Peaceful Pill Blog
July 25, 2021
Suicide Related Materials Offences Act
Exit International has long been the subject of political persecution by multiple governments in Australia. Nowhere is this more obvious than with the Suicide Related Materials Offences Act (Australia) amendment to the Australian Criminal Code.
In short, this infamous 2006 Australian law prevents the use of the phone, email, fax and the Internet to discuss one’s end of life choices.
Why does this matter?
Well, since the states of Australia began to pass Assisted Dying laws (Victoria in 2017, West Australia in 2019, Tasmania in 2021), the Act has received a new breath of life; not as an Act that makes life in Australia better in any way, but a law that prevents doctors discussing assisted dying with their patients on the telephone, over the Internet, email or by fax.
It is this prohibition on discussing end of life choices within the context of Australia’s assisted dying laws that is now garnering attention and concern.
The Suicide Related Materials Offences Act was signed into law in July 2005 and implemented in January 2006.
How did this strange law come to be?
While largely forgotten in the annals of Australian political history, conservative catholic politician Chris Ellison left his bigoted footprint all over Australian politics.
It was not enough for this anti-abortionist, anti-pro choice senator to tell then Greens Leader, Bob Brown, that he was a ‘disgrace’ during the Senate debate on the Kevin Andrews Act (the Euthanasia Laws Act led to the overturning of the Northern Territory’s Rights of the Terminally Ill Act in March 1997).
On becoming Custom’s Minister, Ellison set about to ban the importation into Australia of information (eg. books) about how one may take one’s own life peacefully and reliably and at a time of one’s choosing.
It was Chris Ellison who pushed through a 2001 amendment to the Australian Customs Act (1901) which causes print editions of the Peaceful Pill Handbook to be seized by Australian Border Force today (yes in 2021)!
The Death of Nancy Crick
However, it was not in direct relation to the Peaceful Pill eHandbook that Ellison continued his anti-free speech crusade to stop people talking on the phone or sending emails, or looking at websites etc.
The impetus for that was the death of ‘Gold Coast grandmother’, Nancy Crick.
In the early 2000s, Nancy became an Australian household name. The reason? Suffering from bowel cancer, she wanted to die at home surrounded by her friends and family. She wanted to test the law to see if it was illegal to have anyone with you when you died at home.
Nancy said she got her Nembutal over the Internet. She would later die peacefully at home surrounded by 21 friends and family members.
For Chris Ellison, Nancy’s Crick’s civil disobedience was a red rag to a bull.
What followed was the Ellison Suicide Related Materials Offences Act (Australia).
Chris Ellison & the Suicide Related Materials Offences Act
In Killing Me Softly: Voluntary Euthanasia & the Road to the Peaceful Pill (Penguin, 2005), authors Philip Nitschke & Fiona Stewart wrote of the backstory to the Suicide Related Materials Offences Act:
In early 2003, Federal Justice Minister Chris Ellison quietly announced a new offensive in a press release that was boxed to the parliamentary press gallery late one Friday afternoon. His release stated that using the Internet for right-to-die information would soon be illegal in Australia. Ellison sought to justify his move by citing two ‘expert studies’. One of these was no study at all. Rather, it was a letter to the editor from the American Journal of Psychiatry that had no status and next-to-no relevance to the use of the Internet by Exit and its members (it concerned mentally ill teenagers on the other side of the world, in an obscure suicide chat room, talking about the gory details of violent deaths).
As one of many politicians in the Howard Government who is driven more by God than by the wishes of his electorate, Ellison’s fiddling of the evidence is not surprising. After all, this is a government who, in Mark Latham’s words, has its social policies ‘determined by Rome’ and for whom a courting of the Catholic vote is a major preoccupation. (Latham is hardly one to throw stones, however, with his recent appointment of one of the Catholic ringleaders in the ‘Euthanasia No’ campaign – Tony Burke – to ALP’s front bench, not to mention fundamentalist Christian Midnight Oil frontman Peter Garrett to the back.)
