|
Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page
Senator Brian Harradine - Qualifying comments
Suicide is violence – lethal violence,
constituting serious
public and mental-health problems
worldwide.[98]
The Criminal Code Amendment (Suicide Related Material Offences) Bill 2005
is legislation designed to protect the public from individuals, organisations
or groups that promote suicide using a carriage service such as the Internet.
The legislation prohibits using the Internet, email,
telephones, fax machines, radio or television “for the purposes of counselling
or inciting suicide, or promoting or providing instruction on a particular
method of suicide. Possession or supply
etc of material that is intended to be used for such offences is also itself an
offence.”[99]
Suicide is a serious problem
in Australia. More than
2200 people commit suicide each year.[100] That’s more than the annual road toll of over
1500 deaths per year that we see regularly reported on the television news.[101]
Images of broken and crushed cars are more easily seen and understood
than the private shattered lives and anguish of people who resort to suicide.
The World Health Organisation
(WHO) states that suicide is “...a huge but largely preventable public health
problem, causing almost half of all violent deaths and resulting in almost one
million fatalities every year ...”.[102]
The WHO reminds us that “deaths from suicide are only
a part of this very serious problem. In addition to those who die, many more
people survive attempts to take their own lives or harm themselves, often
seriously enough to require medical attention. Furthermore, every person who
kills himself or herself leaves behind many others – family and friends – whose
lives are profoundly affected emotionally, socially and economically. The economic costs associated with
self-inflicted death or injuries are estimated to be in the billions of US
dollars a year.”[103]
A number of organisations
have provided submissions to the Committee opposing the Bill because they provide or may want to provide information which assists
a person to commit suicide or because they want that information to continue to
be available.[104]
One submission stated that it was agreed at its recent
annual general meeting “... there was no doubt that if the Bill becomes law, it
will stifle, hamper and inhibit the work of VES, its various branches, and the
work of VE societies and their branches all over in Australia.”[105]
It appears therefore that a number of Australian
euthanasia groups may already be involved in using a carriage service to “access,
transmit or otherwise make available suicide related material, and possession,
production, supplying or obtaining suicide related material for use through a
carriage service.”[106]
The legislation therefore
clearly addresses a problem that exists in Australia.
The Internet and suicide
A number of published studies
have indicated a link between information provided on the Internet and
suicide. The very serious problem of
suicidal people gaining information on suicide from the Internet has been
documented by international researchers.
Rajagopal found that “an
increasing number of websites graphically describe suicide methods, including
details of doses of medication that would be fatal in overdose. Such websites can perhaps trigger suicidal
behaviour in predisposed individuals, particularly adolescents.”[107]
Professor Keith Hawton from Oxford University’s Centre for Suicide Research said “these sites are dangerous ... One of their founding theories
is that they should be placed under no supervision whatsoever and feature no
input from experts at all, and what you are left with is suicidal people
counselling suicidal people, which is about as dangerous as it can get.”
Professor Hawton comments that “a recurring feature of
these sites seems to be the presence of voyeuristic people who get their kicks
from encouraging others to commit suicide. There is definitely a seductive
element.”[108]
Mehlum explains the
particular dangers of the Internet to people considering suicide:
“First,
there are many new web sites ... which present suicide as a solution rather than
a problem.”
“But
there exist really very few legal, technical, or financial obstacles to those
who wish to provide the millions of Internet users with detailed information on
how to commit suicide.”
“Second,
and even more problematic from a suicidological perspective, is the new and
increasingly interactive internet resources such as discussion groups.”
“The
establishment of the internet as a world-wide forum available to an increasing
number of people has dramatically increased the possibility for otherwise
widely scattered suicidal youngsters to rapidly and directly interact.”[109]
Becker and Schmidt provide information on how suicide chat rooms
function:
“Other
suicide chat rooms, however, place no restrictions on participants, their mean
position being that suicide is a deliberate decision. They postulate an antipsychiatric attitude
and give clear instructions about methods, locations, and how to write suicide
notes. Some also deal in suicide
utilities.
“Webmasters,
laymen at therapeutic counselling, are opinion leaders within a chat room. They are responsible for group consensus,
often pro-suicide. Other opinions are
not tolerated. Internet use diminishes
other modes of communications and heightens social withdrawal, causing a rise
in psychopathological characteristics.
