The Euthanasia Laws Act, 1997, commonly known as the Andrews Bill, over-ruled an earlier act of the Northern Territory Government that permitted voluntary euthanasia.
It followed from a private member's bill moved by Kevin Andrews.
At the time the Liberal-National Coalition
government under Prime Minister John Howard was in power.
How was it undemocratic?
It was undemocratic in two ways:
- The people of the Northern Territory wanted the right to die with dignity and their parliament had given them that right.
The Andrews Bill over-ruled that law and took away that right from the people of the territory.
- The Euthanasia Laws Act contradicted the strongly held views and desires of the Australian people.
Roy Morgan polls show a steadily increasing level of support for euthanasia from 1946 to 1996, with majority support from 1955 onward.
This trend has continued in more recent years; opinion polls conducted over the years from 2007 to 2016 summarised in
The Conversation showed that support for voluntary euthanasia ranged from 66% to 85%.
How was it unethical?
-
Philosopher and ethicist John Stuart Mill wrote in his book On Liberty:
"The only part of the conduct of any one, for which [a citizen] is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign."
In other words, a person has an inalienable right to decide what to do with his (or her) own body and life, in so far as it only concerns himself. No-one has any right to force him to do other than he chooses.
The Andrews Bill denied this inalienable right.
-
Most people would agree that it would be unethical to keep an animal alive if it was in great pain and suffering from an incurable disease or an injury.
What is the point in prolonging life in that situation?
It amounts to cruelty and in many countries anybody keeping an animal alive in great pain could be prosecuted for mistreating the animal.
How is keeping people alive in pain when they would prefer an easy death any more ethical?
The animal cannot give informed consent for euthanasia, a human can.
-
The primary responsibility of a Parliament is to represent the views and wants of the people whom the parliamentarians represent; as mentioned above, the Australian people had clearly expressed their desire to have the right of deciding when and how they should die.
To make laws contrary to the desires of the people, without strong justification, is plainly unethical.
At the time of writing, February 2018, Kevin Andrews was still a member of the House of Representatives and was 'Father of the House'.
He had been a minister under the Howard and Abbott Governments, but he was only a back-bencher at the time of writing.
Related pages on this site...
Some thoughts on euthanasia and assisted suicide;
Suicide as a rational decision;
A page mainly dealing with the Howard Government;
In relation to religious interference with human rights.
Milestones in the development of human society; the realisation that humans can chose the time of their own deaths and the method for bringing it about is a milestone that has not yet been fully achieved.
Some thoughts on death
I have also written on
ethical government and
ethics in general.