Ellison’s basic message was that changes would be made to laws controlling the Internet and little justification was needed.
Prior to the Parliamentary debate of the Bill, the Senate Constitutional and Legal Committee held an inquiry.
Exit was among those to appear.
In Exit’s submission it was argued:
1. A WELL INFORMED ELDERLY POPULATION MAKES FOR HEALTHY PEOPLE
Recent research, by Exit researchers Dr Wendy Gunthorpe and Dr Fiona Stewart (soon to be published in the medical literature) clearly establishes that access to accurate information on end-of-life options is important contributor to the individuals perception of their well being. Put simply once people know their options, they stop worrying and live longer. Well, healthy people is a goal of EXIT International.
To advance this goal, EXIT runs workshops in all Australian states and territories and in some overseas locations. These are consistently booked out ahead of time. To date over 2000 people have attended Exit workshops in Australian and New Zealand. The operation of these workshops is made possible by extensive use of the Internet.
Although there is no general publication of any Exit material, our members are contacted, venues organised and briefing materials made available to our members by way of the Internet. Enactment of the proposed legislation will seriously restrict our ability to run these programs and as a consequence will directly and adversely effect the good health and well being of a growing number of the elderly who benefit from this program.
2. EXCEEDING PARLIAMENT’S AUTHORITY
On the issue of exceeding the Parliament of Australia’s authority, I would draw attention of the Senate to Part V the Constitution and the Legislative powers of the Parliament. This states that the power is given to Parliament “to make laws for the peace, order and good government of Australia”.
The proposed Bill goes much further than this, and in its current form will restrict and control the flow of information to many outside of the jurisdiction of the Commonwealth of Australia and will effect their lives and their well being.
For example, the provision of specific information by email to an elderly individual in New Zealand would be in breach of the proposed law. Such requests by email from overseas members of Exit are common. I have reproduced one such email request below:
I have had Multiple Sclerosis for 16 yrs, am now classed secondary progressive, and have the fear of losing my dignity and any quality of life, which I am faced with. I live in a Resthome in Oamaru at present where I see other MS sufferers bedridden, some being tube fed, unable to talk or swallow etc, totally incontinent, and I know I do not want to end up like that.
At some point I may want to end my life as peacefully as possible – and while I am still able to do it myself. Although this may be some years away, with this disease there is no reliable prognosis, so I feel I must be prepared now.
I am planning to shift back to my home town of Christchurch, where I might possibly be able to attend one of your workshops, if you’re planning to have any more there?
I realise that the proposed law in Australia might soon prohibit your doing this by email or phone. I am of course an Exit member. The proposed legislation will directly effect this person and many other non-Australians.
An Exit request to present workshop video material to the Senate was granted.
Dr Philip Nitschke MBBS PhD
Director, Exit International
Darwin, 19 August 2004
The South Australian Voluntary Euthanasia Society submitted:
This bill seeks to censor information on suicide related material. Exit International provides a range of information, including that of palliative care. It does not promote a particular method of committing suicide or intend the material to be used by another person to commit suicide. People have a right to information. To censor information on suicide related material it would be necessary to also preclude a carriage service from being used for the producing of books about self deliverance. People have a right to choose their reading material.
The Voluntary Euthanasia Society of Tasmania submitted:
We consider that these “suicide related material” amendments should be rejected outright because their greatest impact will be upon the poor elderly, frail and/ or incurably suffering people who are not familiar with the legal system. A carriage service they wrote is more than the Internet.
It includes phones, mail, radio, TV, interactive TV and satellite transmission. It would also apply to books and newspapers which all involve carriage services at some part of their production or distribution. None of the proponents of this particular legislation point out that it would criminalise material transmitted legally today in our newspapers, over the phones and by post, their only references are to the Internet.
The submission of Electronic Frontiers Australia went straight to the point:
The proposed offence appears to have the primary purpose of silencing the speech of one particular high profile Australian resident, but only in relation to use of the Internet.
