Ensuring Integrity Bill

We have unions because they’re the only way that workers have any power. If we lived in a world where everyone acted in good faith, with honesty, integrity and accountability, there would be no need for unions, but instead we’re here.

Where is ‘here’?

It’s a country where employer after employer has been exposed as systematically ripping off their workers – very often those who are already earning low or minimum wage, and faced minimal consequences apart from restitution. That’s not an option for individual workers caught stealing from their employers, but we need to protect business.

It’s a country where the number of casualised workers rises daily, to the benefit of business and at the cost of people – insecure work means no accrued leave, no certainty, no credit, difficulty securing loans for cars and rental agreements for housing, and no disposable income to support the economy.

This, and hundreds more reasons, is why I wrote to the MPs whose votes will determine whether this legislation is passed. Here’s what I said:

Dear Senators,
I am registered nurse in Victoria. I worked at one of the most acute public hospitals for just under 28 years, caring for some of our state’s sickest patients, plus a small handful airlifted from Tasmania.
In 2000 I made the decision to leave a profession and a field I loved, because I couldn’t provide the standard of care my patients needed and deserved. On most day shifts I was responsible for seven or eight patients, and sometimes as many as twelve. Medications were late, dressings weren’t done, important conversations and patient education had to be cut short because there just wasn’t enough time.
Then Commissioner Blair introduced the world’s first nurse to patient ratios, mandating the number and skill mix of nurses based on the type of unit and acuity of facility. At the Alfred, where I worked, that meant one nurse for four patients. It also meant being able to give my patients timely, quality care, and it kept me at the bedside for another 16 years.
Ratios improve patient outcomes across multiple metrics, including falls, infections, and deaths. They also reduce direct and indirect health care costs – not only are patient admissions shorter and less complicated, staff turnover and absenteeism are reduced.
Despite this, Victoria’s nurses have had to fight to keep ratios. In 2001, 2004, and 2007 we needed to take industrial action when refusing to perform non-nursing duties (like cleaning and clerical work) weren’t enough. In 2007 I was docked a fortnight’s pay because, although I cared for seven patients, was responsible for 28, and supervised three colleagues, I closed a single bed on each shift. Like my colleagues on that ward, and across the state, I did that not for higher pay or better conditions but to keep my patients safe.
In 2012 closing beds wasn’t enough to bring the state government to the negotiating table. They didn’t just want to remove ratios this time, they also tried to introduce a slew of other ‘reforms’ that would have cut short-term costs but disastrously affected both individual patients and the sector. Changes like the reintroduction of short shifts, not seen since the 60s; this would mean working for three or four hours, going home, then returning to work but not necessarily to the same ward, or even campus. The modelling they provided, using the example of a surgical ward, left two nurses on for twenty-four patients at midday. I don’t know what experiences you’ve had with hospitals. but nurses don’t have a lot of down time at any point, and most wards are busiest between 07:00 and 13:00. But I digress.
In 2012, for the first time since 1986, Victorian nurses walked out. We left, at a minimum, the same number of staff that the government proposed, and nurses could be (and were) recalled to the floor if there was clinical need. Members were so determined not to lose ratios and other safeguards that allowed us to care for our patients that we continued to walk out after the Secretary of our union told us to stop the action. Less than a week later, the state government agreed to genuine good faith negotiations, and we kept the ratios that keep us and our patients safe.
Withdrawal of labour should only ever be a last resort, and industrial action shouldn’t be our first response – it should be what we do when lesser measures are unsuccessful. In my three decades of nursing, lesser measures have always been unsuccessful. Industrial action is taken because it works.
While the most common image of unions is of a threatening CFMMEU member, the reality is that there are far more unionists like me – a (late) middle-aged, middle class, tertiary-educated professional woman; there are more nurses, midwives, and teachers who belong to a union than any other occupational group, and under Mr. Morrison’s proposed legislation we will have no voice, no power, no way to do the work we love safely and effectively.
I am writing to ask you to vote against Scott Morrison’s union busting bill.
Repeated Royal Commissions into unions have failed to uncover any systemic corruption, something that is not true of banks. That the government hasn’t enforced that Royal Commission’s recommendations demonstrated their agenda is not about integrity, accountability, and the public interest.
You were elected to represent ordinary Australians. You have the power to stand up for working people, to be our voice. Please – vote against the so-called ‘ensuring integrity’ bill, and allow nurses to do what we do best: caring for others.
Thank you for your time,

Please add your voices to mine, and those of thousands of other Australian workers.

