reads: Marcuse, Camus and Nietzsche. His hesitation is understandable - though skilled writers, Nitschke's leading lights are a Marxist, an existentialist and a nihilist.

The common thread in Nitschke's philosophy is libertarianism. For him, individual choice is the fundamental principle whose cause and effect are tertiary considerations. He is openly hostile to state interference with informed individual choice, taking aim at the AMA for its continued opposition to legalised euthanasia.

But the AMA's recent submission to the Tasmanian government's paper on voluntary assisted dying reveals a broader array of concerns. The AMA criticised Tasmania's Labor-Greens government for being undemocratic in its proposal to legalise physician-assisted dying. The government's consultation paper claimed that the Hippocratic oath was outdated and omitted that the majority medical view is against legalising euthanasia, said the AMA. But its main warning was that "to fundamentally change the role of (a) doctor as one who supports life to one who takes life will have profound, unpredictable effects on the perception and practice of medicine".

The AMA's caution is evinced by recent developments in Europe. Belgium and The Netherlands are embroiled in controversy following proposed amendments to euthanasia laws that critics have decried as a race to the bottom of medical ethics.

Euthanasia has been legal in Belgium since 2002, but legislation newly minted by the country's senate would extend the provision to children, people suffering from dementia and other "diseases of the brain".

The senate's landslide approval, secured by a tactical coalition of the Socialist government, greens and liberals, has roused dormant fears that legalising assisted suicide is a slippery slope to a nihilistic world order.

The fears have been further fuelled by a series of high-profile cases in which depressed, surgically mutilated and anorexic patients have been euthanased.

In October, a woman who endured a series of botched transsexual operations was euthanased by a Belgian doctor because her body had been mutilated to the degree that she felt like a "monster". Doctors believed the case fulfilled the requirement that the patient be in "constant and unbearable physical or psychological pain" resulting from an accident or incurable illness.

An anorexic woman who had been sexually abused by her psychiatrist, the renowned sexologist and eating disorder specialist Walter Vandereycken, was subsequently euthanased by a fellow psychiatrist.

In addition to individual cases, there is rising concern about the lack of transparent reporting on doctors' euthanasia practices. A British Medical Journal study on euthanasia in Flanders, Belgium, found that 47 per cent of deaths were not reported. Last year The Lancet published a meta-analysis which found that 23 per cent of euthanasia deaths went unreported by doctors. In both studies, unreported euthanasia was associated with questionable and sometimes illegal practice.

Despite re-emerging ethical concerns about legal euthanasia, major medical associations are lobbying for its expansion. The Dutch Right to Die NL group has introduced mobile euthanasia units to euthanase people whose GPs refuse to do so.

In the lead-up to the Belgian senate's decision on child euthanasia, the influential Royal Dutch Medical Association (KNMG) published a set of criteria about euthanasing newborns with disabilities. While withdrawal of medical treatment deemed futile is commonly accepted among doctors, the KNMG's attitude towards parents warrants scrutiny.

"Where treatment is medically futile, doctors may - following consultation - decide independently to suspend or to not provide such treatment ... Doctors may allow parents time to understand and accept as best they can that treatment is to be suspended, but there will be a time limit."

The reason KNMG believes doctors can euthanase newborns without full consent is that the "doctor's primary duty of care is towards the infant". The bizarre logical inference is that parents who want their newborn baby to live are less caring than the doctor who wants to let the child die.

Eduard Verhagen, a key KNMG spokesman, published an article in the Journal of Medical Ethics defending the child-euthanasia criteria of the Groningen Protocol, which spells out the criteria for infant euthanasia. Verhagen notes that improvements in pre-natal screening mean fewer babies with severe disabilities are being euthanased after birth because they are aborted before it.

Many of the babies euthanased in The Netherlands were born with spina bifida, a congenital disability that most infants can survive, given proper medical care.

The KNMG has lobbied also to create new categories of people for euthanasia; loneliness, reduced income and poor eyesight are proposed as grounds.

The incremental creep of euthanasia from a palliative choice for the terminally ill to a lifestyle choice for society's most vulnerable members may shock Australians. But in a recent survey, 20 per cent of Dutch people thought euthanasing elderly people who feel tired of life was agreeable.

The image of a lonely, tired, or impoverished person entering a GP's office for healing and leaving with a script for suicide is so horrifying it makes the AMA's stance against euthanasia look like divine salvation.

In the light of the nightmarish scenarios developing in Europe, it is difficult to brook the idea of legal euthanasia. But witnessing the alternative provides impetus.

Despite maladaptive developments in euthanasia practices, about 80 per cent of requests for assisted death come from adults with terminal cancer. Of the remainder, most are from those suffering from terminal heart disease.

In many cases of cancer and heart disease, death comes slowly, sometimes including a process of fluid accumulation that results in a person drowning inside their own body. My father suffered thus.

Would I have wanted Nitschke by my father's deathbed? No, though they may have agreed on Camus. But if the AMA insists palliative care is preferable to euthanasia, it should back up the claim by providing better drugs than morphine to treat suffering people in their final days. Otherwise, Nitschke's Nembutal option will continue to tempt the well-informed when they have little left to lose.

The best test of a revolutionary's integrity is whether they are true to their word. So I ask Nitschke: "Will you choose to die by your own sword - by euthanasia?" He seems taken aback: "Would I? Oh look, I ... I ... I suppose I don't know and I recognise the fact that people change their position, and so they should be able to, and I'll probably be the same."

After fleeing through a labyrinth of third-party stories, he returns to front the question of his own death: "I'll be able to take that step if things get pretty awful, but I'm maybe one of those people who sits there demanding that every last health dollar be spent on me to keep me alive for another five minutes. I don't know, but I think that the idea of having the choice is an important one".

Australia's leading euthanasia advocate has a superlative survival instinct. Adherents, take note

Philip Nitschke calls for Sydney euthanasia clinic - 09Dec13


Philip Nitschke calls for Sydney euthanasia clinic


Bill Crews
Dec 05, 2013

I very much believe in the freedom of the individual. That is, we have a right, an absolutely fundamental right to determine our own destiny. Now of course that does not mean we trample on the rights of others but essentially we should be able to live our lives the way we want to. I also believe we are our brother’s and sister’s keeper. Compassion demands that we look after, care for and support our brothers and sisters as they try to live their lives, too.

Often, I find these two beliefs seem to be in conflict with each other particularly when issues such as euthanasia come up. There is no middle ground on this issue. One is either for it or against it.

On the one hand many people believe life is so precious and God given we should never do anything to interfere with it. Particularly life’s ending. The other says life is so precious and God given that when our bodies and or minds give up on us and we are mere pain raked shells of what we once were, then out of respect for the awesomeness of the life we have been given we should be able to end it.

On the one hand many people believe life is so precious and God given we should never do anything to interfere with it. Particularly life’s ending. The other says life is so precious and God given that when our bodies and or minds give up on us and we are mere pain raked shells of what we once were, then out of respect for the awesomeness of the life we have been given we should be able to end it.

I need to stress this has nothing to do with suicide. For many years I worked with families whose children and loved ones had suicided. The effect on them was devastating as the life lost had so much potential. But that’s another story!

Who knows what any of us will do when told we have a terminal illness? In fact, just yesterday in our Loaves and Fishes free restaurant I was sitting opposite a man who had been given this news. The look in his eyes spoke volumes of the pain and suffering he was going through both mentally and physically. Who knows how any of us would behave in this situation? I can only hope if it happens to me I am able to deal with it.

For over thirty years I have been involved with pro-euthanasia groups. I have attended meetings, addressed countless fora, talked to individuals and usually the stories are the same. They tell of loved ones having their suffering added to because they weren’t able to choose their time of departing this mortal coil. Painful and distressing stories. People being kept alive by machines far beyond their threshold time limit. Loved ones being wired up to machines they hated.

I remember, in another situation a loved one saying to me, “Bill, God didn’t kill my husband. The cancer did”. As I found in writing this piece death is not an easy subject to write about. Every one of us has to face it. In fact, the great monk Thomas Merton urged us to, when meditating, contemplate our own death.

On balance, I believe that when we are too old, too frail and too sick to go on we have a perfect right to end it all. It is our decision to make and ours to carry it through.

That’s why I respect and admire Philip Nitschke and community leaders coming out publicly in support of voluntary euthanasia.
Somebody once asked me why Philip Nitschke is so obsessed with death. “That’s all he talks about”, they said. It seems to me he now has no choice. People are flocking to him for advice and, as I find him to be a caring and compassionate doctor he is simply doing what is his calling urges him to do.

I believe we should all have access to the information that gives us the knowledge of how to die with dignity when we are faced with a terribly undignified painful end.

Now this is where the “I am my brother’s keeper” bit comes in. We are not talking about those depressed, active, alive, suicidal people but those at the end of their life with no hope.
That is why I am a strong supporter of Philip Nitschke’s Euthanasia clinics. He has already opened a clinic in Adelaide and according to police he is not breaking any laws. He is simply providing people with access to the latest information in a neutral environment. At this anxious time when people are facing an uncertain and horrible end I envisage it as a comforting place to get proper information.

I find knowledge is power and liberating. Experience shows that people with all this information at hand actually survive longer. It actually extends their life because they have knowledge that liberates them rather than the agonising fear of the unknown.

That is why I am a strong supporter of Philip Nitschke’s Euthanasia clinic and I believe we should have one in every state to enable all our citizens to, if they consider necessary, access them.

Philip Nitschke's Adelaide euthanasia clinic comes under police scrutiny - 05Dec13


Philip Nitschke's Adelaide euthanasia clinic comes under police scrutiny


Dec 05, 2013
Alex Mann

Police across Australia have contacted euthanasia campaigner Philip Nitschke over recent deaths involving items for sale at his new Adelaide-based clinic.

Dr Nitschke, who founded voluntary euthanasia advocacy group Exit International, set up the clinic in suburban Adelaide last month.

He says the clinic's reach extends well beyond South Australia, with online consultations now occurring regularly with clients in other states.

Dr Nitschke assisted four people to die during the brief period when euthanasia was legal in the Northern Territory in 1997 and 1998.

Since the NT laws were struck out, Dr Nitschke says he has been careful to ensure he is operating within the law.

"It is a grey area," he told 7.30.

"We've been in that grey area for some 17 years now."

This year, proposed legislation to legalise euthanasia has failed in New South Wales, Tasmania and South Australia.

Dr Nitschke says the moves are creating more demand for his services.

"It's in the context of failure after failure that more and more elderly people are saying, 'Look, I can't wait around for laws - I want to know what I can do with my own personal strategy'," he said.

Nitrogen canisters sold by Nitschke's company found next to bodies

In South Australia, it is a crime for a person to "incite, counsel, aid or abet" another person to commit suicide or attempt to commit suicide.

The wording varies from state to state, but assisting suicide is a crime in all Australian jurisdictions.

Providing people with the information they use to commit suicide, however, has not been seen as an offence.

Dr Nitschke's clinic contains controversial material including his banned euthanasia handbook, and equipment used for testing banned euthanasia drugs.

His company, Max Dog Brewing, has its nitrogen canisters stacked openly against the walls.

The gas is ostensibly for use by home brewing enthusiasts but his clients usually have other ideas.

"The motto of the company is dispense or dispose ... if you see what I mean," Dr Nitschke said.

7.30 has seen correspondence between Dr Nitschke and police in New South Wales and Queensland after his Max Dog Brewing nitrogen cylinders were found next to bodies in both states.

Dr Nitschke's lawyers advised him not to respond to the emails.

Online consultations provide advice on taking life-ending drugs

Jacqueline Meredith, 81, is one of Dr Nitschke's first interstate clients.

She lives on Sydney's lower north shore and has a terminal lung disease.

Mrs Meredith has illegally obtained the powerful sedative Nembutal, which she says she will take to end her life when the time is right.

"I don't want to die," she said.

"I'm happy, I'm leading a good full life. I go off to yoga and I'm active, but I want to die when I can no longer look after myself."

Among the services Dr Nitschke offers is a test that will verify a drug's purity.

In an online video consultation with Mrs Meredith, Dr Nitschke advises her, "it's a very simple drug to take, you'll just have to mix it with water and take it as a drink".

Dr Nitschke will be travelling to New South Wales and Queensland soon, where he will test Mrs Meredith's drugs to ensure their purity.

He says he is careful not to take possession of the drugs and makes it clear no-one is allowed to assist with someone's plans.

"The idea that having someone present could implicate them is a concern," he said.

"Of course, the other issue is making sure that the drug is pure so that when you do take it, you will indeed get the peaceful death that the drug provides."

Nitschke under scrutiny from South Australia police

Police in South Australia are keeping a close eye on his activities.

Last week, two officers from the South Australia Police Major Crime Investigation Branch visited Dr Nitschke's clinic.

Dr Nitshcke says the visit was cordial and the officers were there to ask him if he understood the laws in South Australia relating to assisted suicide.

Dr Nitschke says he has had many enquiries from police over the years.

"Police will ring up and say they've found a copy of the book and wanting to know whether we were involved in that person's death," he said.

South Australia's Police Commissioner, Gary Burns, admits that it is possible Dr Nitschke is operating in a grey area of the law.

But he says as long as he does not break the law as it stands, it is not a police matter.

"We'll monitor it and we won't take our eye off it, but at this stage there is no police action," he said.


Euthanasia: Hope you never need it, but be glad the option is there - 27Nov13


Euthanasia: Hope you never need it, but be glad the option is there


Nov 27, 2013
Philip Nitschke

(CNN) -- The time was always going to come when society would need to face the pointy end of the voluntary euthanasia debate: Those hard cases that would challenge most people's support for the issue, the cases and circumstances which constitute never-before trodden ground.

While in most Western countries polls repeatedly show strong community support for a terminally ill person's right to obtain medical assistance to die, the results would likely be quite different if the person involved was not an adult, was not of sound mind or was not, in the strictest sense, terminally ill.

As Belgium decides whether to extend the right to euthanasia to those who have Alzheimer's and to children, the sharp end of the debate is staring us all in the face, regardless of where we live.

The euthanasia argument is about to escalate to heights unknown: We will all be challenged about how to have a good debate, a rational debate as members of the human race, and in being challenged, we must guard against the moral panic that this issue will inevitably throw up.



The issues on the table are too important for hysterical indignation and fundamental religious dogma. We are all grown-ups. The debate we are set to have -- some two decades after the world's first right to die law was passed in Australia's Northern Territory -- should be grown-up too, even if some of the stakeholders we are about to discuss are not.

Historically, children and people with Alzheimer's are two segments of the community that have been viewed as having little or no agency, something that is referred to as 'capacity' in legal terms. Generally speaking, neither group has been held to be competent to make decisions that would be in their best interests. Yet this is what the Belgians are now planning.

For many in the ageing population, there are few fears which top that of getting dementia. Anyone who has watched a loved family member sink into the abyss of confusion and disorientation will know the utter terror that can accompany the process, as the person in question tries to juxtapose moments of clarity with the awfulness of knowing one's grip on reality -- and with it one's dignity and sense of self -- is slipping.



In New Zealand earlier this year, the Labor Member of Parliament Maryan Street paved the way with her private members bill which, if passed, would allow New Zealanders to include an assisted suicide in their Living Will.

For those who may find themselves with Alzheimer's in future, this inclusion would be a valuable pre-planning tool: "If I do get dementia, at least the children will know what I want. I can now rest assured that my wishes not to live "like that" will be respected."

Within the membership of Exit International, this is a common sentiment. So too is the wish not to waste government money keeping the demented elderly alive in the nation's care homes if that is not how, when they could communicate, they said they wanted to spend their last days.

On the topic of children, the debate is a little easier. Some children do develop terminal illnesses and do die well before their time. It is not impossible for such young people to have a well-developed sense of their own mortality.