All of these submissions fell on deaf ears as the Suicide Related Materials Offences Act (Australia) was passed by the John Howard-controlled Parliament with the full support of the Australian Labor Party. Only the Australian Greens and the Australian Democrats voted against the legislation.
Then West Australian Democrats Senator, Brian Grieg, summed the situation up when he said in his speech against the passing of the Bill:
This Bill is absurd! It represents another triumph by the Religious Right, which continues to press the Government on conservative and symbolic reforms that have little or no impact on reality. And for this reason it is a pyrrhic victory for reactionary forces (sic).
This Bill illustrates the way in which the Coalition continues to politically gesture to the more extreme church groups, and how Labor has not learnt it’s lesson in trying to copy the Government in this regard, and to try and corral the same voting base.
This Bill is victory of style over substance, of superstition over reason, and of ignorance over education.
This Bill is a fool’s illusion, because it cannot and does not achieve the outcome it claims to provide for.
This Bill is not about suicide. It does not address the causes of suicide or even pretend to address them.
At its heart, this Bill is nothing less that the Religious Right attempting to shut down and censor Voluntary Euthanasia (VE), support groups and VE
discussion in the broader community.
We can see this clearly, simply by looking at the key individuals and groups which made submissions to this Bill, and which pushed for its introduction in the first place. They are the usual subjects. They are a who’s who of the Religious Right in Australia. And in spite of the disingenuous secular names of their organisations, they are fundamentally religious organisations.
And their push for this Bill is all about laundering their religious belief into a secular argument, hiding church from state, and translating their personal religious views into public policy and then imposing this on all citizens.
[This Bill] represents yet another push for theocracy over democracy.
In an article by Charles Corke in The Conversation in June 2021, the problems which the Suicide Related Materials Offences Act (Australia) is causing Australian doctors and patients in regard to assisted dying was well outlined.
While states such as Queensland are requesting of the Federal Governmnent that their doctors be exempted from this section of the Crimes Act (once their assisted dying legislation comes to pass), the pro-Christian Morrison-led government shows little inclination to move.
It would seem, not suprisingly, that Liberal Party Godfather Chris Ellison’s legacy will not be so easily dismissed.
Where is Chris Ellison now?
Chris Ellison is Chancellor of Notre Dame University of Australia. Notre Dame is a private, catholic university.
*See also Chris Ellison’s response to Dennis Shanahan’s ‘Mail Order Suicide Kit’ article in The Australian, 20 August 2001.
July 4, 2021
Celebrating 25 Years since the Rights of the Terminally Ill Act
We are celebrating 25 Years since the Rights of the Terminally Ill Act 1 July 2021, because it was 25 years since the Northern Territory of Australia became the first place in the world to implement a voluntary euthanasia law, the Rights of the Terminally Ill Act.
The law was enacted on 1 July 1995 and implemented 12 months later on 1 July 1996. In celebrating 25 years since the Rights of the Terminally Ill Act, the law was first used by Philip Nitschke on 22 September that same year by Darwin man, Bob Dent.
Euthanasia Law Timelines
While the US state of Oregon passed the Death with Dignity Act in 1994, it was under an injunction and prevented from use until mid 1997.
The Netherlands and Belgium both passed their end of life laws in 2002.
Since the Northern Territory’s Rights of the Terminally Ill Act, similar medical models have spread around the world. These other laws have proven more robust than the NT’s short-lived law.
The Rights of the Terminally Ill act only lasted 9 months because a conservative, catholic MP from Victoria, Kevin Andrews, used a loophole in the Australian Constitution to overturn it by conscience vote in the Australian Federal Parliament.
Section 122 of the Australian Constitution allows the Federal Parliament to make laws for the ‘territories’ (but not the states) of Australia.
Andrews connived to use this section to prevent the Northern Territory, the Australian Capital Territory and the various other small territories (eg. Norfolk Island) from making laws on voluntary euthanasia.