You can send them an email via this link, or call their parliamentary offices:

Jacqui Lambie 02 6277 3614
Rex Patrick 02 6277 3785
Pauline Hanson 02 6277 3184
Malcolm Roberts 02 6277 3694
Stirling Griff 02 6277 3128

Thank you.

Without activism we have nothing

Like so many posts, this started as a Facebook response, in this about an advertised opportunity by my union for student and newly graduated members to participate in Victorian Trades Hall’s summer internship program. in the comments one member wrote: Aren’t there enough issues to resolve under the “nursing” unbrella without turning members into activists.

The page admin replied that part of resolving nursing (and midwifery) issues requires taking an active role in the union, including job representatives and health and safety representatives being activists.

The member acknowledged that, then added:

I bet the focus will be on everything but direct nursing conditions. Climate change, Refugees The homeless, Domestic violence sufferers just to name a few. ALL worthy causes indeed but why does a Nurses Union have so many fingers in so many pies. ANMF should first and foremost be putting nurses first in my opinion.

Which is, of course, where I came in.

Dear member – all the things you list are within ANMF’s remit. First, they’re all connected with health and thus with both our patients and our members, who are nurses, midwives, and carers.

Second, the Federation’s commitment is to members, the professions, and the communities we serve and are part of. That includes those most affected by climate change (people living in rural and remote areas, particularly farmers), people fleeing danger to build new lives (both refugees and family violence survivors), and people whose health needs are made worse and/or more complex by poverty (which includes but is not limited to homeless folk). We have members who care for all these groups, members who are or have been from all these groups – particularly the last: women over fifty are the fastest growing homeless population demographic in Australia.

Third, as demonstrated by ANMF (Vic)’s participation in this program, we are part of a broader union movement. Not only do our brethren in other unions support us in our campaigns, as we surely all remember from 2011/12, their gains contribute to our conditions, starting with Victorian stone masons winning an eight-hour work day. I therefore imagine that, just like with the Anna Stewart Memorial Project, participants will learn about the issues we have in common. That includes casualisation, sub-contracting, the erosion of conditions, increasing productivity demands (i.e. workload), occupational violence and aggression (including sexual harassment), and representation. However, the focus of the program is on what the branch does for members.

Finally, we wouldn’t have achieved or kept any of the conditions we have without the activism of our membership and leadership. Even when directly affected only some of us speak up and fight; how quickly our battles would be won if everyone took action! But few of us can do it on our own.

I will never forget the Neonatal Emergency Transport Service nurses who came to the Alfred during 2012’s industrial action – they weren’t affected by it, as they’re covered by a separate Agreement, but they came in solidarity, in response to a FB request by a nurse from the Royal Children’s Hospital after he saw how few nurses felt comfortable taking action at that site. That was on Saturday, the only day I missed, and so I can take none of the credit for them starting a statewide day of action to support nurses at the Alfred – inspired by their call to abandon action at their own hospitals, nurses as far from Melbourne as Mildura organised buses to support their colleagues for ‘Alfred day’, contacted Trades Hall to seek advice, and notified the press. On Wednesday, March 7, 2012 then-ANF (Vic branch) Secretary Lisa Fitzpatrick announced that the government had finally agreed to sit in good faith at the negotiating table, which they had refused to do for months. She did this from the Alfred steps, to hundreds of members, supporters, and media.

The campaign was a success, thanks to months of tireless work by ANF staff, members, and the support of other unions.

Without activists we have nobody advocating for change. Without a desire for change there’s no need for a union. Without seeing the big picture we don’t know what needs to change. Without organisation we have no direction about how to make change. Without solidarity we only have the involvement of those directly affected, and there’s no pressure for change unless there are lots of people campaigning for it.