While the Belgians will likely structure legislative developments in this area with stringent safeguards, it is the practice of forcing terminally-ill children to battle on in spite of an appalling prognosis, trying to make it to 18, that is driving the agenda.

For both groups, the Belgians are bravely tackling difficulties emerging in their existing legislation, current laws that are quite obviously inadequate, even cruel, in certain circumstances.

Unless modern medicine has a cure for Alzheimer's and any number of the terminal illnesses that confront children, the current situation is that they will keep suffering.

If suffering cannot be relieved, the question then becomes: what should the State do? Should we all be forced to live on regardless of the quality of life that confronts us? Or, should legislation be extended to ensure dignity and choice for all?

At Exit International our motto is "a peaceful death is everybody's right." Somehow the tagline "a peaceful death is everybody's right unless you are a child or a teenager or have dementia, in which case tough luck!" doesn't have the same appeal or the same logic.

The Belgians are to be applauded for their progressive thinking and acting -- in the cold light of day, the morality of their intentions is not that challenging when the alternatives are considered.

As a son to my aged mother and as a grandfather to my son's three boys, I welcome the type of society that the Belgians are proposing. Of course, I hope no one I love will ever need to use such laws. But I draw great comfort from knowing they are there all the same.


Why Adelaide is my euthanasia clinic HQ (despite Bernardi) - 25Nov13

Why Adelaide is my euthanasia clinic HQ (despite Bernardi)


Nov 25, 2013
Philip Nitschke

I knew that as soon as I mentioned the words “euthanasia clinic” some stakeholders in this emotive debate would have apoplexy. Sure enough, Armageddon is now on the horizon. At least that is how some portray the future as it relates to the quiet, leafy, inner-city suburb of Walkerville in Adelaide.

When my wife and I purchased an old corner grog shop, and local icon, in Adelaide last month, we were keen that our plans for a home base for Exit International would finally be realised.

For many years HQ was Darwin but with the ever-decreasing likelihood of the Rights of the Terminally Ill Act being revived as successive Labor and conservative governments showed little interest in the issue, it was inevitable that our gaze would turn southwards.

Several years ago when I started dividing my time between Darwin and Adelaide, initially in order to be closer to my 95-year-old mother who has joined the ranks of unhappy residents of a nursing home, a return to the city of my youth was not on the cards. Increasingly, however, such a move made sense.

Not least because of this state’s proud history on progressive social issues; votes for women, gay rights (thank you Don Dunstan), the arts and culture and so on. Being closer to the east coast would also ease the stress and cost of my frequent travel, freeing Exit’s resources to be spent in a more worthwhile manner.
What I didn’t expect in setting up in Adelaide was the resistance that I have encountered from Sinead Bernardi, wife of well-known Liberal Senator Cory Bernardi. Mrs Bernardi said this of her husband in 2011, in a story in The Monthly:

“Cory obviously has this huge belief in himself … If you didn’t love a guy who was so in love with himself you’d have a lot of trouble living with Cory. Life — I don’t think he’d mind me saying this — it’s all about Cory. I am all about Cory, and he is all about Cory, so it makes it easy.”

As it happens, Mrs B is cutting her political teeth as a local councillor in the Walkerville area, just as I launched my bid to relocate here. While my immediate neighbours have had little negative to say on the clinic/ home office facility — call it what you will — Mrs B has told the media that she finds my new home office very scary. “It was the first I heard about it, and frankly I’m disgusted,” she told InDaily. “I have had no notification about this … setting up a euthanasia clinic in a suburban street … it’s very, very scary.”

This hostility contrasts with the views of old Alvin up the street who reckons it’s a good idea, telling the ABC that such a facility was long overdue. One might add, just like voluntary euthanasia law reform. But that’s another story (by the way, legislation attempting to legalise voluntary euthanasia in SA is currently before Parliament).

And so here I am by the Torrens River, ready to dispense information and advice to an ever-increasingly number of baby boomers-plus who have seen what a bad death can look like and know they don’t want to go there themselves. While the membership of Exit has long had an average age of 75 years, my generation is fast coming on.

It may be too late to help my mother; once institutionalised one’s option plummet, but I know that I can help myself and others like me.

And this is the point of the clinic.

In one sense the internet has changed the game of life as we know it. With good broadband I can meet and consult with members irrespective of location; here, interstate overseas. In Walkerville I have a quiet and well set-out office and studio for such e-consultations and laboratory facilities that can offer euthanasia drug assay services, and research into new peaceful death methods.

For those who are local, one-on-one visits can be arranged. I’ve always done this although the more seriously ill a person, the more likely it is that I will be the one to go to them. Suffering from some devastating disease should not be exacerbated. I’m the last person who should add to that person’s pain, existential and/ or physical.

While it was never envisaged that my move to Adelaide would be such a public affair, in some ways this has been positive. In week one I’ve talked to the Mayor, met with the Acting Mayor and senior executives of the council, none of whom seem to share Mrs B’s strong concerns.

I’ve also had a friendly “getting to know me” visit from detectives from major crime squad of the SA Police. I was tempted to show them my pink scooter (not quite a Mongrel machine) but played it safe, restricting discussion to voluntary euthanasia and related issues.

All this in between my wife’s appointments with the curtains man, the flooring man and the security technician. Who said moving house was easy?



Adelaïde: descente de police à "la clinique de la mort" - 20Nov13


Adelaïde: descente de police à "la clinique de la mort"

Nov 20, 2013
Caroline Lafargue

Philip Nitschke, médecin et grand militant pro-euthanasie, a ouvert sa clinique de l'euthanasie il y a quelques jours dans la capitale de l'État d'Australie du Sud.

L'objectif est d'offrir un soutien psychologique aux patients et aux familles, ainsi que toute l'information juridique nécessaire.

Car en Australie du Sud, l'euthanasie est partiellement autorisée. Les patients en stade terminal peuvent signer un document dans lequel ils demandent leur délivrance et un personnel de santé sera mandaté pour le débrancher.

En revanche il n'est pas question d'euthanasie active, par injection létale. La police a inspecté la clinique de la mort, comme l'a qualifiée le gouvernement d'Australie du Sud, mais n'a rien trouvé à y redire.

À long terme cependant, le Dr Philip Nitschke envisage de créer son laboratoire pour tester les produits utilisés pour l'euthanasie, une activité qui risque de le mettre en délicatesse avec la loi.


Police inspect Dr Philip Nitschke's new euthanasia clinic in Adelaide - 20Nov13


Police inspect Dr Philip Nitschke's new euthanasia clinic in Adelaide


Nov 20, 2013

Police have inspected a clinic run by euthanasia campaigner Philip Nitschke.

He opened the site in Adelaide in recent days, saying it would provide information to people wishing to end their lives and run laboratory tests on drugs.

Dr Nitschke said he had not been contacted by the South Australian Government about his clinic.

The Government raised concern last week about what it called a 'death clinic' but conceded Dr Nitschke was entitled to practice medicine in the state.

Dr Nitschke said police seemed satisfied after their inspection of his premises at suburban Gilberton.

"They seem perfectly happy with what I was able to describe and I guess if they are troubled they indicated they would certainly be letting me know, but they indicated to me that certainly isn't the point," he said.

Dr Nitschke said his laboratory was still being established and the clinic was offering counselling at this stage.

"It's going to make things a whole lot easier now that we've got this place established and certainly the opportunity to start talking to people with decent communications using video links and the like will really speed up and make a much more amenable service that we offer to people right around the nation," he said.


Council investigates Nitschke’s euthanasia clinic - 20Nov13


Council investigates Nitschke’s euthanasia clinic


Nov 20, 2013
Kevin Naughton

Walkerville deputy mayor Carolyn Wigg briefed council last night at its regular monthly meeting, advising councillors that “while Nitschke has moved in, nothing’s happened yet”.

Wigg said Council had not received any application to run a medical clinic.

Councillors were told last night that an investigation will take place in accordance with its Development Enforcement and Compliance Policy.

Nitschke leased out the site last week for an unknown period and then told media he was setting up a clinic to advise people on various methods of voluntary euthanasia.

The move caught councillors by surprise, several of whom told InDaily the first they knew about it was when reports emerged in the media.

The council told InDaily the site was approved for use as a dwelling and office.

“No subsequent consent has been sought for a change in land use, and, more specifically, no subsequent consent has been sought for a change in land use to that of a consulting room,” the council’s spokeswoman said.

“Notwithstanding, a consulting room is able to operate from a residential premises without consent in certain circumstances.

“It is not currently clear as to whether the business in question fits this criteria, however it is important to note that council’s powers as a planning authority are limited to controlling planning issues (i.e. amenity, parking, noise etc) as opposed to the essential nature of the practise itself.

“As such, and given the emergence of the matter in the media, council will investigate the issue further in accordance with its Development Enforcement and Compliance Policy.”

OPINION: Euthanasia bills keep failing, despite public support.

Yesterday, councillor Sinead Bernardi told InDaily she was disgusted at the notion that such a clinic could operate in a small suburban street that was almost wholly residential.

The corner shop site is estimated to have been built in the 1890s and most recently operated as a bottle shop.

The renovated and extended cottage is attached to a corner shop with cellar.

At its most recent sale the shop was listed as a studio/ home office with living room or waiting area.

“Dr Death’s” new clinic scary: councillor - 18Nov13


“Dr Death’s” new clinic scary: councillor


Nov 18, 2013
Kevin Naughton

Councillor Sinead Bernardi told InDaily she was “disgusted” to read revelations about the clinic in the media.

“It was the first I heard about it, and frankly I’m disgusted,” Bernardi said today.

“I have had no notification about this … setting up a euthanasia clinic in a suburban street … it’s very, very scary.”

The council has not responded to InDaily’s inquiry about whether or not Nitschke had council approval to operate a business at the site.

InDaily understands the rental agreement with the shop’s owners was only completed this month.

Nitschke started moving into the Gilbert St former bottle shop and one-time grocery store late last week.

He had told local media last Tuesday the clinic would test drugs, distribute nitrogen kits and “provide services” to terminally ill patients.

The voluntary euthanasia campaigner and Exit International director has often found himself in a battle with regulatory authorities.

The Gilbert St shop and adjoining home was featured on the front page of the Sunday Mail, sparking a series of interested passers-by.

“There’s been cars driving by slowly all day and a few photographers,” one neighbour said.

Legislation attempting to legalise voluntary euthanasia in South Australia is currently before Parliament.


Right to die - 16Nov13


Right to die


Nov 16, 2013
By Andrew Robertson

Terminally ill locals who are suffering intolerable pain and want to end their life may be able to get their wish if proposed legislation is passed in South Australia.

SA Independent Bob Such’s Ending Life with Dignity bill is the latest attempt to introduce voluntary euthanasia laws into an Australian state or territory.

The legislation would allow a limited number of people the right to request medical assistance to hasten death, provided they are a competent adult in the final phase of a terminal illness and suffering unbearable pain.
Voluntary euthanasia campaigner Dr Philip Nitschke said if the legislation was passed there would be nothing stopping people from interstate using it.

He said it would be particularly useful to people in Broken Hill, given the city’s geographical proximity to SA.

“I think there would be very little difficulty there,” he said.

“It’s just a matter of getting the two doctors to basically agree and, as far I can see, the way the law is currently structuredthere’s no reason why the final step of the person ending their life shouldn’t be done back in Broken Hill.

“So it’s hard to see how they would ultimately restrict it and there’d be a very compelling case for Broken Hill.”

Mr Such’s electoral office confirmed the legislation was not restricted to SA residents.

But a spokesman said that, in practice, there was little likelihood of someone who was in intolerable pain being able to travel.

“It’s unlikely that travelling will be a possibility.”

The chances of the bill passing into law anytime soon also appear to be slim to none, after a scheduled debate and vote in parliament on Thursday did not eventuate.

It was rescheduled for November 28 which is the final sitting day before parliament rises.

Dr Nitschke was famously involved in terminally-ill Broken Hill taxi driver Max Bell’s attempt to end his life in 1996 using a short-lived Northern Territory law.

The director of Exit Australia said since that law was overturned there had been around 15 attempts to get similar voluntary euthanasia laws through in other states, including five in SA.

“It is important to get something done and Such is to be applauded for putting it forward with all the limitation it has.

“There has been three failed attempts this year to pass similar laws in NSW, all of which have failed.”

The voluntary euthanasia debate comes as Dr Nitschke is expected to open Australia’s first euthanasia clinic in Adelaide this week.

The clinic will provide advice and information to people face-to-face and via virtual consultations, as well as test and give advice about euthanasia drugs people have purchased.

Dr Nitschke said the clinic was in response to a growing number of people enquiring about their rights and options.

“We’ve set it up so that people can come here and talk and have a consultation, but we’ve also got in place a video conferencing set up so I can talk to people remotely using video link, if that’s more appropriate.

“We get one or two calls a day from people who really want to talk about their particular situation and not all of them ... are coming from Adelaide.

They’re coming from all over the place.”

He said many of them were frustrated that there were no laws to help them.

“And that ultimately is what’s driving a lot of people our way because people are saying ‘look, I really haven’t got the time to wait around’.

“So ... elderly people are often saying ‘we’d like the law to come in but in the meantime we’ve got to look for something else’ and that’s where most of our enquiries are coming from.”


Euthanasia clinic opens in Adelaide - 12Nov13


Euthanasia clinic opens in Adelaide


Caroline Winter
Nov 12, 2013

MARK COLVIN: A euthanasia clinic opens in Adelaide this week, but the euthanasia advocate Dr Philip Nitschke says it's not a "death clinic", but somewhere people can get information on end of life choices.

Dr Nitschke says his facility will provide advice to seriously ill people and a place to test euthanasia drugs.

Residents in the area are generally supportive, but groups that describe themselves as representing families opposed it and an end of life bill set to go before the State's Parliament this week.

Caroline Winter reports.

CAROLINE WINTER: On a quiet street in the leafy green inner-city suburb of Gilberton in Adelaide's north, the finishing touches are being put on Exit International's euthanasia clinic and research laboratory.

The nondescript corner building has been labelled a death clinic, but euthanasia campaigner Dr Philip Nitschke says that's wrong.

PHILIP NITSCHKE: It's a crime to advise, counsel and assist a person, in other words encourage them, to die and we won't be doing that. We're not in any way providing a facility where people can come and end their lives.

CAROLINE WINTER: What he is providing is a place for those who want to learn more about their end of life options.

PHILIP NITSCHKE: What I will be doing though will be making sure that they get access to the best information and it's only with the best information you can make a valid and informed choice and that's totally consistent with good medical practice.

Similarly, testing of drugs to make sure that they haven't acquired the wrong drugs and they're not about to take them in the wrong way and ultimately do significant damage to their plans to have a peaceful death.

CAROLINE WINTER: Dr Nitschke expects to see a couple of patients a week, either in person or via video link.

Jacqueline Meredith from Sydney says she'll be one of them.

JACQUELINE MEREDITH: I'm going to have an uncomfortable death and I intend to take my own life when the going gets too bad.

CAROLINE WINTER: The 81-year-old has chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, a respiratory illness which will eventually kill her.

She's watched four of the closest people to her die in pain and doesn't want the same end. She says this clinic is what she's been waiting for.

JACQUELINE MEREDITH: It would be wonderful if we have the medication and it has to be tested to find that it's 100 per cent alright, that would be such a joy to have that choice.

CAROLINE WINTER: Neighbours say they're relatively supportive of the clinic, even if it is in their area.

RESIDENT: I'm quite happy with that, I think it's a very good idea, I think there's a great need for something like this.

RESIDENT 2: As long as it keeps a low profile and doesn't bring strange types to the area, I'm not terribly fussed about it.

RESIDENT 3: I'm unsure how I feel about the clinic being just up the street from me, but outside of the place where it is, I'm supportive of it.

CAROLINE WINTER: But the South Australian Government is concerned and in a statement said:

EXCERPT FROM GOVERNMENT STATEMENT: Assisting suicide is an illegal act in the state and doing so is an indictable offence. The department has notified police of this matter.