“Ambivalence,
an often-precarious balance between a chosen life and a chosen death, which is
considered common to suicidal attitude, may tip in the direction of death in
response to suicide chat rooms. Suicidal
adolescent visitors risk losing their doubts and fears about committing
suicide. Risk factors include peer
pressure to commit suicide and appointments for joint suicides. Furthermore, some chat rooms celebrate
chatters who committed suicide.”[110]
One particular case is cited
by Baume, Cantor and Rolfe, demonstrating
the pressures of expectation that some suicidal people feel as a result of
using chat rooms:
“The
plea of Nick W (“I’m gonna do it any day now really I promise”)
suggests that he may have felt compelled by his internet participation to
follow through with suicide. If it were
not for his public commitments he might have been able to adopt a more
constructive approach to problem-solving without losing face.”[111]
A study of the potential of
Internet sites to trigger suicidal behaviour concludes that:
“A
general prohibition of suicide sites is neither practicable nor reasonable, but
the owners of suicide sites should be aware of their responsibility for
adolescents. They should know and follow
the fundamental rules of suicide prophylaxis as they should be applied to other
media (no information on suicide methods, their efficiency or availability; no
acceptance of demands or meetings for joint suicide, no publication of
suicide).”[112]
Becker and Schmidt argued further that the “... legal options to prevent
cybersuicides should be discussed from a national and an international
perspective because of the criminal abuse of the Internet communities.”[113]
This advice is consistent
with the Government’s legislation. The
legislation is also consistent with the conclusion of other research that one
of the most effective ways of reducing the suicide rate is to limit people’s
access to the means of suicide.[114] This would reasonably be expected to include
measures such as stopping distribution on a carriage service of the details of
or advice on how to commit suicide.
Other carriage services and suicide
The Bill also deals with carriage services other than the Internet, such as
telephones, faxes, radio, television and email.
There is evidence that each of these methods of communication can be
used to promote, counsel or incite suicide.
Exit International’s Philip Nitschke gave evidence on the importance of email and methods
of communication other than the Internet for providing suicide information:
“We
are concerned about the legislation’s ability to impact on private
communications. All of the material that
we are talking about – which perhaps would be considered to be in the area of
discussing methods and the like – takes place on a one-to-one basis or through
email and the like. But all of that is
covered by this law.”[115]
Dr Nitschke was very specific about the subject of those
communications, saying “we invariably talk about suicide; this is the reason
they contact us.”[116]
Evidence of the importance of
telephones came from the professed intention of one overseas suicide group to
set up a telephone hotline:
“...
one newsgroup which calls itself ‘The Church of Euthanasia’ ... suggests suicide
as a positive act for all, and have announced their intention to set up a
‘suicide assistance telephone hotline’ to pursue this further.”[117]
The caution that must be
exercised by radio and television outlets in how they report suicide is
acknowledged by Electronic Frontiers Australia, which states that research
shows there is “... a substantial risk that general discussion and media reports
about suicide causes suicide.”[118] Yet the EFA appears not to have the same
concern about the effect of counselling or inciting suicide on the Internet or
other carriage services.
Suicide and the law
Legislators have a
responsibility to protect the community, for the common good of all, even if
this involves some interference in the interests of some members of the
public. It is important to ensure that
those who are vulnerable to influence do not have unrestricted access to advice
or materials that would encourage or assist them to end their life rather than
seeking help. The community has a
responsibility to protect vulnerable people and to provide the best medical and
social care.
The law also has an educative
dimension. Laws such as the bill under
consideration educate society that there is value in the life of every human
being, and that special care should be provided to those who are vulnerable for
any number of reasons.
A number of organisations and
individuals have argued that given suicide is no longer a crime, providing
information to assist suicide should not be restricted by the Bill.[119]
But just because suicide is
not a crime does not mean it is a public good that should be promoted or
facilitated. Suicide was decriminalised
because there was little value in prosecuting someone who was dead or who had
attempted suicide. Suicidal people need
help, not prosecution. But there is
great value in protecting the general public from people who assist suicide.