It all begins with activism. That, plus vision, organisation, and solidarity get us this, which is why all unionists need to be activists – not only for the issues that directly affect us, but for those that affect us indirectly.

Image via the Australian Nursing and Midwifery Federation (Vic branch)

Lies, misrepresentation, and distortion

Yesterday, my sister (who lives in the Bentleigh district and South Metro region) gave me an interesting pamphlet that was slipped in her letterbox. Authorised (in teeny tiny type at the back) by Margaret Tighe for Right To Life, the three-fold leaflet makes a lot of misleading and outright false claims about the Voluntary Assisted Dying legislation. It needs debunking, and I’m here to do just that.

I’ll take the text in the order it should be read, opening with:

Four claims here, three true but incomplete, and one false:

1) euthanasia is ‘toxic’ – the compounds used are capable of causing death; that’s the prescribed intention.

2) pentobarbital and secobarbital (the generic names for these drugs) are barbiturates, a drug class used for sedation and anxiety management before the introduction of benzodiazepines, which have a far wider therapeutic window, which means they’re safer in higher doses. Barbiturates are the drug class of choice for assisted dying, because they’re painless, generally well tolerated (i.e. unlikely to be vomited up, cause coma without death), available in oral and IV forms, and invariably lethal in high doses.

The NT Rights of the Terminally Ill Act 1995 allowed terminally ill adults, after medical review by three physicians (including a specialist and a psychiatrist), to access physician-assisted suicide via a device created by euthanasia-advocate Dr Philip Nitschke – the Deliverance Machine (above) released a fatal dose of barbiturates into the patient’s bloodstream if they responded ‘yes’ to a series of questions on the attached laptop.

3) Once a schedule 4 drug (available only by prescription), pentobarbital and secobarbital were rescheduled for animal-only use in conjunction with the Liberal Federal government’s Euthanasia Laws Act 1997, which blocked the NT legislation from being used again. The rescheduling was specifically to prevent the use of these drugs for being used for this purpose; they were not banned outright, as the populace would be outraged if vets could not quickly and painlessly euthanise animals.

4) The classification of medications and poisons is federally mandated, and cannot be overruled by a state government – any pharmacist, doctor, or other regulated health professional who documents, distributes, prescribes, or administers medications outside these regulations would have their registration reviewed, which is why you can’t just ask a vet for a dose to help your aunt Vi die peacefully.

The 2017 Victorian legislation does not mention any class of drug, let alone the names of any specific medications, referring only to a compound, which would be individually prescribed by the primary doctor in each case.

Page two is factually correct in all respects :

1) although some 80% of Victorians support the right of competent, dying adults whose suffering cannot be eased to have assistance to die, the legislation did not pass with an overwhelming majority

2) while the word ‘kill’ is emotive, it’s true that the VAD law is a significant change for Victoria

3) while ethicists debate the distinction between withholding life-extending treatment and withdrawing them, there absolutely is a qualitative and real difference between withdrawing an intervention that is prolonging life (like a ventilator) and introducing an agent with the intent of expediting (inevitable, imminent) death

4) and 5) the problem here is that assisted dying is being artificially connected to suicide, for while it is certainly true that VAD is the deliberate ending of a person’s life at their behest and (almost always) by their hand, it is not suicide. How can I say that? Here’s a list of factors that contribute to and reduce suicidality (via The Black Dog Institute)

None of these relates to the situation of someone seeking Assisted Dying. And it’s not just Black Dog – Lifeline’s advice also doesn’t apply to this circumstance:

Suicide is a real and important issue; as is oft said, it is a permanent solution to a temporary problem – assisted dying is about reducing the length of time someone whose death is inevitable and imminent experiences unbelievable suffering, after other options have been exhausted.

There are four claims and two quotes on page three:

While the claims here are true, their juxtaposition presents an argument, without requiring the author/s to do the work of making it valid.

1) Premier Andrews and Health Minister Hennessy correctly state that the VAD legislation is the safest of any kind in this area

2) the phrase ‘out of control’ is undefinable, unsourced, and relates to the very different legislation of Europe

3) while substantively true, this implies that our vulnerable people are at risk of being killed without their consent, something not possible here

4) the UK vote did not have our legislation to take into account.