These territories can make laws on all other things, but not on end of life choices.
Fast-forward 25 years and on 1 July 2021, the state of West Australia became the 2nd Australian state to implement a right to die law.
The states of Tasmania and South Australia have been passed right to die laws. These are due to be implemented in the coming years.
All laws model the Northern Territory’s
All other Australian laws – both current and proposed – require a number of doctors to approve and grant a patient’s request for help at the end of life.
None show any insight into how to do it better and more kindly.
Kevin Andrews once boasted that in overturning the Rights of the Terminally Ill Act he had set the movement back 20 years.
On this point he was right.
He not only set back the legislative agenda but in doing so, with the support of current senior politicians from both sides of Australian parliament (eg. Tony Burke on the labor side), he helped create a mindset that end of life laws are dangerous and patients are in need of protection (from themselves).
Exit argues that nothing could be further from the truth.
Trust the people. Trust the system. And don’t put unnecessary barriers in the way of people when they are at their most vulnerable.
Hello? Is anyone listening?
June 13, 2021
Holocaust Survivor Zsuzsi Yardley dies in Switzerland
Exit Life Member – Zsuzsi Yardley – died at Pegasos in Liestal Switzerland on 3 June 2021.
Shortly before her death Zsuzsi wrote:
It is more than fifty years ago that I joined a campaigning organisation for the right to make choices at the end of life, called Exit. Organisations change, their names change, my opinions remained, that it is a human right to make such choices while competent to do so.
At present I am a member of Exit International. Such choice has always have to be made with the proviso that no harm should be done to others, where I owe a duty of care, or could give emotional pain.
Once my partner of 34 years, Bill, died five years ago, and then my brother Edgar, there was nobody left close enough to me, whom I would be harming.
In the Autumn of 2019 I decided that my life was good and complete, I had no desire to prolong it and was then actively considering my own end of life choices.
Then I had a stroke, which made things more urgent and at the same time more difficult. It took me some time and a great deal of effort to reach a point where I was again able to act in this matter.
The choices are various do it yourself methods, which may, or may not result in achieving a reliable and peaceful death, or a trip to Switzerland for the same.
It seemed to me the better option to avoid putting friends and/or relations to the trouble to cope with the aftermath and so I applied in January of this year to travel to Switzerland.
It was far from easy to get accepted and to gather the necessary documentation, especially under COVID restrictions.
The time has come to let you know and to send this message with my thanks for your friendship and company over the years.
I wish you all the best for the future,
Lots of love,
Zsuzsi’s many friends replied in kind:
I know you asked for no replies, but you also clearly realised we might have to write for our own needs.
Thank you for telling us what you are doing and why. You are probably one of the most sincere and honest people I have known, so I wish you had reached a different conclusion from your analysis, but I have no doubt at all that you have reached a decision that you believe in and are at peace with.
You leave a huge hole in our lives. You probably underestimate how much we have valued knowing you.
I wholly support your decision but grieve for my loss.
I find it hard to reply to your email. I greatly respect your choice to make your own decision how and when to end your life. It is a choice that I agree with, but I know I do not have the courage to make it.
At the same time I feel very sad to be saying good-bye to you. I have so much enjoyed being in the reading group with you and have often wished I could have known you when we were both younger and pursuing our very different careers.
All I feel I can say now is that I hope all goes very easily for you, and I shall always have very fond memories of you.
And this is one of the benefits of being able to plan your time to leave, especially in the absence of serious illness. Everyone has the time to say good-bye. It may be easier to leave without regrets, even if not everyone will understand why you are leaving early.
Zsuzsi’s main reason behind her timing was that she had experienced a stroke and was afraid of another.
As a former Systems Control Engineer (in the oil, water and transportation industries – Zsuzsi supervised sections of the build of the channel tunnel), she was an extremely well-organised woman who analysed the pros and cons of life’s decisions.
