While it is obviously distressing for his victims, there is nothing surprising about the secrecy that surrounded the euthanasia death of convicted pedophile, Daniel Hume. At the time of his death, Hume was only seven years into a 30-year sentence for his crimes.
The fact that neither Hume’s victims, his prison officers, NSW Corrections Minister Anoulack Chanthivong nor Health Minister Ryan Park were advised about – much less consulted on – Hume’s request for euthanasia is not a flaw in the process; it’s the way the system was set up to operate from the very beginning.
There is no obligation on doctors or other health authorities to notify family members, even the next of kin, of a patient’s request for euthanasia or assisted suicide, with some family members in NSW only learning about it after a patient had died.
There is also no obligation to let a patient’s regular, treating physician know, meaning that the two doctors approving a patient’s euthanasia request is not told of any relevant history – medical or otherwise – that might impact their decision to authorise the request. The result is that the regular, treating physician has no ability to intervene even if they think something might be awry.
The secrecy is not a bug; it’s a feature, pitched by advocates as respect for patient privacy but really designed to ensure the system isn’t question. And it’s having devastating effects on loved ones kept out of the loop until it is too late.
But even if those most concerned were notified, there would be nothing they could do to challenge the decision of doctor and patient.
Media reports rightly pointed out that no one in prison system is consulted on a prisoner’s euthanasia request, and Corrective Services are excluded from having any say in the assessment of inmates.
This is because the euthanasia process – once commenced – has been designed to be pretty much unchallengeable.
While there is technically a right of appeal of decisions to the Supreme Court, the grounds are very limited, with decisions to approve euthanasia only capable of challenge if there is a question around whether a patient is living in NSW, or whether they are well and truly acting voluntarily. No other grounds of appealing a decision are possible.
Again, this is a feature, not a bug, with a patient’s autonomy being prized above all things, and even a doctor’s decision that a person has a terminal illness that will cause their death within the required six months not able to be reviewed.
It’s not like this wasn’t known at the time. An amendment that would have allowed the Supreme Court to review all aspects of the euthanasia process was submitted by Alister Henskens during the debate, but it wasn’t even voted on.
Part of the reason is because the legislation was rammed through parliament to ensure the vote happened before the election year started, because even the most avid of euthanasia supporting MPs don’t want blood on their hands while asking for your vote.
Instead, the major parties conspired to allow extra time for debate, with MPs forced to sit through late night and early morning sittings until all the amendments had been considered. But making MPs endure continuous hours of debate on amendments that they could not possibly have had the headspace to carefully consider was always going to a problem. Is it any wonder that there are flaws in the system?
MPs were told to ignore anyone warning about gaps in the law and unintended consequences. They were told these were “hostile” amendments proposed by churches and pro-life groups opposed to individual choice and were assured that there were sufficient safeguards to protect any abuses.
And yet, here we are, with many euthanasia supporters realising that perhaps this wasn’t thought through.
It’s not as if Hume’s case is the first euthanasia death that should not have occurred; he is just the only one we get to hear about. The carefully constructed shroud of secrecy that usually covers the euthanasia process will ensure we don’t know about the rest.
With the benefit of hindsight and without the pressure to get the substantive legislation passed, the government and the opposition now have the opportunity to join together and have a bipartisan approach to fixing some of the bugs and inserting some of the protections that should have been in place from the beginning.
It shouldn’t be controversial.
The question is whether they will have the courage to do it, or whether the euthanasia lobby is still so powerful that the government and the opposition will just sit on their hands.