Interestingly, there is no mention of Oregon, where similar (but less well safeguarded) laws to Victoria’s have been in place for two decades, with no claims of anyone’s life being ended without consent.

Next we see a whole two members of the British parliament quoted to support Ms Tighe’s position; to give some context to those quotes, there are currently 791 Lords, including 92 hereditary peers and 26 Anglican bishops; there are 650 members of the House of Commons.

To page four:

Some doctors absolutely oppose assisted dying, as do some nurses. Other things some medical doctors oppose include contraception, evolution, easing the suffering of the dying, and the idea that the earth is round.

Other doctors, and nurses, support it, here and overseas.

On to page five:

There is so very much wrong here.

1) This is a distortion – people with a mental illness that impairs their competency may not, under any circumstances, access VAD in Victoria. However, just as a competent person with (for example) well-managed depression can drive, vote, enter into contracts, run for office, and make other decisions about their health, a competent person with a previous or controlled mental illness can also pursue VAD.

2) The requirements for competency do not change in the presence of other conditions. A person with suicidal depression can be sectioned under the Mental Health Act and required to have life-saving intervention, including dialysis, against their will.

In addition to this, one of the qualifying requirements is that the suffering cannot be relieved in a way the patient seems tolerable, with two physicians assessing their position and condition – ceasing treatment to change a life-limiting condition to a terminal one would trigger a mental health review and likely undermine competency.

Also, note that the rate of assisted suicide uptake in Oregon is around 0.4%, despite a similar rate of chronic disease and mental ill-health, plus health care inequity that doesn’t exist here. There is no requirement there for suffering, only a six-month life-expectancy, but this scenario drawn by Right To Life has not emerged – most of us want to live, regardless of how hard that living is, and unless you’ve experienced or witnessed it, it’s near impossible to appreciate just how difficult living with chronic illnesses can be.

The last page is incontrovertible:

Catholic Mr Keating does oppose Assisted Dying, and Mr Staikos did vote in favour of the bill, so this is all accurate.

Why I’m running for the Victorian Senate



In seventeen days it will be a year since the Andrews government passed Australia’s first state* legalising Voluntary Assisted Dying for adults who are competent, suffering, and have a life expectancy of six months or less (twelve months or less for those with neurodegenerative conditions). It comes into effect mid-June of next year – unless the state election in twelve days changes Victoria’s MP composition, as a number of parties (including the Liberal party and the Shooters and Fishers) want to overturn it before the system and processed have even been completed.

Last year I put my money where my mouth is as a project officer for the Victorian branch of the Australian Nursing and Midwifery Federation, working to get the legislation through; this month I’m working to keep the legislation intact by campaigning as a candidate for the Voluntary Euthanasia Party in the Eastern Metro region.

Ballot paper

The Voluntary Euthanasia Party has four, interrelated national policies: to campaign for the legal right for competent, dying people to choose how and when they will die, without fear or pain; to improve the status of Advanced Care Directives so they are binding, educate health staff about their use, and have completed ACDs available on a statewide database for ready access by health practitioners when required; to support improved research and funding for quality palliative care; and improve access to medical marijuana.

As everyone who knows me, follows this blog, or follows me on Twitter knows, I am passionate about a number of things, primarily around health, education, justice, and equity. These policies are all consistent with mine, and my ethical position as a casuist is also consistent with the VEP’s platform of determining positions on other matters as they arrive.


My position on this has been consistent since high school, informed by almost thirty years as a nurse in Victoria’s acute public sector, and honed by my three post-graduate qualifications in health care ethics.

I firmly believe that Voluntary Assisted Dying should be an option only after specialist medical review, and if palliative care interventions have proven inadequate. To ensure this is not just a pleasant theory, I strongly support and have long advocated for increased funding and support for palliative care services, particularly for non-oncological conditions (like end-stage organ failure), and in regional and remote areas.

To listen to me speak about the VAD legislation, listen to this podcast of my address at the Melbourne Unitarian Peace Memorial Church last month: http://melbourneunitarian.org.au/index.php/mp3-service-podcasts/549-tara-nipe-registered-nurse-voluntary-assisted-dying

Over the next week and a half I’ll discuss my positions on alcohol and other drugs, post-secondary education, energy and the environment, the health care system (with additional entries covering the Indigenous health gap, mental health, and sexual health), social support systems, taxation, and workers rights.