It is for this reason that
aiding or abetting a suicide is illegal in every state and territory in Australia.[120] To restrict access to harmful material, it is
important to strengthen the law to ensure that using a carriage service to
counsel or incite suicide or the possession or supply of suicide material
intended to assist a suicide is also illegal.
Vulnerable people
There was some debate in
submissions and testimony before the committee as to the definition of the
vulnerable people that this bill is designed to protect.
Electronic Frontiers
Australia said “... if the vulnerable individuals that the bill is referring to
are terminally ill people and older people that are wanting to know
information, we do not consider that they should necessarily be considered to
be vulnerable and so be prevented from being able to obtain information.”[121]
Voluntary Euthanasia Society of NSW president Kep Enderby demonstrated that there are sometimes very different
understandings of the term “vulnerable” and “rational” suicide between members
of groups that counsel, incite or promote suicide and the general public. Mr
Enderby described a woman:
“...who has twice tried to
kill herself, not irrationally but in the most rational way. She has had a good
life, too. She is 51 now. She was a highly qualified nurse. She lived in Perth; she married a Perth chap. She had three children, all of whom were grown
up. She was very maternalistic. She had an IVF child, a little boy called James, who is now eight. She had hardly had him, by arrangement with the
fertility clinic, when she came down with a very nasty form of malignant brain
tumour, which led to her having surgery. This had to be followed by radiation
therapy, and she changed. Her whole personality changed.
“She is not vulnerable in
any sense. She has lost her right to drive a motor car because she has
epileptic turns. She is on heavy doses of morphine for the headaches and so
forth. That led to her elder daughter bringing an action in the Family Court of
Western Australia to take the boy away from her, and she fought that in a
litigation .... She lost the child. She has access to him and can ring him up.
She moved over to the eastern states. ... She rings the little boy up every
Saturday and she has him three weeks a year over here ...
“With all these things going
on, she took an overdose of morphine one night. It was not enough, and she
survived. She later took another dose, but she was saved because her neighbour
came in and called an ambulance. She now lives up in Wyong, but she has a most
miserable life. She lives on a disability pension. ... she is obviously still a
very unhappy human being. She might die any time, but she might live for
another 20 years. She might also do what she has unsuccessfully tried to do
twice, and I would not blame her.”[122]
Most people would consider
such a woman vulnerable and entitled to community protection and
assistance. It is a concern that some
organisations may provide suicide information to such a vulnerable woman, who
may well be suffering from depression.
Geoffrey Gray from the Attorney General’s Department put the
question in some context:
“Its
all very well to talk about adults making informed choices. I agree with that entirely, but are people
who are vulnerable and considering suicide in a position to make an informed choice? That is the real problem. If this information is so readily available,
it can be used by people before they have had the opportunity to make an
informed choice.”[123]
This caution was reinforced
by research which demonstrated how people with suicidal thoughts, but
ambivalent about committing suicide, could be encouraged on Internet sites to
take their life. The research “... noted
the ambivalence of the notes posted [on the Internet] by some subjects, and how
their resolve strengthened following the encouragement of others, eventuating
in successful suicides in some cases.
They also felt there was evidence that vulnerable individuals were
compelled so strongly by others that to back out or seek help would involve losing
face.”[124]
There is, for instance, a
significant pool of young people who consider suicide or self harm. “Some 7%-14% of adolescents will self harm at
some time in their life, and 20%-45% of older adolescents report having had
suicidal thoughts at some time.”[125] Each of these young people is vulnerable and
could be pushed over the edge to their death by individuals or groups promoting
suicide.