CAROLINE WINTER: Anti-euthanasia campaigners are appalled that such a facility would be allowed.

Ros Phillips is from Family Voice Australia.

ROS PHILLIPS: I'm very concerned because he's really promoting suicide and the morale, the lowering of morale of the community, when people feel that killing themselves is the way out to any problem would have a devastating effect.

CAROLINE WINTER: The group is also against moves attempting to legalise voluntary euthanasia in South Australia.

The recently revised Ending Life with Dignity Bill, proposed by Independent MP Bob Such, is set to be debated in Parliament on Thursday.

BOB SUCH: This bill has got very tight safeguards. They have to be terminally ill with no hope of recovery. They also must be suffering unbearably and also they have to be checked by two doctors. If there's any suggestion of depression, they have to be referred to a registered psychiatrist.

CAROLINE WINTER: But with just two sitting weeks left until Parliament rises for the year, a conscience vote would need to be called quickly.

MARK COLVIN: Caroline Winter.


The road's closed for these drugs - SMH 8Oct13

The road's closed for these drugs


Sydney Morning Herald
October 8, 2013

Eileen Ormsby

Australians were enthusiastic users of the online illicit drug market Silk Road. But now its owner has been arrested and the site closed. Will they return to the more dangerous alternative of buying on the streets?

A screenshot from the Silk Road drug trading website.
Euthanasia advocate decries Silk Road closure

It's a familiar story. A geeky academic high-achiever moves to Silicon Valley to try his luck in the start-up business. More successful than most, his venture, an e-commerce website, turns over $1.2 billion in less than three years. But then the story takes a turn that comes straight out of an episode of Breaking Bad.

On October 3, the FBI swooped on 29-year-old Ross William Ulbricht in the sci-fi section of a local library in Glen Park, San Francisco, as he chatted online. According to the arrest documents, the easygoing Texan is the mastermind behind a massive online drug-dealing, computer-hacking and money-laundering empire.

Alleged online drug kingpin Ross William Ulbricht was arrested in the sci-fi section of a San Francisco library.

They also claim he ordered at least two contract killings and the torture of a former employee. His parents have described him as ''a really stellar, good person and very idealistic''.

The website is Silk Road, the most famous online black market in the world. And Ulbricht, the FBI claims, is its enigmatic founder, known until last week only as Dread Pirate Roberts, or DPR.

Ulbricht, who has an advanced degree in chemical engineering, had developed a cult-like following among the site's users as a peace-seeking libertarian who provided recreational drug users with access to affordable, high-quality drugs in a violence-free environment.
The villain with a thousand faces: alleged Silk Road kingpin Ross William Ulbricht.

The villain with a thousand faces: alleged Silk Road kingpin Ross William Ulbricht.

But the FBI documents paint a picture of a profit-motivated opportunist who was happy to turn to torture and murder when his business was threatened.

Ulbricht has denied all charges and those who have had interactions with DPR over the years find the allegations of violence incomprehensible. His is a story that will unfold in the weeks and months to come. Cyberspace is already awash with theories of how it will pan out, ranging from plausible to crackpot.

But what impact will the closure of Silk Road, where every drug imaginable was for sale, have on drug users and the illicit drug trade? In particular, how will it affect the thousands of Australians who were making regular purchases from the site?

When Australian users tried to log in to the site on Thursday morning, they were greeted with a colourful notice bearing the badges of the FBI and four other American federal agencies advising ''This hidden site has been seized.'' Copies of the charges and indictments were soon available all over the internet.

The FBI documents revealed that Australians were the third-most prolific users of Silk Road (and that is not a per capita number) behind USA and UK. This was obvious to anyone who visited the Silk Road forums, where Australian members and related topics were disproportionately represented.

The reason is simple - recreational drugs in Australia are expensive. People were able to save 75 per cent or more by buying from overseas vendors and having the drugs delivered directly to their door, using Australia Post employees as unwitting mules.

While the shutdown has been welcomed by some, including Rod Bridge, whose son Preston died after taking 25i-NBOMe believed to have been purchased from Silk Road, others consider it futile and even dangerous.

Right-to-die campaigner Philip Nitschke has been an outspoken supporter of the site as a dignified way for people to obtain euthanasia drugs. He appeared in the media last week lamenting its shutdown, saying it would have a devastating impact on those people.

But most of Silk Road's customers were not there seeking to die, but rather to party. Several users of the site spoke to Fairfax Media about their future plans, which involve finding alternative online sources, shifting back to in-person sources or banding together with friends to bulk-buy. In not one case did anyone say they would stop using, sourcing or buying drugs as a result of the closure of Silk Road.

''Sam'', 38, has been buying personal amounts of drugs from Silk Road for 18 months, after seeing a piece on Channel 10's The Project (which ran on the back of The Age's story The Drug's in the Mail published on 27/4/12). He and his partner share drugs with friends who also made purchases from Silk Road. ''Sometimes it's every weekend, other times I go for a few months without,'' he says.

He's not happy about the closure of Silk Road. ''It [buying drugs] used to be such a drama. Friends ringing around to see who could get what and if this week it was you, it meant you were effectively being a dealer, picking it up for everyone else, which I never liked. And then you'd feel bad if it was crap.''

With Silk Road, he claims, the quality was consistent and the price more than reasonable, something borne out by the FBI's analysis of more than 100 purchases made during the investigation.

Sam would check the vendor feedback and peruse the forums for recent experiences before making a purchase. He never had to meet a dealer and took delivery in the comfort of his own home.

Sam is keeping an eye on the other online black markets and will choose one when it's recommended by people he trusts.

''Luckily some of us have stocked up a bit,'' he says.

At the other end of the drug-using scale is ''Paul'' who has been a heroin addict for five years. For him Silk Road was a godsend that enabled him to manage his habit by providing constant purity. The site's closure has hit him hard, he says.

His habit means he can't wait for a new online source. ''I and countless others like me got to go back to scoring from my real-life street sources and when you're talking about heroin it's not like going and scoring a 10-pack of [ecstasy tablets] for a festival on the weekend. I've got to go back to associating with criminals and the dregs of society.''

He is also concerned about the quality and purity of the product available to him on the street - but not concerned enough to contemplate giving up the drug.

The closure of Silk Road is no more likely to prevent Australians from buying drugs online than the closure of Napster prevented them from illegally downloading music.

And those who bought from Silk Road were ready - perhaps more so than Ulbricht was - for the sudden closure of the site.

Back-ups of vendors' contact details had been collated and stored offsite. Sellers used chat board Reddit and the Silk Road forums - which remained active after the closure of the site - to announce where to find their stores on alternative markets Black Market Reloaded (BMR) and Sheep, both of which have been quietly playing second fiddle to Silk Road for the past two years. Several ''trusted and verified'' vendors have teamed up to launch Silk Road 2.0, which they claim is ''90 per cent finished''.

BMR has been so inundated with new members it has to close the site to new registrations every few hours.

But some members have expressed reservations about transferring their business to BMR because the site does not subscribe to Silk Road's philosophy of not listing anything the intent or purpose of which is to harm or defraud others. Silk Road claimed the ''high moral ground'' of refusing to list weapons, stolen goods and credit cards, child porn and assassination services.

Using technologies that offer anonymity - Tor for anonymous browsing, PGP for encrypted communications and untraceable currency Bitcoin - Silk Road has operated openly since January 2011. It would be easy to view the capture of Ulbricht and the closure of Silk Road as proof that anonymity on the internet is a fantasy.

But although there is the unanswered question of how they got access to the Silk Road server, the 34-page FBI complaint details good old-fashioned sleuthing, not hacking or exploiting the technology. Human error - Ulbricht's own carelessness - was his downfall. The technologies that underpin the online black markets remain effective if used together and properly.

The value of traditional techniques to track down cybercriminals concurs with a report put together for the Queensland Crime and Misconduct Commission in May 2012. Hidden in Plain Sight was swiftly disseminated among Silk Road's vendors, and seen by Fairfax Media.

The report described anonymity and encryption, darknets, PGP, Tor and peer-to-peer technologies, concluding that the technology when used properly was effective against infiltration efforts.

''The main vulnerability of Tor and the hidden services is not the technology, rather it is the user,'' the paper said. ''Human error, resulting from a lack of understanding of the technology, or even carelessness or impulsivity, may result in Tor's sophisticated anonymity and encryption being bypassed.''

It was in this potential for human error that law enforcement agencies saw their best chance for detecting crime, as the authors outlined in the ''ways forward'' section of the report. Silk Road's users could be comfortable that the technology, used correctly, would keep them safe.

Indeed, the Silk Road-related arrests in Australia have been a result of human error. A pair of teenagers in Western Australia were turned in by their own parents who intercepted their mail.

A Melbourne man bought large quantities of a variety of party drug from Silk Road and then on-sold them to local customers, but failed to notice 12 packages of drugs addressed to his home went missing and he continued to make orders.

He received a 3½ year jail sentence.

Other Silk Road vendors have been more successful. One of the top Australian vendors sold cocaine, MDMA and psychedelics for a year on the site. He claimed to spend $360,000 this year importing in bulk from trusted overseas vendors, on-selling to Australians who were willing to pay a premium for locally posted drugs rather than risk receiving parcels that might have been intercepted by customs.

Although he declined to reveal his income for the year, party drugs are generally sold at a 300-400 per cent mark-up domestically.

Representatives from Australian Customs and the Australian Federal Police both claimed to be unable to comment on an ongoing investigation and gave Fairfax warnings about regularly exchanging information and intelligence with their overseas counterparts, and continuing to target those who would flout the law.

But all indications so far are that Australians continue to want and procure illicit drugs. And for many, the risk of being detected by law enforcement for drugs in the mail is preferable to the risk of dealing with real-life drug dealers.

Like the Greek myth of Hydra, cut off one head and five more will spring up in its place. Silk Road may be dead, but online drug dealing is not.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/the-roads-closed-for-these-drugs-20131007-2v464.html#ixzz2itU0FOzm

Queensland woman with degenerative disease considers moving to Tasmania if euthanasia law passes - ABC 7.30Report 17Oct13

Queensland woman with degenerative disease considers moving to Tasmania if euthanasia law passes


7.30 Report
By Peter McCutcheon

Thu 17 Oct 2013,
Video: Barbara Harling is considering moving state to die (7.30)
Photo: Queensland woman Barbara Harling is considering moving to Tasmania to die if euthanasia laws pass.

A Queensland woman suffering from a degenerative motor neurone disease says she may move to Tasmania to die if the state passes its euthanasia bill.

Barbara Harling used to love gardening, but these days it is too physically demanding.

"I'm very weak," she explained to the ABC from her home on Queensland's Sunshine Coast.

"I used to be a very strong person, but I'm weak now and as you can see I can't do anything in the garden."

The best the 71-year-old widow can manage is to point out the weeds and give instructions to friends who help her maintain her home and cook her meals.

The former welfare manager is dying of motor neurone disease, which will eventually result in complete paralysis.

    If it became legal [in Tasmania], I could do that, I have a friend there. I think it would be wonderful because there are so many people in need of it.
    Barbara Harling

So she is keenly watching the euthanasia debate in Tasmania, and even considering moving to the Apple Isle.

"If it became legal there, I could do that, I have a friend there," she said.

"I think it would be wonderful because there are so many people in need of it."

So-called "death tourism" is something even supporters of Tasmania's voluntary euthanasia bill admit is a possibility.

"You can't just put the barriers up completely," Tasmanian Premier Lara Giddings recently conceded.

She has joined forces with Greens leader Nick McKim to draft a private members' bill that would allow terminally ill Tasmanian residents to give consent to fatal injections administered by doctors.

"When you think about the sort of person who would be eligible to go through the system, these are very, very sick people and it would be a huge effort for them to just uproot from other parts of Australia to move to Tasmania and participate in this process," the Premier said.
Timing important as Barbara potentially faces complete paralysis

But that is an effort Ms Harling is willing to make, because if she stays in Queensland, it would be illegal for anyone to help her commit suicide at a time she could well be completely paralysed.

"The progression of the [motor neuron] diseases differs with different people," she said.

    I have to be in a fit state to do this, because as you know if anybody helps me, they go to jail. So I might have to do it before I'm really ready to.
    Barbara Harling

"Eventually it can affect your throat so that you can't speak and you can't swallow and in that case if you can't swallow you have to have a peg inserted and or die from starvation, neither of which I want to do.

"This is the pity of it, because no-one can help me, [is that] I have to do it myself.

"So I have to be in a fit state to do this, because as you know if anybody helps me, they go to jail. So I might have to do it before I'm really ready to."

But the possible change of law in Tasmania gives her hope.

"I can understand how people of certain religions think that it's wrong to do so," she said.

"It's all fine for those people who disagree with it, but why should their vote affect what I want to do. I should be able to say the type of death I want."
'I made a promise I would never suffer like my mother had'

Ms Harling says her views on euthanasia were formed in her early 20s when she nursed her dying mother.

"When she died in my arms, she died looking like a skeleton covered in skin," she said.

"She had cancer, she had great big cauliflower lumps all over her abdomen, and obviously pain.

"So from that day onwards I made a promise to myself I would never suffer like my mother had."

Many years later, Ms Harling attended a pro-euthanasia workshop conducted by Dr Philip Nitschke, and is now a member of his organisation, Exit International.

But she dismisses any suggestion that Dr Nitschke has influenced her decision about an assisted death.

"Well he didn't you see, it was when I was 23 that I thought about it, I just wanted a means to die so I didn't have to throw myself off a rooftop," she said.
Family support for Barbara

Although Ms Harling describes herself as a lover of life, she says she has made up her mind about the best way to manage her condition.

"Well, let's put it this way. I can use my left hand, my right hand is just about useless," she said.

"If I can't use my left hand to wipe my bottom, then I can do nothing else for myself.

"That means someone has to do everything for me. I couldn't bear to live like that."

Ms Harling's husband passed away in 1992, but she still has a brother and sister and plenty of friends.

"My family and friends have known how I feel anyway and they agreed with it," she said.

"They would rather see that happen than watch me suffering."

Nitschke blames religious lobby for swaying MPs on euthanasia bid - ABC News 17Oct13


Nitschke blames religious lobby for swaying MPs on euthanasia bid


Thu 17 Oct 2013,
ABC News

Voluntary euthanasia advocate Philip Nitschke with cancer patient Cath Ringwood of Melbourne at MONA. Photo: Cath Ringwood sits with Dr Nitschke at MONA's art installation featuring a euthanasia device. (ABC: Tyson Shine)

Voluntary euthanasia advocate Philip Nitschke has taken a swipe at religious organisations for trying to influence assisted dying legislation debate in Tasmania.

The state's Lower House is expected to resume debate later today on a bill co-sponsored by Premier Lara Giddings and Greens Leader Nick McKim.

Dr Nitschke is in Hobart for the debate but the bill looks likely to fail.

Today he visited Hobart's Museum of Old and new Art with Victorian cancer sufferer Cath Ringwood, who is considering moving from Melbourne to Tasmania if the bill succeeds.

Dr Nitschke says there have been no new arguments come out of the debate so far and it appears religion is playing a part in the legislation's expected failure.

"One has to believe that it's obviously the well-organised opposition from predominantly religious organisations who've been able to point out to politicians that if you vote for this legislation, you will attract the ire of the conservative Church and no politician wants that on their CV; that they are anti-church," he said.

Silk Road closure reportedly cuts off supply of drug for assisted suicides - The Verge 7Oct13

Silk Road closure reportedly cuts off supply of drug for assisted suicides


Patients seeking the euthanasia drug Nembutal must now go to Chinese chemical companies

By Adrianne Jeffries on October 7, 2013 

The shutdown of Silk Road, the secret online marketplace for illegal drugs and other goods, may be having a grim side effect. The site was used by junkies and Timothy Leary types, but a doctor in Australia claims it was also an important resource for chronically ill patients pursuing euthanasia, or assisted suicide.