As a survivor of the Holocaust, she said it was especially important that she was able to choose her end manner and date. This was the ultimate decision that was hers alone to make.
Zsuzsi spent her final days in Basel drinking prosecco, resting and wandering the neighbourhood close to her hotel.
When the opportunity arose to go a day earlier than planned, she jumped at the opportunity.
After a hearty final breakfast, Philip Nitschke drove with her to Liestal and was there with her until the very end.
Her death was, as all Nembutal deaths are, the most dignified and peaceful imaginable.
Zsuzsi has bequeathed film up to the last minutes of her life to Exit to use as they see fit.
This film will be included in next week’s Swiss Options update to the Peaceful Pill eHandbook.
Zsuzsi’s death does leave a hole in our lives, as remarkable seems a somewhat insufficient description of this person.
Her calmness prior to her death can only be taken as an indication of how absolutely sure she was that she was ready to go.
Just before she turned the infamous white wheel she remarked to a tearful Philip Nitschke that he should not be sad for her, that there was no place she would rather be.
If ever evidence were needed of the ‘good’ that can come as a result of a planned dignified death, then Zsuzsi Yardley is it.
Zsuzsi Yardley, 9 January 1940 – 3 June 2021
Zsuzsi described herself when younger as: a swimmer, skier, rambler ice dancer, general physical activity.
Prior to the covid lockdowns as a: theatre, concert and exhibition exhibition goer.
Prior to her stroke last year as: a gardener.
Since then she said she still exercised with videos and walking daily. ‘I am still driving’ she said.
How to summarise a life? Nigh on impossible.
April 25, 2021
Australia Border Force Seize Peaceful Pill Handbook
It is perhaps ironic that the very week that ABC TV screens Laura’s Choice documentary – a film that features the Peaceful Pill Handbook – that Australia Border Force Seize Peaceful Pill Handbook – copies that have been properly ordered from OS by seriously ill, older Australians.
This is now 2 editions of the book that were ordered by terminlly ill men (in Qld and Victoria) seized in the month of April!!
To readers outside of Australia, the censorship of books is unheard of. Indeed in many places (eg. the EU) it would constitute a breach of one’s human rights.
However despite its urban myth as relaxed, liberal kind of country, Australia has remarkably little in the way of laws that protect some quite basic human rights. While the Australian Constitution protects political expression and religious freedom it is eerily silent on free speech.
The Peaceful Pill Handbook (2007 edition) remains the only Australian book banned in Australia in the past 30+ years.
When the book was initially published, the censor awarded it an 18+ restriction which allowed it to be sold in plain brown wrapping and kept out of sight under the counter (the same as applies for heavy porn). Insert 🙄!
The Attorney General of the day was unhappy with this and so Philip Ruddock banded together with good ol’ Right to Life to challenge the 18+ rating, and succeeded in having the book awarded a RC (restricted classification), as in too dangerous to publish in Australia.
And so the Peaceful Pill Handbook is now an ‘objectionable’ publication in Australia.
The very fact that ‘Australia Border Force Seize Peaceful Pill Handbook’ shows the Australian Government as an absolute anachronism from the 1950s in taking on the role of deciding which books Australian adults can read.
It is the Australian Government – and no one else – that decides what is good for its citizenry!
It is little wonder that the Australian Prime Minister is now under attack for taking a Royal Australian Airforce jet to the Gold Coast in order to address the Australian Christian Churches National Conference this week.
Heritage Church tweeted that at this conference the PM said that Australia needs the church.
So when Australia Border Force seizes copies of the PPH, you don’t need to be a conspiracy theorist to see where the pressure is coming from. Do you?
The history of the banning of the 2007 edition of The Peaceful Pill Handbook can be found at the refusedclassification.com website.
An excellent, insightful, in depth discussion of censorship in Australia can be found in Lachean Humphry’s ‘Three Banned Books’ in the 2017 Summer edition of Overland.