Autonomy and rational suicide
A number of submissions
argued that the proposed legislation should not restrict access to information,
as that would impact on a person’s autonomy.[126] But while the autonomy argument implies that
anyone should be able to die how, when and where they want, this is not
supported by a number of other submissions which argue suicide information
should only be available for “rational” suicide or suicide by a “rational
adult”[127] or “competent adult”.[128]
The Voluntary Euthanasia
Society of Tasmania for example argues “it should not be illegal to supply
information to rational responsible adults regarding a legal act regardless of
how it will be used.”[129]
The Voluntary Euthanasia
Society of NSW’s Kep Enderby said “... it is my view and the view of the society
that I represent that a rational, sane adult – more often than not the elderly
and those who are ill – have the right to be able to bring their life to an end
if they want to, if they rationally decide that that is what they want.”[130]
Philip Nitschke complains “... the Bill’s main aim is to prevent rational adult Australians from using a
carriage service to access any type of information about their end of life
options.”[131] But his position is not consistent. Dr
Nitschke is on the record saying that suicide pill information
should be provided to all who want it – not just rational adults: “someone needs to provide this knowledge, training, or
recourse necessary to anyone who wants it, including the depressed, the elderly
bereaved, [and] the troubled teen”.[132]
Deciding who is and who is
not “rational” then becomes controlled by those holding the suicide
information. In this situation people
seeking information on suicide actually have less autonomy, because they are
only given the information if their life is judged by others to be no longer
worth living. If any community were to
accept euthanasia groups controlling this information, it would also be
endorsing their view of vulnerable people as expendable.
Already vulnerable people who
are considering ending their lives see in suicide advice an endorsement of
their disordered thinking. They see a
justification for committing the act of suicide rather than seeking the help
they obviously need.
If it becomes routine to give
certain people access to information on suicide, it then becomes a pressure on
those types of people to see suicide as a solution so they won’t be a burden,
or so that their physical, psychological or spiritual pain can end. One writer notes that “fear of dependency and
reluctance to burden family members may be important mediators of decisions
about suicide.”[133] So those people seeking information from
suicide groups actually have no effective autonomy. Control over their suicide rests with the
approval of others.
The autonomy argument is
further undermined by one submission, which argues that:
“...
it is not right to criminalise a friend or relative of a terminally-ill person
who, in anticipation that their dying loved one will seek their help in
alleviating their suffering, obtains information from the Internet about
methods of suicide.”[134]
The real question is why
would such a person obtain suicide information if there has not been an
explicit request? What does this say
about the family member’s attitude to their terminally ill relative or of their
respect for autonomy? There would be a
high risk of that ill person feeling as if they were a burden and that they
should consider suicide if they are offered information on how to take their
life.
Depression
It is worth mentioning that
none of the submissions opposing this legislation mentioned depression. Yet depression is one of the major factors
driving the suicide rate. And depression
is a treatable condition.
Whether a patient is
suffering from depression or not is clearly an important matter that deserves
expert medical assessment. The World
Health Organisation has determined that “depression plays a major role in
suicide and is thought to be involved in approximately 65-90% of all suicides
with psychiatric pathologies.”[135]
One study found that
“patients with depressive symptoms were more likely to change their minds about
desiring euthanasia or PAS [physician-assisted suicide]”.[136]
In another study depression and hopelessness were the strongest factors
predicting a patient’s desire for an early death.[137]
A further study reported a
very high association between suicide in adolescents and depression. “Psychological postmortem studies of suicides
show that a psychiatric disorder (usually depression, rarely psychosis) is
present at the time of death in most adolescents who die by suicide.”[138]
Given the high association
between depression – a treatable condition – and being suicidal, it is
important that depression is always considered when suicide is discussed. Depression is often missed or not treated
properly.[139]
Despite the importance of
depression in contributing to suicidal behaviour, it was reported earlier this
year that Exit International’s director Dr Philip Nitschke refused to seek
expert opinion on whether those who approach him are suffering from
depression. Dr Nitschke said that:
“The
idea that psychiatrists should be the ultimate arbiters does not sit well with
me or many of the people that come to see me. I would say common sense is a
good enough indicator. It's not that hard to work out whether you are dealing
with a person who is able to make rational decisions or not.”[140]
It is important to note that
depression is more difficult to detect than many other health conditions
because those suffering the condition are often unaware of their illness:
“Unfortunately,
because a common symptom of depression is a loss of insight and a feeling of
hopelessness, depressed people usually have little understanding of the
severity of their illness. They are often the last to recognise their problem
and seek help. It is therefore critical
that primary care physicians develop the skills to recognise depression in
patients, particularly the terminally ill and elderly, whose depressive
symptoms may be masked by coexisting medical conditions such as dementia and
coronary artery disease.”[141]
Undiagnosed depression is
clearly a major danger for suicidal people.