Euthanasia is illegal in many countries, but there are still doctors and advocates who will help distressed patients seeking voluntary death. Usually these patients are in so much pain, or their quality of life is so diminished, that they no longer want to live and prefer to exit on their own terms. Such patients were using Silk Road to purchase the lethal drug Nembutal and download copies of an ebook called The Peaceful Pill Handbook, says Australian right-to-die advocate Philip Nitschke. A search of the Silk Road forums confirmed that vendors were advertising Nembutal, which also has recreational uses.

The ebook, a euthanasia how-to guide that has been banned in New Zealand and Australia, is available on Amazon. The drug, however, is harder to get. Dr. Nitschke told The Age that he knew of at least 20 people who used Silk Road to clandestinely purchase Nembutal, the brand name for the lethal injection drug pentobarbital that induces respiratory failure. Patients seeking Nembutal will now have to buy it from Chinese chemical makers or wait for the drug to pop up on one of the newer virtual black markets. "The removal of the site will now mean that other less secure avenues will be pursued," Dr. Nitschke says.

My Own Choice - ABC 4 Corners 17Sep13

My Own Choice

ABC 4 Corners
By Liz Jackson and Mary Fallon


September 17, 2013 12:29:00

My Own Choice (Jay and Bertha Franklin)

"I don't want to do something irrational. You know, I don't want to hang myself. I don't want to shoot myself. I don't want to jump off a bridge. I don't want to run in front of a train 'cause that's suicide. This is not suicide what I plan to do." Jay

There are some questions we hope we will never have to answer. But what would you do if you suffered from a debilitating illness that left you in constant and severe pain? What would you do if the only way you could find relief was to take heavy duty pain killers that also impacted heavily on your physical health?

After 36 years struggling with that situation, a young man says he's had enough and he wants to end his own life. Because assisted suicide and voluntary euthanasia are illegal in Australia he is forced to apply to an organisation in a foreign country to fulfil his wish.

Next on Four Corners reporter Liz Jackson tells Jay's story. She spends time with him finding out what his life has been like and how he lives day-to-day. She follows the path that has led him to his decision, and finds out what he thinks will be the consequences of his decision to die.

She is there as he discusses his decision with his family and friends. She is there as he seeks the documentation that will allow him to win medical approval for his plan.

Jay's story raises many questions: why doesn't society allow an individual with an incurable condition the right to seek assistance to end their own life? Is it right that a person is forced to go overseas to die in this way? And why don't our political representatives deal with the issue in an open and free manner?

"They haven't had to walk in my shoes for these past 36 years and they're not going through what I go through every day, you know, and it's not about them anyway at the end of the day. It's about me and me being able to make my own, my own choice." Jay

"My Own Choice", reported by Liz Jackson and presented by Kerry O'Brien, goes to air on Monday 16th September at 8.30pm on ABC1. It is replayed on Tuesday 17th September at 11.35pm. It can also be seen on ABC News 24 on Saturday at 8.00pm, ABC iview and at abc.net.au/4corners.


"My Own Choice" - Monday 16 September 2013


JAY FRANKLIN: I don't want to do something irrational. You know, I don't, I don't want to hang myself. I don't want to shoot myself. I don't want to jump off a bridge. I don't want to run in front of a train, 'cause that's suicide. This is not suicide, what I plan to do. It's totally different.

LIZ JACKSON: What is it?

JAY FRANKLIN: It's going out with some dignity.

LIZ JACKSON: You'll be the one that takes the drug though.

JAY FRANKLIN: Yes, certainly.

LIZ JACKSON: So you will be the one who ends your life.


LIZ JACKSON: How will you be without him?

BERTHA FRANKLIN: I don't know. I don't know. I don't know.

KERRY O'BRIEN, PRESENTER: Trouble with euthanasia, welcome to Four Corners.

Back in 1995 Australia was the first country in the world to legalise voluntary euthanasia, albeit only in the Northern Territory. The law lasted just eight months before the Federal parliament voted it down.

Since then there have been attempts to introduce euthanasia law reform in every state and territory, except Queensland; some 30 attempts in all. Despite polling showing around 70 per cent support for some form of legalisation in Australia, every attempt has failed.

Frustrated by this lack of action, 15 Australians have chosen to travel to Switzerland, where they were legally assisted to die. The process is long, costly and fraught.

In tonight's Four Corners, Liz Jackson follows one young man's attempt to obtain what the Swiss call, the green light to go. It's an intimate, powerful and challenging story.

LIZ JACKSON, REPORTER: Bertha Franklin is getting ready for a photo shoot with her son Jay.

(Bertha and Jay getting ready for photo-shoot)

KYLIE BONNER, FRIEND [talking to Bertha]: You look beautiful Bertha.

LIZ JACKSON: They've never done this before, but were given a free voucher for a set of studio portraits for Christmas.

KYLIE BONNER [talking to Jay]: You didn't even shave you bum.

LIZ JACKSON: A present from their good friends Kylie and Damien.

VOX POP: And how do you fit into the whole...

KYLIE BONNER: We work together; her grandma and I worked together.

VOX POP: What do you do, or what did you do there?

KYLIE BONNER: I was nursing.

VOX POP: Nursing?

PHOTOGRAPHER: Let me just take a quick little test shot here, so don't waste all your smiles, yeah?

BERTHA FRANKLIN, MOTHER: Doesn't have many anyway.

LIZ JACKSON: Bertha doesn't have any recent family photos, and she wants some special ones as mementos of Jay.

PHOTOGRAPHER: And just glancing around towards each other for me please?

(Jay makes a funny noise, they laugh)

LIZ JACKSON: Immediate family has for the past fifteen years, been just Jay and Bertha.

PHOTGRAPHER: Nice and happy as well ok, just pretend that you like each other.

LIZ JACKSON: The studio has been told that Jay is sick and may not last the year. It's true but not the whole truth.

They've not been told that Jay is planning to go to Switzerland as soon as he can, so that he can be legally assisted to die. Without this assistance he could live for another thirty years.

LIZ JACKSON: You're a young man...


LIZ JACKSON: You know, you're in your mid-thirties...


LIZ JACKSON: You could live another twenty, thirty years...

JAY FRANKLIN: Thirty years, yep but I don't want to like this.

LIZ JACKSON: Can you be so confident that you wouldn't change your mind in ten years?

JAY FRANKLIN: No, no, yes sorry. Yes, I am confident, yep.

LIZ JACKSON: Because the two things that, one you're young and two you don't have a terminal illness...

JAY FRANKLIN: Yeah, yep, I understand that.

LIZ JACKSON: So what would you say to people who say it's...

JAY FRANKLIN: Well they haven't had to walk, they haven't had...

LIZ JACKSON: That's such a gift of life...

JAY FRANKLIN: They haven't, yeah but they haven't had to walk in my shoes for these past thirty-six years, and they're not going through what I go through every day, you know, and it's not about them anyway at the end of the day. It's about; it's about me and me being able to make my own, my own choice and what, what I want to do.

LIZ JACKSON: Jay Franklin was born on the thirtieth of December, 1976. At four days old he was rushed to the Children's Hospital. There was a problem.

BERTHA FRANKLIN: They told us he had this disease called Hirschsprung's disease.

LIZ JACKSON: Had you ever heard of it?

BERTHA FRANKLIN: Never heard of it no, um so they explained quite, very well what it was and how it happened, when the baby is growing in the womb, there's these nerve endings that don't form in the bowel and so you don't have this peristalsis which moves the bowel action along, so it just doesn't work.

LIZ JACKSON: Essentially the bowel doesn't work.


LIZ JACKSON: So how old was he when he had his first operation?

BERTHA FRANKLIN: Um fourteen, about fourteen days old.

LIZ JACKSON: From that day on, Jay has worn a colostomy bag, and from then until now he's been in and out of hospital.

[Bertha and Liz look at baby photos]

LIZ JACKSON: So this is gorgeous, how old is he here?

BERTHA FRANKLIN: He's about, I think he's about four; probably they're all about four.

LIZ JACKSON: Well there very cute, maybe, that one looks about the same, that one looks a little younger yeah?

BERTHA FRANKLIN: Yeah it does. This day this photo was taken, one of his nurses, with our permission, she came and took him to the zoo for the day. You know...

LIZ JACKSON: Well it looks like he's having a fabulous time.

He looks like a happy little toddler in the photographs.

BERTHA FRANKLIN: Oh he was. He was always happy, a smiling, yeah, very, like even if he wasn't well he was still smiling. Quite astounding really I think.

LIZ JACKSON: So how much of his, his life do you think he spent in hospital?

BERTHA FRANKLIN: Mm that's a very, in, in, I'd say in the first four years he may have spent, oh a third of his life perhaps.

LIZ JACKSON: Through primary school Jay managed well, but his health went downhill in his teenage years. It devastated his schooling.

JAY FRANKLIN: Year nine I lost about eight months, due to having a, an infection between the bowel and the bladder. Then in Year 10, I was in hospital for four months 'cause part of the bowel had died due to, all, all the antibiotics I was on. Done Year 11 not too bad and, then got to Year 12 and got to the end of the first term I think and, was, just started the second term and it was just too much. I just, I'd missed far too much school.

LIZ JACKSON: Jay has had a number of jobs since leaving school, call centre work being one, but recently he's found it harder to get and hold a job.

As his surgical scarring increased from his multiple operations he developed chronic pain. He's now unemployed.

LIZ JACKSON: How many operations do you reckon you would have had since 2001?

JAY FRANKLIN: Oh, I don't know, I must have lost count to be honest...

LIZ JACKSON: What? Five? Ten?

JAY FRANKLIN: I've, I've got...

LIZ JACKSON: Fifteen? Twenty?



JAY FRANKLIN: It might be twenty, fifteen, twenty, maybe, maybe more, yeah.

LIZ JACKSON: So have you been able to work at all in the last five years...

JAY FRANKLIN: Not since, I haven't been able to work full time since 2000 and I haven't worked since two thousand and, 2007.

LIZ JACKSON: And that's because?

JAY FRANKLIN: Just because the pain's been too bad and I just haven't been well enough to work.

(Jay in his home)


LIZ JACKSON: It's the first morning we've gone to Jay Franklin's home. He lives with his mother out near Melbourne airport.

BERTHA FRANKLIN [talking to a friend]: It's hard for them to understand.

LIZ JACKSON: Jay is having an average start to the day, it's around 10 am.

(Jay taking his medications)

Jay can you tell me what they are, why you're taking them?

JAY FRANKLIN: Yep okay, this first one I took is OxyNorm liquid. It's a, it's a very strong pain relief. And the other one I'm just taking is some diazepam which is, like, Valium. It's a relaxant. Just to help me relax when my pain's bad.

LIZ JACKSON: Jay has been attending a pain clinic on and off for years, but has not found a solution to his pain.

He's recently gone public about wanting to fly to Switzerland where the law allows those who are suffering unbearable and uncontrollable pain, to be assisted to die.

He dreads another operation for a major bowel obstruction which next time could kill him.

JAY FRANKLIN: It's, it's going to happen, at some stage that I get a full bowel obstruction and I don't want to go out that way.

LIZ JACKSON: Can you talk to me about why, why you feel that way?

JAY FRANKLIN: Why? Because it's, um, it's not, not very pleasant to have a bowel obstruction. I mean you're vomiting all the time, you're in really, really severe pain. I mean they'd probably have to put a tube down my nose and that way it just stops you from vomiting. It just draws all the fluid that's in the bowel because it can't get out because the bowel's blocked so that just drains the fluid away, um, but you're still very, very sick and it's just not, it's, wouldn't be a nice way to go. I want to go out with some, with some dignity after all these, after all these years.

BERTHA FRANKLIN: I want, he said to me I want to make my own decision about it, not that I get that sick and I can't make a decision. But in this last year it's been very in the forefront of his thinking that if he could do something he, it's, and I, as much as, look you're only child and you're having to have this conversation but, just for your own selfishness you can't be saying to him oh don't do this. It's, it would be terribly selfish I think.

LIZ JACKSON: So have you talked to any of your specialists about it?

JAY FRANKLIN: About going to Switzerland? The surgeons obviously know because of the articles that have been out in the papers, so they, yeah, they know about it.

LIZ JACKSON: Have you spoken with them about it?

JAY FRANKLIN: Not, not in depth but I mean...


JAY FRANKLIN: Oh not for any particular reason just I mean, it was pretty obvious from the articles what, what I wanted and, yeah, but they didn't try and talk me out of it or anything. I mean they were sad. They were sad about it, but yeah. And they just, they, you know, they just kept asking me, you know, is this really what I, what I want and I said, 'Yes it is, if there's nothing more you can offer, you know, surgically to fix me permanently then, you know, enough's enough'.

(Jay, Damian, Bertha and Kylie sitting in backyard)

LIZ JACKSON: It sunny in the backyard and Damian and Kylie have dropped around.

They're comfortable to talk about Jason's decision; they've known him for years.

DAMIAN BONNER: The first time I met Jay was sixteen years ago, and I actually met him in the Austin, which is not the way you want to meet people but, he's one of Kylie's best friends and, we went in to see him and all he did was wake up and he looked at me and said, 'Who's this tall prick?'. That was his first words 'cause he, oh he didn't, he'd never met me before and that but, yeah, got to know him over the years and, yeah, support him a hundred per cent.

Seen half his battle, as I said, he's thirty-six, I've only seen half of it but, yeah, hard to, first time I spoke to him about it, it was really confronting but, even though I supported him but to, to know what he's going through and what he wants to achieve but, yeah, um, yeah, do anything to help him and, his mum's been amazing.

KYLIE BONNER: I have known Jay for, for so long. I've, that to see what he's doing now, it actually makes me proud and extremely happy because there's some light at the end of his pain tunnel that he's never been able to get before and as hard as it is for me on the selfish side, you have to put that aside because it's not about how I feel. It's about supporting Jay and I do that a 100 per cent, 110 per cent. I would hold his hand right to the end and he knows that so yeah, sorry [begins to cry].

(Jay begins to cry)

DAMIAN BONNER: You didn't cry for me you bitch.

BERTHA FRANKLIN: It's a beautiful relationship really.

(Everyone in the kitchen)

KYLIE BONNER: Where do you want me to put 'em? Just on that plate there?

BERTHA FRANKLIN: Yeah just on this...

LIZ JACKSON: Kylie and Bertha are making lunch for everyone, although there's not a lot of food that Jay can digest.

[Bertha and Kylie chat]

KYLIE BONNER: So you sure you're ok?

BERTHA FRANKLIN: Yeah I'm alright, I just, I suppose it's alright when you're just, like yourself, talking about things. But when it's other people as well, it kind of, over

KYLIE BONNER: That just sort of brings it back to reality doesn't it?




KYLIE BONNER: While you're, like while it's just you.

BERTHA FRANKLIN: Yeah, it's like you're not thinking about it too much.

KYLIE BONNER: Yeah just when you're not, but then when you think oh yeah ok so...

BERTHA FRANKLIN: So anyway, but look, you know me. Just soldier on, we have to, we have to soldier on.

KYLIE BONNER: Yeah but you know, you can't soldier on all the time.


(Everyone sitting around the kitchen table talking)

KYLIE BONNER: I was on hold for about 30 minutes. Because I was sitting on the , in our room on our bed, and I said to Darro, I was sitting there thinking about how we used to ring you Dr Phil, it worked though.

LIZ JACKSON: When you have a nice day, say like yesterday...


LIZ JACKSON: When your friends came around...


LIZ JACKSON: And they're really fond of you and you have...


LIZ JACKSON: And you have a laugh together...


LIZ JACKSON: Does that make you think, 'Maybe I'll stick around a bit more'?

JAY FRANKLIN: No I can't, no and then I, they can't, they, they wouldn't ask me to stick around for that either.

(Jay says goodbye to Kylie and Damian as they leave)

LIZ JACKSON: But Jay has a long way to go before he can think about booking air tickets to Switzerland, the only country in the world where a foreign national who is not terminally ill can within days of arrival be legally assisted to suicide.

The Swiss facility is called Dignitas and if Jay can make it, he will be the sixteenth Australian to die there. But there's a process to follow, criteria to be met, and a fee to be paid - around $12,000. Money that Jay and Bertha do not have.

JAY FRANKLIN: Obviously I'm not in a financial position to be able to finance this myself, so we're, you know, waiting as, seeing what sort of donations we get from the general public.

LIZ JACKSON: And how are you going about that?

JAY FRANKLIN: Philip's been running these workshops, fundraisers as, for me as well, to try and raise money. He's been telling my story and showing the articles and stuff and, you know, trying to raise as much money as possible.

(Sound of crowd talking at workshop)

LIZ JACKSON: The Philip who is helping Jay is Dr Philip Nitschke, the well-known euthanasia advocate, and founder of Exit International.

He's up in Queensland to hold a workshop outlining for these folk the methods they could use to end their lives.

DR PHILIP NITSCHK, DIRECTOR OF EXIT INTERNATIONAL: In fact it's the only book banned in Australia in the last 35 years.

LIZ JACKSON: He's focussing on the lethal drug Nembutal, and a nitrogen tank device, both of which could swiftly do the job.

While suicide is legal, assisting a suicide carries a life sentence here in the Sunshine State. Past cases suggest that just being present (holding a hand) could be enough to trigger a criminal prosecution of family or friends anywhere in Australia - it's a risk.

[Dr Nitschke lecture]

DR PHILIP NITSCHK: They really don't know, there's a feeling that you can be with someone. As long as you don't physically help them take this step, but our advice generally is to say look, if it's gonna happen, be with the person that you want to be with, of course you should. But perhaps you should say you were in the next room when you call the doctor, I went in and oh it looks like my husband has ended his life.

Rather than saying oh I was there...

LIZ JACKSON: The Gold Coast venue is packed with people keen to learn about all the options. Dr Nitschke tells them about Jay Franklin.

DR PHILIP NITSCHKE: Jay Franklin is a 35-year-old from Melbourne who's suffering and has been suffering really from the day he was born with Hirschsprung's disease. Most of his bowel has been removed, associated with surgical procedures. He's finally got to the point where he's said he has had enough. And supported by his mother Bertha there, alongside him, he's decided that he wants to go overseas to have a peaceful death.

It's quite hard for him. They don't have a great deal of reserves or resources to make this trip. And of course, the Swiss option is not cheap. First of all you've got to get an airline to take you to Switzerland. And the fees in the Swiss, in the Dignitas organisation are around about $12,000. I've written a letter on this green sheet of paper which I hope you have a chance to pick up if you haven't already, and read the letter, which is basically me asking you to be generous in a campaign to try and raise the money for Jay. Exit [International] has also said that we will go dollar for dollar for any donations you make.

Although the legislation that they're trying to pass...

LIZ JACKSON: Dr Nitschke is aware his support for Jay is controversial, as Jay is not dying.

DR PHILIP NITSCHKE: No I don't have any concerns about that. I used to think that people had to be terminally ill in the times of the back in 1996 when I first got involved in this issue. Nowadays intolerable suffering is a good enough criteria for me, and that can be coming from a number of forms. Some, sometimes from medical conditions as in the case of Jay, sometimes from other reasons.

So I don't have any trouble. He's a, he's an adult; he's a person who's had a lot of time to consider this. This is not a rash, impetuous decision. There's not a hint that he's suffering from psy- some psychiatric condition, which is distorting his thought processes. He knows exactly what's involved, I'm not going to come along and say no I disagree or anything like that. I would actual, I do actually agree with his decision. If he wants to do that I think it's important to make sure it's possible.

LIZ JACKSON: Tell me how you met Philip Nitschke.

JAY FRANKLIN: Well obviously I'd heard about him over the years on, on the media and stuff and, um, a few years ago I went to one of his workshops and then, and then, last year I decided to, you know, finally take that next step and try and make contact with him personally and see what, what he, you know, what he could offer, [coughs] excuse me, and then, you know, an offer came up possibly to, to go to Switzerland so, so yeah he's just been running around and trying to find information out and, and that for me. So he's been really great and really supportive, yeah he's been fantastic.

LIZ JACKSON: Do you know he's a controversial figure?

JAY FRANKLIN: Oh yeah [laughs], very passionate, very, very passionate and yeah, I know he's controversial, but yeah, but that's Philip.

LIZ JACKSON: Dr Nitschke is currently being investigated by the Medical Board of Australia.

Here he's arriving at his favourite pub in Adelaide to promote the uses of his nitrogen device to put gas in your beer, pump up your tyres, as well as ending your life.

(Sound of pub music and people talking)

BARTENDER: [talking about the beer] We've got 70 per cent nitrogen and 30 percent C02, which gives it a creamier, fuller body.

PUB PATRON 1: [addressing Philip] I have to say that we admire your work.


PUB PATRON 2: Yeah we do.

DR PHILIP NITSCHKE: That's great, I hope this works out because, the whole idea of the nitrogen here tonight is because of the way they, the Medical Board are trying to say that I've developed a system which is only for using, for people who end their lives. And of course nitrogen is used for a lot of things, including putting it in beer.

[Pumping up a bike tyre outside] And what pressure do you normally have them at?

BICYCLE OWNER: I think they're 120, I reckon.

(Sound of air coming from bicycle tyre)

LIZ JACKSON: Allegations have been made to the Medical Board that Dr Nitschke has attempted to facilitate the supply of the lethal drug Nembutal, and is marketing a nitrogen device solely for the purpose of suicide.

The devices are outside in the back of his van.

(Philip opening the back of his van and talking to a man with him)

DR PHILIP NITSCHKE: Have you got a car here?

MAN: Yep.


LIZ JACKSON: Dr Nitschke denies the allegations, and stands by what he does.

DR PHILIP NITSCHKE: Ok, thank you.

MAN: Nice to meet you anyway.

DR PHILIP NITSCHKE: [shakes man's hand] Good on you.

MAN: Thank you.

LIZ JACKSON: Are you considering at all curbing what you do?

DR PHILIP NITSCHKE: No, I'm not considering curbing what I do. I don't want to lose my medical registration over it, but I think it's too important to provide these options for people and I'm getting growing numbers of people all the time really clamouring for this information, so it's a, there's a need out there and it needs to be met and I would not like to think that I've got to lose my medical registration to serve that need, but if it has to be, it has to be. But I'm certainly not going to roll over and just say alright, I'll be, I'll be objecting to this all the way.

(At Jay and Bertha's house)

LIZ JACKSON: The next time we visit Jay and Bertha, friends had cooked them dinner the night before.

BERTHA FRANKLIN: We had a lovely night.

LIZ JACKSON: Yeah? Jason had a bad night though?

BERTHA FRANKLIN: His pain yes, he tried to eat a little bit of stuff and you know, then you...

LIZ JACKSON: What happens when he eats a bit of, what last night at the dinner?

BERTHA FRANKLIN: Yeah, and then you know, then his pain...cause you try and eat, you got to you know ... and he just had a bad night, one of the bad nights, so he's just a bit slow this morning, but anyway we're up, [laughs] you haven't come and found us in bed.

LIZ JACKSON: No I hope not, now let's just see how Jason is.

BERTHA FRANKLIN: Did you want a cuppa or something before you?

LIZ JACKSON: Oh a cuppa would be lovely actually.

BERTHA FRANKLIN: I'll put the kettle on.

LIZ JACKSON: Do you want me to do it?

BERTHA FRANKLIN: No, no, we'll have a cuppa. Ron would you like a cuppa?

RON: Yeah, thank you.


LIZ JACKSON: Feeling crook?

JAY FRANKLIN: Yeah not the best, I'll just be a few minutes.

LIZ JACKSON: Yeah take your time.

BERTHA FRANKLIN: The Pope resigned this morning.

JAY FRANKLIN: Yeah I heard.

BERTHA FRANKLIN: [laughs] He's very interested.

JAY FRANKLIN: I'll sleep tonight, seeing I know that now.

BERTHA FRANKLIN: [laughs] Oh Jay. When the Pope, the last Pope was here, her son drove him round and they've got photos on the wall, like of, you know, with the last Pope, whoever he was.


JAY FRANKLIN: I think Paul the 2nd.

LIZ JACKSON: Paul the 2nd?

BERTHA FRANKLIN: yeah and Ryan was telling us last week, it was quite interesting driving him round.

JAY FRANKLIN: I just need probably five or ten minutes.

LIZ JACKSON: Yeah no worries, no worries, just take your time.

JAY FRANKLIN: So I had a bad night.

LIZ JACKSON: Couldn't sleep?

JAY FRANKLIN: This pain, yeah. I've been up most of the night, so.

LIZ JACKSON: We'll just sit down and see to make sure.

JAY FRANKLIN: Yeah I'll just be five or ten minutes, then I'll be alright.


BERTHA FRANKLIN: We'll sit and have a cup of tea.

LIZ JACKSON: That would be lovely.

BERTHA FRANKLIN: Sit over here, how's that.

LIZ JACKSON: Sounds good to me.

BERTHA FRANKLIN: This morning he could have stayed in bed all day if you weren't coming. Just, his pain was really bad when he got up. He just can't function. He just, it's hard to explain but he just, it's like he can't do anything. He either lays in bed or lays on a couch and just listens to his, I mean luckily music is one of his favourite things and he, you know listens to his music in between dozing or whatever and just doesn't go out of the house.

LIZ JACKSON: Jay has been downloading material about the Dignitas organisation, based near Zurich.

[Jay and Bertha discuss the Dignitas facility]

JAY FRANKLIN: Even from what I've seen on like, different stuff, groups come across on Youtube and stuff about it, I mean it does look nice, doesn't it?


LIZ JACKSON: Did you watch any of those documentaries?


LIZ JACKSON: You watched the documentaries about folk who go to Dignitas?

BERTHA FRANKLIN: Yeah. It looks very, peaceful, you know, and you're asked you know, at least three times, do you want to take this? It's not like take it, you know like, it's just so, it's your decision.

LIZ JACKSON: What's your feeling about...

JAY FRANKLIN: Exactly what just what mum just said, yeah that's how I felt as soon as I saw it. There was no, there was no pressure, there was no you know, they just kept reassuring the patient after he'd you know, what would happen and, and just kept asking him if that's what he wanted to do.

LIZ JACKSON: Is that important to you? Is it important that you feel at every point that you can make an honest decision...

JAY FRANKLIN: At some point pull out?



LIZ JACKSON: You feel totally comfortable doing that?


(Bertha, Jay and Liz in the car)

LIZ JACKSON: So how long does the drive take?


JAY FRANKLIN: Good 20 minutes.


LIZ JACKSON: How many times have you done this drive?


BERTHA FRANKLIN: How many dollars would you like? [laughs]

LIZ JACKSON: In the afternoon, Jay and Bertha head out to the Austin Hospital.

Jay needs a psychiatric report stating he has the capacity to make sound decisions about his health before Dignitas will assist him to die.

JAY FRANKLIN: I need an evaluation basically to say that I'm of sound mind of making this decision on going to Zurich, that's what I need.

BERTHA FRANKLIN: Because they need that over there.

LIZ JACKSON: Yeah, they have to be sure that you know what you're doing.

JAY FRANKLIN: Because of the depression part.

LIZ JACKSON: Dignitas is reluctant to take people who are found to be suffering from depression.


LIZ JACKSON: Is that an issue in your case?

JAY FRANKLIN: I don't think so because I've been told it's, not your typical clinical depression. It's reactive depression to, to everything I've been through. Um...

LIZ JACKSON: So are you on anti-depressants?

JAY FRANKLIN: I am. I'm not at the, I'm not at the moment. Um, I've gone off them at the moment because, I just wanted to see how I'd feel without being off, you know, being off them. I spoke to my GP about it and I said to her, you know, "At this stage I don't feel any different from when I was on them to now I'm not being on them". So I'm just going to give it a couple more weeks and just wait and see. I'll talk to her again when I see her in a months' time.

DR PHILIP NITSCHKE: In the case of Jay, what we will need to do, and we're already looking into that now, is to get a contemporary psychiatric record to show that his thought processes are not being interfered with by what may have been pre-existing depressive states as he contemplated his pretty, pretty miserable prognosis associated with his condition.

(Liz visits Jay and Bertha)



BERTHA FRANKLIN: Come in out the...

LIZ JACKSON: Out of the heat, yeah thanks.


LIZ JACKSON: Two weeks have passed since our last visit, and there's a heat wave on in Melbourne, it's 36 degrees.

Bertha has the lights off and the blinds down to keep it that little bit cooler inside.

There's been little progress yet on getting the psychiatric report. Several psychiatrists shied away once they knew why it was wanted.

Jay is hoping a psychiatrist at the Austin Hospital will help.

JAY FRANKLIN: The psychiatrist said to Philip, if you can get Jason's GP to do a referral...

LIZ JACKSON: Do a referral asking for the psychiatric assessment?


LIZ JACKSON: Jay's GP has done the referral, but Jay is still waiting for the Austin to respond. It's his GP's view that Jay is no longer depressed.

LIZ JACKSON: She's reluctant to appear on camera but she's told me that she's fine with us saying that she was saddened by your decision, but she stood by your right to make it and she knows from treating you over the years that it's a considered decision.


LIZ JACKSON: And a decision that she assesses that you're competent to make.


LIZ JACKSON: Are you surprised that she's...

JAY FRANKLIN: Not at all, no.

LIZ JACKSON: So you've talked directly with her about it ...

JAY FRANKLIN: Oh in yeah, yeah, lots.

LIZ JACKSON: Collecting the money that Jay will need has proved to be less problematic. Dr Nitschke has distributed hundreds of forms asking for donations.

LIZ JACKSON: Jay to Dignitas. And what, what's been the response?

JAY FRANKLIN: Well we've received, how much?


JAY FRANKLIN: About $8000, so far.

BERTHA FRANKLIN: But in the last three weeks, there's only been one day that he hasn't got mail and it's all been fairly like, some small donations, like $25 or 30, or $50, but we have since like, that mail that came over the Christmas period, it's $8000.

LIZ JACKSON: And how do you feel about that?

JAY FRANKLIN: Um, a bit embarrassed to be honest, taking fr-, money from people that, you know, you don't even know but, you know, it's a very, generous offer from the people that have donated so far.

[Calling out to Bertha in kitchen] Ma, can we get some stamps please.

BERTHA FRANKLIN: There's some behind you, but I've got...

LIZ JACKSON: Another two weeks has passed. Jay is sending out personal letters thanking the people who have given him money to help him on his way.

The first $800 paid for Jay's membership of Dignitas, the next 3,000 is for a Swiss doctor to check his medical reports to see if Dignitas can give Jay what's called "the green light" to go.

Dr Nitschke has come, to help Jay sort things out.



DR PHILIP NITSCHKE: How you going?

JAY FRANKLIN: Yeah so, so. Been better.

DR PHILIP NITSCHKE: Oh well, I found the place.

JAY FRANKLIN: No use, no use complaining.

DR PHILIP NITSCHKE: No, there's no use complaining...

JAY FRANKLIN: Oh what's this?

DR PHILIP NITSCHKE: I found, I got a bit lost actually...


DR PHILIP NITSCHKE: It's a miracle, a miracle I'm here on time. Shall I sit here?

BERTHA FRANKLIN: Sit, yeah, sit wherever. Would you like a cup of tea or a coffee?

DR PHILIP NITSCHKE: Yeah a cup of tea would be good.

DR PHILIP NITSCHKE: The first thing of course and this is the necessary step is to try and is to try and get the green light, to try and get there, and that'll, you've got enough money to do that. They want $3,000. They'll assess you and then when everything's in place, then I think it's a matter of you determining your timing, when you want to go, if you want to go...