Yet it appears to be ignored by providers of do-it-yourself suicide
information.
The Australian experience
The danger of groups or
individuals providing suicide information to vulnerable individuals is well
illustrated by Australia’s experience with euthanasia in the Northern Territory. In a review
of the issue, the University of Adelaide’s Professor Robert Goldney commented:
“...
even with ostensibly strict guidelines embodying most issues considered by
proponents of euthanasia to be important, as a result of the clinical details
provided there exist reservations about what occurred with two of the four
persons who died under the Northern Territory legislation.
This is hardly a reassuring record for examples of euthanasia which
would inevitably be subjected to the most intense public scrutiny.”[142]
Depression was a major factor
in the Northern
Territory’s
experiment with euthanasia, as it is a major factor in the problem of
suicide. In a major review of the case
notes of seven people who sought euthanasia in the Northern Territory, published in The
Lancet, there was evidence of inadequate consideration of depression:
“To what extent was the
psychiatrist trusted with important data and able to build an appropriate
alliance that permitted a genuine understanding of a patient’s plight? In case
1, there was important background detail about the death of one child and
alienation from another, which was withheld during the psychiatric assessment.
These experiences may have placed the patient in a lonely, grieving,
demoralised position: an unrecognised depression may have led to suicide.
“Four of the seven cases
had symptoms of depression, including reduced reactivity, lowered mood,
hopelessness, and suicidal thoughts. Case 4 was receiving treatment for
depression, but no consideration was given to the efficacy of dose, change of
medication, or psychotherapeutic management. PN judged this patient as unlikely
to respond to further treatment. Nonetheless, continued psychiatric care
appeared warranted ...”.[143]
The Australian experience with
euthanasia shows that the significance of depression and psychiatric illness in
euthanasia and by implication in suicidal people should not be underestimated.
Rationalising suicide
A number of submissions
opposing the Bill attempted to rationalise the serious life and death
nature of suicide away, arguing that somehow 2200 deaths per year are not a
national tragedy:
“no one is able to claim that inciting suicide
has reached an alarming proportion ...”.[144]
“... the risk to the vulnerable temporarily
depressed young people. Suicide in these
cases is tragic. This in itself does not
justify the censorship ... The plight of the greater number of people denied
relief from suffering [through suicide] ...is equally tragic.”[145]
“...
we do know that people have and are committing suicide in the most horrendous
ways possible, and all because they were unable to source or were deprived of
meaningful [suicide] information and help from a compassionate and sympathetic
society.”[146]
The concern seems to be with
ensuring the swift and efficient death of suicidal people rather than helping
them to avoid suicide.
Groups arguing against this
bill reject the notion that suicide is a bad thing that should be
prevented. There is apparently no
consideration given to the issue of depression.
They instead want to provide people with information on how to suicide
in a more effective way.
Preventing suicide
Not one of the submissions
opposing this legislation offered comment on how to reduce the suicide
rate. Opponents of the legislation
merely lobbied to be able to provide information and advice on suicide without
the proposed restrictions.
Preventing suicide is a very
complex issue which requires further significant study and long term
investment.[147] The Australian Government provides approximately
$10 million per year for the National Suicide Prevention Strategy.[148]
This is good, but doesn’t do justice to the size of the problem.