JAY FRANKLIN: Yeah I want to go.

DR PHILIP NITSCHKE: All of that's opened then because you've got...

JAY FRANKLIN: As soon as I get the green light and everything and we've got enough money I want to...

DR PHILIP NITSCHKE: I was going to ask you about that.

JAY FRANKLIN: I want to do it.

DR PHILIP NITSCHKE: Yeah cause you, well...

JAY FRANKLIN: I don't want to keep, you know, dragging it out...

DR PHILIP NITSCHKE: I know but once you've got the green light you do have the option of not worrying about, you don't have to worry about it...

JAY FRANKLIN: Yeah, yeah...

DR PHILIP NITSCHKE: In terms of, and you could go whenever you wanted. Now I suppose what you seem to be saying is that if you got the green light tomorrow, you'd go tomorrow.


DR PHILIP NITSCHKE: Alright well okay well we'll, we've got to move on now as far as that, as far as the process of getting your green light...


DR PHILIP NITSCHKE: In position is done and then of course the necessary things there are I want to go through your medical records and work out what we send.


DR PHILIP NITSCHKE: Cause I'll be packaging up your medical stuff and then there's the non-medical stuff which I presume you've pretty well got.

JAY FRANKLIN: Yeah passports and all that, that's all in the process...

DR PHILIP NITSCHKE: All those other bits and pieces...

JAY FRANKLIN: We're just waiting on our passports now...

BERTHA FRANKLIN: Um milk and sugar Philip?

DR PHILIP NITSCHKE: No just black please, just black, no sugar. Okay alright and then of course the med, from the medical point of view it's the, it's the psychiatric report.

So when is that appointment? That's today some time?

JAY FRANKLIN: Today, this afternoon.

DR PHILIP NITSCHKE: Oh okay. You might ask her how long is it going to take.


DR PHILIP NITSCHKE: Without trying to, she will, she knows...

LIZ JACKSON: It's been six weeks since Jay first requested a psychiatric report from the Austin Hospital.

Jay and Bertha continue to prepare themselves to go.

DR PHILIP NITSCHKE: Alright. Any questions? Anything you've got? Any worries...


JAY FRANKLIN: How long are you usually in Zurich before it happens?

DR PHILIP NITSCHKE: Well it can be as short as you want because, when you make arrangements with them, you get the green light and you say I would like an assisted suicide and they, they will say well um when do you want it? And you will say at this time or on this day and they will then say well you should get to Zurich the day before or something like that. They will give you a sort of a timeframe...


DR PHILIP NITSCHKE: But it can be as short as forty-eight hours from arrival to death.


BERTHA FRANKLIN: My other thing is um, about the ashes.


BERTHA FRANKLIN: I don't want to come home without them.

DR PHILIP NITSCHKE: No now that...

BERTHA FRANKLIN: So what happens about that?

DR PHILIP NITSCHKE: I will find out for you but it it's, the cremation is fairly quick, I think we're talking a couple of days. After John Elliott died he was cremated and he had the desire to have his ashes spread out on, he was actually from Europe and he wanted his ashes spread in the, in the Alps there close to Zurich and we went out there...

JAY FRANKLIN: It's alright mum.

DR PHILIP NITSCHKE: Went out in a vehicle...

JAY FRANKLIN: It's alright mum.

DR PHILIP NITSCHKE: It was, it was in a day or two...

BERTHA FRANKLIN: I've got a reason for asking too cause I want to... Jason wants some...My great grandfather came from Berne.


BERTHA FRANKLIN: So Jason wants some of his ashes sprinkled there.


BERTHA FRANKLIN: And my niece said oh that's only a train ride away.

DR PHILIP NITSCHKE: It is. It is. So you would, yes so you would be able to do that within a few days.

[Bertha is crying]

So any, there may be all sorts of things you think of but just, don't sit around worrying about it, just ring us, pick, pick up the phone or send me an email.


LIZ JACKSON: Do you worry about the impact it'll have on your mother?

JAY FRANKLIN: Yeah of course I do, that's one of my biggest worries. Both psychological and, and, and legally, if there's any legal repercussions for when she gets, when she gets home.

BERTHA FRANKLIN: I don't think there will be any legal implications, but I suppose it is in the back of your mind. But I've, I've got broad enough shoulders and I'll be on a soapbox. [laughs] You know, they could try and you know, but I actually haven't forced Jason to take that medication and we're not in Australia anyway, and maybe it's illegal here but we're going somewhere where it's legal, so how could they charge me with anything?

LIZ JACKSON: Another four weeks pass before we come back again.

The psychiatric report from the Austin Hospital has finally arrived. It'd been referred up to the CEO at the Austin, and been twice through their legal department. It's signed by the consultant psychiatrist at the outpatient service.

It says what Jay needs it to say, that is:

[Reading out from the psychiatric report] "I do not believe that Jason was clinically depressed or suffering from any overt psychiatric condition that might affect his judgement on the occasions I saw him and I believe he has the capacity to make decisions regarding his future care..."

It does however add:

"... whilst I have the deepest sympathy for his physical and psychological suffering ... I need to state that euthanasia is illegal in Victoria and therefore I cannot support his course of action."

LIZ JACKSON: So tell me, Jay, now that you've got the report ...


LIZ JACKSON: Now the it says that you're competent to make these decisions...


LIZ JACKSON: What's the next step?

JAY FRANKLIN: Philip just has to send off everything to Switzerland and then I suppose they assess all my paperwork and if they're going to give me the green light to go ahead. So it's just a matter of waiting again now.

LIZ JACKSON: And have you had any more thoughts about what you might do once you get the green light?

JAY FRANKLIN: Um...I thought I'd go straight away but just, just things yeah, I just, I just don't know if I will act on it immediately. I mean it might be this year, but...

BERTHA FRANKLIN: It's up to Jason to make his own mind. He's sort of a bit, well, say why you...

JAY FRANKLIN: Oh you say it, it's...

BERTHA FRANKLIN: He's been a bit apprehensive, like he just was worried now that you know I've lost my sister recently, and he felt that it was just too much for me to be losing him in the same year. But I, as I've said to him, it's not about everybody else; it's about his decision. It may sound like I am... I'm not trying to push him into this. What I'm trying to say is that this is his decision and that he can't put his life on hold for other people.


BERTHA FRANKLIN: That, that's all I'm sort of saying.

LIZ JACKSON: But if you've got any, any doubts or any reasons it's best to, to think about it, because it's not a decision you can go back on.

JAY FRANKLIN: No, no. no. That's what my friend said. You know, he said once you've made this decision you go through with it, there's no coming back from it.

BERTHA FRANKLIN: But you've known that all along.

JAY FRANKLIN: Yeah, yeah. It's not it's not that I'm thinking of not doing it, not going through with it, it's just when like am I, I know you're right in what you're saying.

(Looking at photos from the photography shoot on the wall)

LIZ JACKSON: Got a favourite?

JAY FRANKLIN: I love the middle one.

LIZ JACKSON: When we talk later it's clear that Jay is feeling the weight of the decision that is now on his mind.

[Talking to Jay] It's not easy.

JAY FRANKLIN: No, it's not easy. And I, you know I don't want to suffer for another 36 years. Keep going on the way I'm going.

LIZ JACKSON: But the alternative is not a great alternative either.


LIZ JACKSON: Have you been thinking about it?

JAY FRANKLIN: No, I try not to think about it. I have, I have my moments. But yeah I think I've made up, it's not like you know, it's not like I woke up yesterday and decided this, so you know this is something I've been thinking about for the past couple of years. So ... it's just a matter of what th- just the waiting game.

(Liz visiting Bertha and Jay again)

LIZ JACKSON: Hello, is that Bertha?

BERTHA FRANKLIN: Good afternoon.

LIZ JACKSON: Hi, I haven't seen you for ages.

LIZ JACKSON: One week ago we returned.

Jay has just received the crucial email from Switzerland, giving him the provisional green light to go.

[Reading from a the letter from Dignitas] Dear Mr Franklin:

"Please be advised that a medical doctor cooperating with us considers an accompanied suicide to be justified in your case ..."

Jay can now choose when and whether he wants to make the final trip.

JAY FRANKLIN: I'm just happy that, you know, I know that option's there, for when things get too much.


JAY FRANKLIN: It's like it's, you know, it's like I've got it, it's in the cupboard, and just knowing that is I feel a peace, peace of mind.

KERRY O'BRIEN, PRESENTER: Dignitas reports that in fact a substantial majority of people who get the green light do not proceed with an assisted suicide. Quote, "That simply knowing the option is there renders them able to further endure life and even to enjoy it."

Our thanks to Jay and Bertha Franklin for letting us into their lives at such a challenging time.

Next week on Four Corners we look at a renewed fight against corruption in Papua New Guinea. And whether Australia will help or hinder it.

Until then, good night.


Hundreds risk jail to import illegal drug promoted by euthanasia campaigners - ABC Lateline 14Sep13

Hundreds risk jail to import illegal drug promoted by euthanasia campaigners

ABC Lateline
By Sashka Koloff

Sat 14 Sep 2013,
Video: Australians importing illegal euthanasia drug (Lateline)

Photo: Powdered barbiturate nembutal is being imported illegally into Australia. (ABC)


A lethal drug promoted by euthanasia campaigners as a peaceful way to die is easily being illegally imported into Australia.

Known as the "peaceful pill", barbiturate Nembutal is promoted by the euthanasia movement as the best and most peaceful way to end your life.

Most have bought the illicit drug online from China, a country that in the last two years has come to dominate the market.

The drug kills within an hour of being consumed.

"There are very few lethal drugs and the best lethal drug is Nembutal," euthanasia advocate Dr Philip Nitschke told a recent workshop.

"I've been with a lot of people who have died using this drug, it just seemed to get into to a deeper and deeper sleep and then finally stop breathing.

"And for those watching they see this as the most peaceful of deaths, it certainly looks to be.

"Be careful, because it's illegal."

The penalty for importing or possessing Nembutal is a prison sentence or a fine of up to $825,000.

Dr Nitschke says hundreds of Australians have illegally brought the drug into the country over the past couple of years.

The Australian Federal Police have told the ABC's Lateline program that they have seized almost 15 kilograms of the drug since 2007.

But so far, no one has been convicted.
Nembutal easily ordered by terminally ill online

Mexico used to dominate the market but now most Nembutal is bought over the internet from China.

Increasingly, there are reports of internet scams and Lateline has spoken to several people who have lost hundreds of dollars trying to buy Nembutal online.
ACT Senate candidate Philip Nitschke. Photo: Dr Philip Nitschke tests imported nembutal for quality assurance. (Supplied)

Arriving in flat packed envelopes, Chinese Nembutal comes in the form of a white powder, and Dr Nitschke says people are worried about its quality.

"People obtain this white powder in envelopes from China and they're concerned in a way that I never saw, the same concern with the South American product," he said.

"They worry that maybe there's someone selling them something that is contaminated or not pure or maybe cheating them completely and selling them castor sugar or something."

To combat concerns, Dr Nitschke has set up a mobile testing laboratory, and he says there is a long queue of people across Australia waiting to use it.

"I think we can say the vast majority, all except one, have shown to be exactly what they've purported to be, so in other words high quality Nembutal," he said.

Dr Nitschke has tested the Nembutal which terminal cancer patient David illegally imported earlier this year.

David says the drug was easy to obtain online and he was not fearful of any legal consequences.

    I sent an email requesting a sample, I received a reply asking me to forward $US360 and I duly arranged that, and two weeks later, my package arrived through the mail.
    Terminal cancer patient David

"At 81 years of age, I don't think that crossed my mind. If they want to jail me, well I think that would be a very stupid action," he said.

"I sent an email requesting a sample, I received a reply asking me to forward $US360 and I duly arranged that, and two weeks later, my package arrived through the mail."

David says knowing he now has a choice is a comfort.

"Euthanasia goes against what most of us believe in, but you've got to say 'OK, there are other people there, who have a problem, so why not give them the right to decide'," he said.

"Sorry, I want out of here."
Nembutal link to a Sydney woman's suicide

David bought his Nembutal from a supplier listed in Dr Nitschke's book The Peaceful Pill Handbook.

The book is also banned in Australia, but for $80 you can buy online access to the publication.

Dr Nitchske's group also produces instructional videos for those considering euthanasia.

In one tragic case, a young Sydney woman who was not terminally ill but suffering from depression accessed this information.

She also attempted to buy Nembutal online, but lost her money.

In May, the 30-year-old committed suicide.

Her family told Lateline: "The internet is a tool and has many good uses, but when vulnerable people can so easily get hold of information and videos that can do a great deal of harm, it can be devastating."

However, Dr Nitschke defended this advocacy, saying the dissemination of euthanasia material information should not be banned simply because it is used for purposes other than those he intended.

"It's an age-old question about censorship," he said.

"I can't guarantee where the information is going to, but I don't think that's a good reason for stopping giving out information."

But the chairman of the Federal Government's advisory council on suicide prevention, Professor Ian Webster, disagrees.

    There's a very fundamental principle in medicine, primum non nocere, a Latin statement for 'above all do no harm', so no action that a physician or a surgeon or a doctor should take, should increase the likelihood of harm.
    Professor Ian Webster

"I don't think that's an acceptable risk," he said.

"There's a very fundamental principle in medicine, primum non nocere, a Latin statement for 'above all do no harm', so no action that a physician or a surgeon or a doctor should take, should increase the likelihood of harm.

"It's a very difficult balance to strike.

"Overwhelmingly I put my weight on preventing suicide and against promoting suicide methods to elements of the population which are at high risk."

Dr Nitschke is currently facing two investigations by the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency over claims he is not a fit and proper person to hold medical registration, but he says losing his licence will not stop his work.

"In a practical sense it would make very little difference, because of the growing demand if you like, of a growing or increasing number of elderly people who are demanding control over the end of their own life," he said.

It's my business how I end my life: the former judge who flouts the law - The Guardian 25Oct13

It's my business how I end my life: the former judge who flouts the law

Oliver Laughland   

Friday 25 October 2013   


As Gough Whitlam's attorney general, he was Australia's first law officer. Today he and his wife keep his and hers jars of the banned drug Nembutal for the day they decide they want to die


Kep Enderby Kep Enderby, 87, says euthanasia is a civil liberties issue. Photograph: Daniel Munoz/Guardian Australia

They keep it hidden, but close by. Two jars of Nembutal. One for him and one for her. When, and if, the time comes, they say they’ll swallow what some call the “peaceful pill”, drift off to sleep and die within an hour. Possession of the lethal drug is illegal; an ironic twist given that one of them is the former attorney general of Australia.

Kep Enderby sits with his wife Dot in a Sydney living room overlooking the sea. He fiddles with his walking stick and looks up. “I’ve thought about it a lot,” he says. “I’m suffering a lot. I’m not as active as I used to be – you can see this bloody stick. I’m a geriatric and I’m not enjoying life at all.”

Dot sits patiently.

“Euthanasia is a civil liberties issue,” Kep continues, “If I want to end my life, it’s my business.”

Does he not see the contradiction that a former first law officer of the crown, under the government of Gough Whitlam no less, is committing a criminal act?

Kep, 87, is fervent. “I think it’s a bad law, there’s no justification for it. But you’re quite right, we shouldn’t have it. That’s the truth of the matter. The law can often be unjust.”

He speaks for a while, drifting between case studies from his time as a supreme court judge in New South Wales which emphasise his libertarian point. Eventually Dot interjects.

A calmer voice: “The thing with Nembutal is, when you have access to it, you don’t sit down and make a plan … It’s something you have ... something you know is there when you really need it.”
Kep and Dot Enderby Kep and Dot Enderby: they celebrate their 50th wedding anniversary next year. Photograph: Daniel Munoz/Guardian Australia

Procurement of the drug has been made more difficult in recent weeks since the closure of the black-market drug website Silk Road.