One report commented that
“the primary risk factors for completed suicides are major depression,
substance abuse, severe personality disorders, male gender, older age, living
alone, physical illness, and previous suicide attempts. For terminally ill patients with cancer and
AIDS, several additional risk factors are also present.”[149]
Older people are at particular
risk from suicide attempts. One study
noted that “late life suicide is characterised by less warning, higher
lethality and greater prevalence of depression and physical illness. However, suicide risk often remains
undetected.”[150]
The main thrust of prevention
work for older people has been to detect and treat depression and other
psychiatric illnesses. It has been found
that “... approximately 75% of all elderly suicide victims suffer from some sort
of psychiatric disorder at the time of their death, with affective disorders
representing the most common diagnosis.”[151]
There are indications that
among the elderly suicide rates fall when there are better levels of
psycho-geriatric and community services.[152]
One recent study found that a
decline in elderly suicide rates was associated with increases in the number of
general practitioners and in the numbers of medical staff in hospitals;
increases in the number of social workers in the field and increases in the
number of hospital outpatients receiving treatment for mental illness. [153]
While there are a great
number of approaches to preventing suicide that have to be examined further by
the experts, none of them involve providing information on how to commit
suicide. On the contrary, it is important
to establish effective alternate, life affirming Internet sites. Mehlum acknowledged that “... the new
technologies will obviously create new risk scenarios. But new opportunities for prevention will
also be created. We’d better use them
for all they’re worth.”[154]
One study of suicide
prevention techniques commented that “the greatest potential seems to arise
from limiting the availability of methods [of suicide]”.[155]
Ways to improve the bill
There were a number of
suggestions on how to improve the protections that the Bill offers to suicidal people.
Richard Egan suggested a way of improving the protection of
Australians from overseas suicide sites:
“Where
the use of the carriage service to induce a person to commit suicide or to
attempt suicide actually results in someone either attempting or actually
committing suicide we think the penalties should be similar to those in state
legislation for the same offence, which is imprisonment for 10 years. We are also concerned that the bill has a
loophole in that internet sites hosted offshore are not easily caught, because,
rightly, there is an exception for internet service providers who do not know
that suicide related material is being accessed through their service. We believe that the bill certainly needs a
provision to ensure that once the URLs of such sites are drawn to the attention
of the internet service providers there is a penalty on them if they do not
block access to those sites.”
This is a sensible precaution which should be
adopted. It would go some way to meeting
the suggestion of Graham Preston from Right to Life Australia, who recommended an amendment to “... require internet
service providers to restrict access to web sites which provide promotion and
instruction material referring to suicide.” [156]
The suggestion would also go some way towards the
protection suggested by the Festival of Light which asked for a system similar
to the Online Content Co-Regulatory Scheme, set up to protect the Australian
public from unwanted pornography where “for a website hosted on a web server in
Australia [the Government] would issue a take-down order; for a foreign hosted
website it would order Australian ISPs to block access.”[157]
Egan also suggested a further
sensible amendment to this or to other legislation to amend Australian
classifications so that books counselling or inciting suicide would also be
restricted, to protect vulnerable individuals.
“Our
proposal is that either in this bill or at a later stage the Senate look at
amending the classification act. It
seems to me that publications such as Final Exit, which instruct in detail in
methods of suicide, are just as harmful as the same material on the
internet. That publication was at least
temporarily banned in at least one state in Australia when if first came out, but unfortunately since then
it has been classified R and the book has been implicated in some successful
suicides in Australia.” [158]
Conclusion
Compassion is not giving
someone information on how to commit suicide when we should be looking to the
reasons they want to take such desperate action. Compassion is addressing people’s pain,
depression, loneliness or fear.
There’s no dignity in being
told that you’re right to want to commit suicide because your life is
awful. Dignity comes from knowing that
whatever your health and your personal shortcomings, there are people there who
will love and support you, no matter what.
We should concentrate efforts on helping to make sure this kind of
assistance is available to all.
The Criminal Code Amendment (Suicide Related Material Offences) Bill 2005
is necessary because it targets those who prey on the despair, depression,
sadness or loneliness of other people by counselling or inciting suicide, or by
providing information on methods of suicide.
But the legislation is not enough in itself. The Government must also address the social
and personal factors which drive people to consider suicide in order to come up
with a well-rounded solution to this very serious problem.
More resources are needed for
proactive approaches to finding and helping suicidal people to overcome their
personal difficulties and to live long and fulfilling lives. A greater investment of resources would be
more than justified by the World Health Organisation’s estimate of the high
economic cost of suicide, let alone the personal cost. Suicide is an act of self-destructive
violence which leaves in its wake further pain and suffering for those who are
left behind.
Senator Brian Harradine
Independent Senator for Tasmania
Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page
Website feedback: web.senate@aph.gov.au
Last reviewed 24 May 2005 by the Senate Web Administrator
© Commonwealth of Australia
Parliament of Australia Web Site Privacy Statement
Images courtesy of AUSPIC
|