Dr Philip Nitschke, director of the euthanasia advocacy group Exit International – a group the Enderbys support – described the site’s closure as “devastating”. "Our elderly members appreciated the comfort that came from knowing that their transactions were private," he said this month, warning: “The removal of the site will now mean that other less secure avenues will be pursued."

The Enderbys won’t tell me where they got their two jars from.

Dot met Kep in 1960. He was a divorced 38-year-old law lecturer at the Australian National University in Canberra, drunk on the works of Marx and the anarcho-communist Peter Kropotkin. She was a 35-year-old college librarian raised in the traditions of the Labor party but without an active interest in politics.

Kep spotted Dot first. It was at morning tea in the common room.

“I confess all I saw in Dot at the beginning was a beautiful bloody woman,” he says. “I wanted to bed her.”

Dot laughs. “Well, I was otherwise taken at that stage,” she says. A courtship began, and within four years they were married. He moved into politics six years later. They celebrate their 50th wedding anniversary next year.

Dot and Kep concede they don’t know exactly how they’ll use the Nembutal. Perhaps, they say, it will be sipped simultaneously, then they will lie on the couch and drift off. But sometimes Kep has bad days and thinks about taking it alone.

“I’d get up out of bed in the night time, get the Nembutal from where I know it is, swallow it and Dot would find me on the couch or something.”

How would Dot feel to wake up and find him?

“Well it’s his right to do it if he wants to. If he feels he’s at that stage,” she says, unflinching.

The debate surrounding voluntary euthanasia has picked up once again in Australia. Only last week a legalisation bill narrowly failed in the Tasmanian parliament, voted down by 13-11. This despite polling suggesting 80% of people in the state supported it. In recent years state parliaments in New South Wales and Western Australia have rejected similar legislation, and at present it remains illegal throughout the country.

Kep describes a deep fear of going “demented”. He sees Whitlam every now and again; the last visit was four months ago. “I’m not even sure he recognises me,” Kep says.

It’s a far cry from their first encounter. Kep comes alive as he describes it; he was elected as the Labor member for Canberra in a 1970 byelection. “Whitlam was making a name for himself then, a great name, you couldn’t help but be hypnotised.”

After the 1972 election Enderby was fast-tracked to cabinet. In February 1975 Lionel Murphy moved to the high court, vacating the AG position. Kep says he knocked on Whitlam’s door, demanding the job he’d heard Whitlam was going to take for himself. “I said, ‘Oh come off it, I think I deserve it.’ He said, ‘All right, you bastard.’” Dot resigned her job at the library – such were the engagement demands of a senior cabinet minister’s wife at the time.

He pushed through progressive legislation – including the Family Law Act that introduced no-fault divorce. And then, on 11 November – Remembrance Day – the governor general, John Kerr, removed the prime minister, against attorney general Enderby’s advice.
Kep Enderby 1975 Day of the dismissal: Enderby (centre) with Sir John Kerr at a Remembrance Day ceremony in Canberra in 1975

Kep was representing Whitlam at a Remembrance Day event in Canberra. Kerr was at his side and Dot was in the audience. The event ended and Kep knew something was afoot.

“Kerr didn’t shake hands. He just left me, walked away. It was strange, I knew him quite well. He’d been in mine and Dorothy’s home for dinner. But Lady Kerr was terribly cold. She turned to me and said, “Goodbye, Mr Attorney.”’

Hours later the government was finished. Enderby was called to The Lodge by Whitlam. He recalls Gough opening the door, munching on a meat pie, and proclaiming, “The bastard’s done a Game on us” – a reference to the NSW premier Jack Lang’s overthrow in 1932 by governor Game.

Kep lost his seat at the following election. The radical reform of the Whitlam years was over, and the Enderbys moved to Sydney.

After his appointment as a justice in the NSW supreme court, Kep held other positions, including heading the Voluntary Euthanasia Society of NSW for six years. Dot retired from formal work shortly after the move but she says their relationship has “always been a partnership”.

You get the feeling that it’s the threat of this partnership breaking down, rather than a blinded commitment to political libertarianism, which really explains their decision to euthanise eventually.

He has arthritis and peripheral neuropathy. The doctors tell him it will only get worse. He doesn’t want her to hear, but says it anyway: “In recent times I have become more and more demanding of having Dot do things for me. I can’t even put these trousers on sometimes.

“I had this bout of diarrhoea, which lasted about four weeks. I couldn’t run to the toilet fast enough. It was shitting all over the floor and Dot would have to clean it up. This sounds like finding an excuse … to commit suicide, but the longer I live, the more of a burden I am to Dot.”

She frowns dismissively. “It’s bearable at the moment,” she says, but later she tells me the pain in her back is so crippling that sometimes that she considers taking the Nembutal out of the blue too.

They fondly recall their time in Balmain, sailing yachts together; flying light aircraft; they learned Esperanto – the global auxiliary language that Kep says embodies his beliefs as an internationalist. The most painful loss for him, the one he keeps coming back to in our conversation, is the fact that he can only read for an hour a day now. “I’ve been a great reader … But now my eyes get sore.”

It has been a charmed, full life – foiled, to an extent, by old age.

The ethical discussion of voluntary euthanasia is not likely to cease in the foreseeable future. The Enderbys’ case brings up many questions. Could people not as empowered as this couple come to a decision about euthanasia rationally? Would the legal proliferation of drugs such as Nembutal allow those without terminal illness easier access to suicide? Too easy, perhaps?

Stella Young, a disability advocate and editor of the ABC’s disability discussion site Ramp Up, is concerned that framing the euthanasia debate around issues of individual liberty undervalues the lives of those with disability and illness.

“As a disabled person, I'm concerned about giving even greater control of our lives to the medical profession,” she says. “The way we view disability as a society has a lot to do with the deficit approach taken by doctors.

“No matter how hard we dispute it, our lives are seen as less valuable than the lives of non-disabled people.

“I don't want to see a situation where already vulnerable people who are living without the supports they need feel pressure to solve this problem by requesting death.”

As I leave I ask Dot what she’d do if Kep went first. They’re obviously still deeply in love, surely she’d be heartbroken?

“I’d cope. I did for the first 30 years of my life.” It’s a rational, lucid response based on mutual respect and understanding. It might also be seen as compelling argument.

Philip Nitschke: where to next for euthanasia advocates - 22Oct13


Philip Nitschke: where to next for euthanasia advocates


Philip Nitschke
Oct 22, 2013

Tasmania’s lower house has defeated a measure that would allow voluntary euthanasia, but Exit International director Dr Philip Nitschke says the very sick are finding their own ways to die, regardless of the law.

It seems it doesn’t matter how conservative a bill on voluntary euthanasia is, or how many safeguards are put in place. There will always be more politicians without the necessary courage than with; more who would rather see the status quo in the area of end-of-life choices maintained.

This is what happened last week in Tasmania. Despite Premier Lara Giddings’ best intentions, the Voluntary Assisted Dying Bill, which would have legalised euthanasia in some circumstances in Tasmania, was defeated in the state’s lower house by two votes.

The good citizens of the “state most likely” have been dudded again by their representatives. And I say “state most likely” as, for the first time since Darwin in 1995, we had the premier, the leader of a major party, pushing legislative change. But even this wasn’t enough.

To me, the only truly thing remarkable about this 17th attempt to change state laws in Australia is that Tasmania’s Liberal Party MPs voted as a bloc. Not one of them supported the bill, co-sponsored by Giddings and Greens leader Nick McKim bill, despite being given a conscience vote to do so.

For an issue that normally crosses party political lines, this was a first and one that bodes poorly for the future. Although it is inevitable that voluntary euthanasia laws will be passed one day, you’d be a fool to put your faith in this happening soon. And many elderly Australians just don’t have the time to wait.

So here we are, Australia back in the Dark Ages. I’m embarrassed that whereas once we led the world on this cutting-edge social issue, today we have to look to other countries to show what responsible legislation can achieve.

As I’ve said countless times in the media, the sky doesn’t fall in from changing the law. It didn’t in Switzerland. There are still no clouds of doom in any of the four US states (Oregon, Washington, Montana and Vermont) where assisted suicide is now lawful. And life as we know it hasn’t stopped in the Netherlands either, or in Belgium, in those place where the populace is concerned with living every day to the full, and the sick have the assurance of an out when modern medicine has nothing more to offer.

So where to for Australians?

In recent weeks there’s been more disappointment on this issue with the closure of the Silk Road; yes, that illegal, anonymous internet marketplace where illicit drugs have been available. Despite the bollocking that Silk Road has received in some media, as a resource it was invaluable; its products could be purchased from a peer-reviewed source, not from some dealer on the street corner whose quality assurance guarantees make a mockery of Australian consumer law. In this respect, euthanasia drug Nembutal is the same as all other illegal drugs. If your Nembutal has been cut with baby powder, you’d want to know about it. After all, you’re only going to die once, and you don’t want to botch it. This, surely, is harm minimisation at its best?

And this was what elderly folk of the Western world are cottoning onto. They break the law, get the drugs themselves, test them, lock them away and pray to Buddha, God or Allah that they’ll never need to use them. But they feel they can rest assured that they have their insurance plan in place if things in the future “turn bad”.

With no law reform on the immediate horizon, this is what some of the elderly and the seriously ill will continue to do — those who come in growing numbers to my workshops are increasingly jaded by a political process incapable of reflecting the 80% community support for voluntary euthanasia. They are finding that solutions are available. Not only are powdered Nembutal from China or liquid Nembutal from South America available, but access is becoming easier, despite an increase in Customs’ interceptions.

Exit International has a laboratory program that enables the testing of these imported drugs. In the 50-plus chemical assays conducted to date, only one has revealed sub-standard purity results. And that was from a sample of dubious origin to start with.

For those lucky enough to have gotten their drugs into the country, the question that has now emerged is why bother changing the law at all? The horse has bolted, leaving the stable door swinging. The oldies are doing it for themselves.

Best of all, they say, they didn’t have to go grovelling to a bunch of medicos seeking permission.

In 1996 in Darwin, the first man in the world to get a legal, lethal, voluntary injection using the Rights of the Terminally Ill Act was Bob Dent. While Bob always said he was in the “right place at the right time” he had nothing but disdain for the mandatory psychiatric sanity test, just so he could die. It would have been a joke had the stakes had not been so high.

When you think that the Tasmanian politicians couldn’t even come at multiple doctors, psychiatric testing, cooling-off periods and age and residential restrictions, I can’t help but think why bother. It could be said the future has moved beyond law reform.


Your dying wish - 19Oct13


Your dying wish 


By Philip Adams
Oct 19, 2013

IN 2007, John Howard and Phil Ruddock were determined to ban a book - the first Australian book to be banned in this country for decades.

It wasn't porn, or a naughty Norman Lindsay novel (his Redheap had been banned in 1930 and remained so until 1958). The seditious tome was Philip Nitschke's The Peaceful Pill Handbook, concerning voluntary euthanasia. The government already had a new law, the Criminal Code Amendment (Suicide Related Material Offences) Act, that made it a crime to use email, the internet, fax or phone to discuss the practical aspects of ending one's life. Now they wanted to ban an old-fashioned print guide, too.

As part of Nitschke's campaign to oppose what might be described as overkill, he organised a dinner for supporters at the National Museum, and I flew down to MC it. The audience was the oldest I'd ever had. And, strangely, the happiest.

There was nothing morbid about the evening, nothing self-pitying. We had a great night: it was a celebration of what they saw as their inalienable right to seek assistance in ending their life, if that was their decision.

The so-called slippery slope isn't that slippery, in fact. Not everyone in the voluntary euthanasia movement chooses assisted suicide. At the end many cling to life despite everything.

While we have no say in our conception or birth, millions of Australians believe that the final curtain is their business - that no religion or government is entitled to extend an intolerable life sentence. At the same time, those of us who see Nitschke as a heroic crusader for dying with dignity do not want to make it compulsory. And we recognise the ethical dilemmas; even gentle palliative care that hastens death is seen by some doctors and nurses as crossing the line. Others go further, at considerable legal risk.

Mercy killings - for example, when a husband helps a beloved wife to die - are viewed with sympathy in many courts. But there are other reasons, non-medical, for opting out. The surviving partner who doesn't want to live on alone; the quadriplegic who's had enough; the 90-year-old who can't see the point of lingering.

They won't be helped by any proposed legislation. Nor can someone with dementia provide an informed decision. Even Switzerland, one of the countries with progressive policies, requires a patient to drink a life-ending draught themselves. So much for that slippery slope.

Last month, launching Nitschke's latest book, Damned if I Do, I realised how little has changed here. (Even some states in the US, with their all-consuming religiosity, have moved ahead; the laws in Oregon, for example, are impressive.) It is not a Left-Right issue. The conservative Northern Territory leader Marshall Perron had right-to-die legislation passed in 1995 immediately provoking massive retaliation by Howard, who allowed Kevin Andrews' Euthanasia Laws Bill of 1996 (which overruled the NT) to be debated, confident he had the numbers. Not in the community but in the parliament, where the "no" side had the backing of powerful religious forces. The "yes" side failed to unite. But what if a conscience vote were held in the federal or state parliaments today? One that reflected community views? A victory for "yes" would seem assured. It's the same with drug laws, where, it seems to me, the public is way ahead of the policy makers. Sadly, politicians are afraid of speaking out.

We have a profound fear of death. It's not the most popular subject. We avert our gaze from it, preferring to have it denied by religion, defied by cosmetic surgery and delayed by medical science. All civilisation derives from our awareness of mortality. It's time for the community to demand laws on voluntary euthanasia - so that it becomes a human right.


Euthanasia advocate rues Silk Road shutdown - 07Oct13


Euthanasia advocate rues Silk Road shutdown


Prominent Australian right-to-die campaigner Philip Nitschke says the shutdown of black market website Silk Road will have a devastating impact on people who use it to obtain euthanasia drugs.

Last week US authorities busted the online bazaar for drugs, arresting the suspected mastermind Ross William Ulbricht, also known as "Dread Pirate Roberts", in San Francisco. His attorney has denied the charges.

Nitschke, the head of Exit International who has campaigned on euthanasia issues for more than a decade, said a lot of people used the marketplace to source reliable quantities of the premier end-of-life drug Nembutal.

Information about how to purchase the drug on Silk Road was contained within The Peaceful Pill Handbook, which is published by Exit International and banned in Australia, but which is available online as an e-book. The information on obtaining the drug through Silk Road would now be removed and replaced with a screen grab of the FBI take down notice which now appears on the website, Dr Nitschke said.

"The Silk Road information has been in there most of this year . . . It's become quite important to people," Dr Nitschke said, adding that he was aware of at least 20 people who bought Nembutal through the site.

"Our elderly members appreciated the comfort that came from knowing that their transactions were private," he said.



Nitschke rues Silk Road closure - 04Oct13


Nitschke rues Silk Road closure


The closure by US authorities of the black market Silk Road website will have a devastating effect on some elderly Australians, says euthanasia advocate Philip Nitschke.

They were using the site to source reliable quantities of the "premier" end-of-life drug Nembutal, Dr Nitschke, director of Exit International, said on Friday.

US Federal agents this week shut down the site which they said was a black market for drugs, hitmen and hacker tools and arrested the suspected owner.

But Dr Nitschke said the site had been welcomed by elderly Australians desperate to obtain an end-of-life safety net.

"Our elderly members appreciated the comfort that came from knowing that their transactions were private," he said in a statement.

"Although they knew that importing a small amount of Nembutal for possible use at some future date was illegal, many still felt it was a risk worth taking.

"The removal of the site will now mean that other less secure avenues will be pursued."

The site closure will be one topic discussed at an Exit International euthanasia workshop to be held in Adelaide on Saturday.


Euthanasia woman's complicated exit - 2Oct13


Euthanasia woman's complicated exit


Byron Kaye
Oct 02 - 2013

EUTHANASIA advocate Dr Philip Nitschke has defended his cause after an ill woman’s attempt to end her life was fraught with complications, suggesting she may have departed from recommended procedures.

A harrowing report in Fairfax newspapers at the weekend recounted the story of NSW accountant and political activist Aina Ranke, who told reporters she planned to end her life on Thursday 19 September after being diagnosed with a degenerative neuromuscular condition that was stopping her speaking and swallowing and left her in constant agony.

According to the article, she took pentobarbital (Nembutal), which she had illegally imported, as planned at about midday on 19 September while her home-care assistant was away. The assistant would have been obliged to call an ambulance had she been present.

However, the assistant returned at 3pm, earlier than expected, and found Ms Ranke unconscious but alive and called an ambulance. She was rushed to hospital, where doctors were reluctant to turn off the respirator for fear of assisting a suicide and breaking the law.

The following Monday a brain scan showed Ms Ranke had no brain function and doctors switched the machine off. She died almost five days after she took the drug, in the early hours of Tuesday 24 September.

In a statement to MO, Dr Nitschke said the report had worried members of his Exit International organisation – of which Ms Ranke had been a member – who were concerned the pentobarbital was faulty.

Dr Nitschke said there was nothing wrong with the drug, which the woman had imported from Peru, and that she was in frequent contact with Exit International about how she should end her life. Exit had given her advice, including “that it was very important to ensure that she was not disturbed for a number of hours”.

“The mystery is why she chose to abandon the night time as the recommended time to take the drug and moved it to midday with the outcome that she was discovered shortly before death,” Dr Nitschke said.

“It was clear from the very early stage that the resuscitation was a disaster and the removing of life support was going to be an inevitable final step.”


Nitschke hails PM on right to die - 28Sep13

Nitschke hails PM on right to die


Rachel Baxendale
Sep 28 - 2013

EUTHANASIA campaigner Philip Nitschke is "heartened" to see Tony Abbott engaging with the issue in a pragmatic manner, but there is "a long way to go".

The Prime Minister told Fairfax Radio's Neil Mitchell yesterday issues surrounding euthanasia were "best left to the discretion of doctors and patients". Asked about the Tasmanian parliament's possible introduction of voluntary euthanasia, Mr Abbott said he did not support euthanasia, but "Tasmania is entitled to do what Tasmania thinks best".

"There's no reason why doctors can't administer pain relief and know that sometimes if you administer pain relief you do have the, I suppose, the unintended consequence of shortening life, but there's a world of difference between giving pain relief to someone who is dying and actually killing someone who'd otherwise be alive," he said.

But Mr Abbott agreed that pain relief was often given with the intention of speeding death. "Quite possibly you're right, Neil, and when was the last time any doctor or anyone was prosecuted for something like that? I think the situation that we've got at the moment is a perfectly acceptable one," he said.

Dr Nitschke said Mr Abbott's decision not to attempt to intervene in Tasmania was "comforting". "It is interesting that he seems to be giving tacit endorsement to the double-effect principle -- that the patient might die after being given pain relief, and that's OK as long as the doctor didn't intend to kill the patient," Dr Nitschke said.

Australian Christian Lobby managing director Lyle Shelton said Mr Abbott was right to distinguish between doctors administering pain relief which may shorten life, and euthanasia. "This is not euthanasia because there is no intention to kill -- it's firstly focused on the comfort, symptom management and pain relief of the patient," Mr Shelton said.


Nitschke says over-50s should be able to end it - 27Sep13


Nitschke says over-50s should be able to end it


Clayton Bennet
Sep 27 - 2013

EUTHANASIA advocate Philip Nitschke says anyone over the age of 50 should be able to take their life.

"My position has shifted and I believe anyone over a certain age who is of sound mind should have access to the best means of being able to end their lives," Dr Nitschke said in Darwin last night. But he denied that he was condoning suicide.

"I hope people will have a read of the book and see why I think this makes sense and then they can reject the arguments but I think a healthier society is where everyone has this option," he said.

The former Territorian was at Darwin's NT Library to launch his new autobiography Damned If I Do.

Dr Nitschke's biggest bombshell of the evening was that he had an affair with a Darwin journalist.

He would not divulge who he was referring to.

Dr Nitschke said the NT helped shape the man he is today - from his time living remote with the land rights movement to his time in the Top End as a park ranger.

"I have spent the best part of my life here, my home is still here, I come back when I can," he said.

Despite the NT's 1995 euthanasia legislation being overturned by the Federal Government, Dr Nitschke said he thought it would again be made legal.


Euthanasia Activist Phillip Nitschke Pushes Killing Prisoners Via Euthanasia - 21Sep13


Euthanasia Activist Phillip Nitschke Pushes Killing Prisoners Via Euthanasia


Wesley J. Smith
Sep 16 - 2013

A commentary in the Washington Square News, riffing off of the suicide of Ariel Castro, argues that prisons should implement euthanasia for people sentenced to life in prison.

From the piece by Nikolas Reda-Castelao:

Castro made a plea bargain, surrendering his property and his possessions, to opt out of the death penalty, but it seems he only did so just to take his own life a month later. The ACLU does many good things for prison reform, but I find myself — knowing full well how contentious the argument of suicide is — against the notion that a prison should protect their inmates from killing themselves in situations where they have no hope for release. If they lose all control of their lives, can it be said that they are still living?

Note the comment by the death-on-demand Australian assisted suicide fanatic, Phillip Nitschke:

Fully agree with this. Incarceration without parole is state sanctioned torture and the state has the obligation to offer the option of a peaceful reliable death. Not a popular view when suggested (in Australia)!

This isn’t the first time that assisted suicide/euthanasia has been floated to relieve lifers of their burden–usually by opponents of the death penalty as “cruel and unusual punishment.”


Between life and death 31Aug13


Between life and death

Margaret Simons
Aug 30 - 2013


Australia's foremost pro-euthanasia campaigner talks about his personal exit plan and why he regularly thinks he's dying.

In his recent autobiography, Philip Nitschke makes an astonishingly frank disclosure. He says that immediately after helping people to kill themselves back in the mid-1990s, he had an overpowering need for sex.

Nitschke was the first doctor to legally administer a lethal injection under the short-lived Rights of the Terminally Ill Act of the Northern Territory in 1996, which was overturned by the Howard government five months after it came into force. He was involved in the deaths of four people. He invented the "Deliverance Machine" - a laptop linked to a syringe - which delivered a fatal injection after the terminally ill had worked through a series of screens asking questions about whether they wanted to die. Since then, he has led Exit International, which provides people with information on how to peacefully end their lives.

In the first set of page proofs of Damned If I Do sent out by Melbourne University Press, Nitschke was at his most candid. "After performing my role in those deaths, I had an urgent and pressing need for sex," he wrote. He was having an affair with a journalist and the sex, he says, was "frantic and sometimes desperate". But in a later set of proofs, the section is toned down. Sex has become a "desperate craving for intimacy". The meaning is still clear, and shocking, as much because of the bravery in the disclosure as the content. Quite simply, Philip Nitschke is an honest man. He has no guile.

Speaking in the comfortable North Adelaide townhouse he shares with his partner of 12 years, Fiona Stewart, Nitschke says the partners of the dead sometimes have the same feelings. Why be so frank when it will doubtless be used against him? "I haven't seen anyone else even mention it, and I thought it was worth mentioning."

Leaving the houses in which he had presided over a death, he says he felt sadness and a heavy sense of responsibility. Then he would look into the sunlight. "There was this immense feeling of being alive. And then taking a deep breath ... and almost immediately, this sexual urge. It was a way I could demonstrate to myself that I was alive. It wasn't me that was dead."

Nitschke's honesty can translate into a lack of tact. "He has burnt every other pro-euthanasia campaigner in the country," says one long-term associate, who still counts Nitschke as a friend. In the past he has been described as unshaven and slovenly - and always prickly, always an activist.


Dr. ‘Death’ and New Zealand’s Chief Coroner at Loggerheads - 31Aug13

 Dr. ‘Death’ and New Zealand’s Chief Coroner at Loggerheads

Aug 31 - 2013


Commenting on new statistics released on August 26th. that showed increasing rates of suicide in women and the elderly, the Chief Coroner, Judge Neil MacLean expressed concern about the high rate of suicide in people aged in their 80s and beyond. The essence of his remarks was that the whole community needed to pull together to reduce the number of preventable deaths by suicide. “We should be looking out for each other; you should be helping your neighbour”, he said. He noted that a number of helping agencies were active in the community; but, he said, “It is very hard to determine which initiatives, if any, (are) having an impact on the rate of suicide.” (N.Z. Herald August 27th 2013.)

Australian based Dr. Philip Nitschke, Director of Exit International, an organisation dedicated to legalising euthanasia, is not so uncertain. Commenting on the Coroner’s remarks on Exit’s blog, he advises New Zealanders not to be alarmed by the trend to increasing suicides in older people, which he blames on a combination of increasing age and ill health. He believes that the rate of suicide is actually much higher than official statistics reveal because many “go out of their way to make death look natural.” He takes credit for his organisation being a source of supplies of MaxDog nitrogen to elderly New Zealanders with which to terminate their lives in such a way as to make the cause of death “impossible to determine”. He does not reveal how the empty gas cylinder is spirited away from the site if the individual is acting alone. Dr. Nitschke also takes credit for assisting potential suicide patients to source and import Nembutal from China.

Professor Emeritus David Richmond, a spokesperson for Euthanasia Free New Zealand, agreeing with Judge MacLean’s concerns, observed that by covering up the cause of death in people using its methods, it could be implied that Exit was deliberately attempting to hide a crime. “Furthermore”, he said, “under such circumstances, no-one could be certain whether the unfortunate event was a genuine suicide or whether it involved a relative killing an elderly person for personal gain. Given the high levels of elder abuse in New Zealand, such concerns are not fanciful.” He expressed concern that were MP Maryan Street’s End of Life Choices Bill currently in Parliament’s ballot system passed into law, if would pre-empt Exit International’s ‘un-neighbourly’ contribution to the suicide rate in New Zealand by making it possible for anyone aged 18 and over to be euthanased at public expense provided they were careful in the way they worded their application. No-one could prevent it without running afoul of legal penalties. “In that case, what basis would our community have to continue to be concerned about the suicide rate?” he asked. “The State would surely be seen to be favouring Dr. Nitschke’s triumphalistic attitude towards suicide rates to the neglect of the opinion of a responsible majority of its citizens who, like Judge MacLean, are deeply concerned about them.”

Euthanasia Free New Zealand is asking the authorities to look into the importation, by Exit, of devices intended to be used to kill people.


The cost of living when a dying wish is denied - 17Ago13


The cost of living when a dying wish is denied

By Philip Nitschke
Aug 17-2013

When a 74-year-old suggests euthanasia for the elderly is the solution to our country's economic woes, it is hard to know if she is serious. Yet in this paper, that is exactly what Moira Smythe of Forrest did in Saturday's letters page. Was she joking? Not entirely.

For as long as the community has been debating our right to die, there has been a parallel thread to the conversation that has hardly got a look in. Indeed, it is an issue so vexed that advocates have dared not mention its name. That theme is the significant (and escalating) economic cost of keeping the elderly and the serious ill alive against their wishes.

What I'm not talking about here is ''involuntary euthanasia'', as raised in jest by Mrs Smythe. Rather, I am daring to ask the question of what would happen, what could happen, if we reframed law reform on voluntary euthanasia in economic terms.

When I raised the issue of end-of-life funding in my first book Killing Me Softly in 2005, I noted the debate had barely begun. Almost a decade later and little has changed. We still have politicians like Kevin Andrews who believe it is God's duty to prolong life at all costs; even if it is not what the patient or nursing home resident might wish.

And we still have powerful sections in the medical profession who see death as a sign of professional failure. There are those who seem unable to grasp not all patients can, or should, be cured and that the frailty of old age cannot be reversed; irrespective of wonderful new drug regimes, or how effective this or that walking frame or incontinence pad is.

And then there are our parliaments, stocked by politicians who, in Gough Whitlam's words, cannot afford to be ''railed at from the pulpit at preselection time''.

Many might argue these stakeholder groups are yet come to terms with the moral imperatives of the right-to-die debate. As Anthony Albanese said during a debate as the Northern Territory's Rights of the Terminally Ill Act was overturned by Federal Parliament in March 1997: ''There is nothing moral about our exercising a free conscience vote as members of parliament and then voting to deny to others the right to exercise their conscience.''

Perhaps the focus of the debate needs to change tack? The Australian political scene has long been characterised by economics. Whether the issue is interest rates, the relative value of the Australia dollar or the Treasury's pre-election economic outlook, the tenor of public debate is all about value for money. Interestingly, though, this is not an argument that has been applied to end-of-life decision-making.

Over a decade ago, the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare estimated about 30 per cent of the health expenditure for people 65 years and over occurred in the last year of life.

A 2004 Canadian study of the cost of dying found 1.1 per cent of the population consumed 21.3 per cent of the healthcare budget. Of the ''oldest-old'' studied (those aged 85 years and over), 48 per cent of costs were for hospital care with 41 per cent being for long-term institutional care. According to the authors this ''high cost of dying'' stems from ''frail individuals with heavy needs for extended periods''. People like my own mother. Trapped in a nursing home, well beyond their - in her words - ''use-by date''.

In 2010, The Gruen Transfer ran a pitch segment on ''compulsory euthanasia at 80''. The Works ad agency from Sydney won the day with their convincing attempt at ''selling the unsellable''. While no one in the Voluntary Euthanasia Party is an economist, and no one is saying we should put people down against their will, we are suggesting it is a worthwhile debate to have - especially if hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of dollars in the health budget could be saved or redirected. How many rural nursing positions in Aboriginal communities would these savings create? How many more beds in emergency departments?

As with all voluntary euthanasia legislation, consent and stringent safeguards against abuse are implicit. When the Northern Territory became the first place in the world to legalise a patient's right to request a voluntary, lawful lethal injection in 1995, Australia showed the world what could be. In this economic climate, we can do the same again. Let's just call the spade a spade.

Dr Philip Nitschke is standing as a candidate for the VEP Party for the ACT Senate at the forthcoming election. His autobiography will be published by Melbourne University Publishing later this month.

Nitschke hits out at NZ coroner’s ‘nonsensical’ joint suicide comments - 25Jun13


Nitschke hits out at NZ coroner’s ‘nonsensical’ joint suicide comments

June 25, 2013


CONTROVERSIAL euthanasia campaigner Dr Philip Nitschke has hit out at a New Zealand coroner for his "quaint" and "nonsensical" comments on the joint suicide of a Kiwi couple.

Adrian Webster, 71, and his wife Marei, 76, died in a suicide pact and were discovered lying dead on a bed at their Paekakariki home north of Wellington last year.

Local body politician Webster had been suffering from terminal stomach cancer, and his wife, who had lost two other partners to disease, did not want to live without him.

Wellington coroner Garry Evans this week opted to reveal some details of their deaths to quell "speculation, rumour and suspicion" around the case.

However, Dr Nitschke said the coroner's comments were quaint, nonsensical and inconsistent, and would only fuel more speculation on exactly how the pair died.

He said the Websters were members of his organisation Exit International, which helps people safely organise their own suicides.

"They were open about how they intended to end their lives when the effects of Adrian's stomach cancer became intolerable," said Dr Nitschke.

He challenged the coroner to publish details of how the Websters achieved their "peaceful death" to inform New Zealanders of their options.

New Zealand coroners, as a rule, suppress the method of death in suicide cases.

He also criticised what he called the New Zealand government's "continuous refusal... to address the issue of voluntary euthanasia and make legal options for a peaceful death available".

Dr Nitschke has advocated the use of nitrogen-based products and pentobarbital so people may commit suicide unassisted, as well as travel to a Swiss clinic where assisted suicide can be carried out legally.