* Australia’s first legislation, enacted in 1996 and overturned in 1997, was in the Northern Territory

Assessment tips for undergraduate students


, , , ,

The following brief essay covers four sections that undergraduate students often have difficulty with when writing essays or assessments with long answers: how to tackle an assessment (Tactics), what to keep in mind when creating an essay plan (Key Concepts), how to support your argument (Referencing), and what to remember before submitting (Finishing Touches). The most important aspects of each of these sections are then listed, in point form. Though this was written with nursing and midwifery students in mind, as indicated by some examples, much of this advice is transferable to other disciplines that include essay and long answer forms of assessment.

As soon as you can after receiving the assessment, read through it. You’re looking for several things: what kind of work is needed (a 1,000-word essay, or eight responses of around 200 words each?), what the parameters or conditions are (anything the subject coordinator brings to your attention, like not including subject headings, or requiring an introduction and conclusion), and the general scope of the project (will you be exploring a particular disease, creating and supporting a diagnostic hypothesis, or crafting an individualised plan or care?).

When you’re ready to start work on the assessment, read through the directions carefully, identifying the key requirements – this is what the marks will be allocated on, so you want to make sure what you submit addresses them. It may be helpful to summarise your requirement/s to refer to throughout the writing and reviewing process, to make sure everything you’ve written addresses the requirements of the task.

Key concepts
Whatever the content of your writing, at its heart you are creating an argument: why to administer drug X instead of drug Y; why diagnosis A fits better with the case study that diagnosis B; or how guideline S can be applied to this situation T to achieve desired outcomes U and V. When writing an academic piece, every statement and fact should be either building, illustrating, or supporting the argument you’re making – if it doesn’t do that, then it is irrelevant, and a waste of time and word count. Make sure each sentence is clear, strong, and logically leads on from and to the next, with each paragraph containing a new but related idea.

It is essential that you clearly and explicitly connect theory, or information from sources, to the requirements for your paper. This means writing things like:

Culturally safe care has been shown to increase Indigenous patients’ trust in health care institutions (reference); Bloggs’ (2017) examples of culturally-safe practices include X, Y, and Z, while staff education addressed at reflection and awareness of how our cultures affect our perspectives (reference) also contributes to health care facilities that are more welcoming to Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander people. Incorporating these changes will therefore facilitate greater participation in western health care by these marginalised Australians, improving their health outcomes.

Write for a reader who is educated, but don’t assume they have any underlying knowledge of your topic. This means defining or explaining every relevant term, and ensuring that your work doesn’t contain gaps. A gap is anything that leads your reader to ask a question, and good academic writing should address potential questions before they arise. For example, the reader shouldn’t be let wondering ‘But how does implementing that intervention lead to that outcome?’ or ‘If a CT scan and an MRI can both confirm this diagnosis, are both needed? If so, why; if not, why has the writer mentioned both?’ or ‘Did I miss something in the case study about low vitamin C in the patient’s diet?’

Pay attention to any feedback you’ve received from markers, particularly for the same subject as the current assessment. Even relatively small errors (like forgetting to capitalise ‘Aboriginal’) can make a difference, yet many of my students repeated this error in a second assessment, despite being told about this in class, on line, on the assessment instructions, and in the first assessment. You can prevent this by using Spellcheck in Word, and by utilising the find/replace function at the end of your writing, to confirm that a stray ‘indigenous’ or ‘Paracetamol’ (generic, so not capitalised) hasn’t snuck into your work.

While it can seem like an afterthought, both accurate acknowledgement of sources and correct formatting are essential components of academic writing; this significance is reflected in the allocation of marks, both within assessment rubrics and (on occasion) as a separate category, for referencing. This is because everywhere that you state a fact that comes from outside your own experience should be supported by a reference (in which case you need to make that clear, while ensuring that it’s both relevant and written in an objective way). Remember from Tactics: you are presenting an argument, and the literature you cite supports that argument or position.

Referencing well is a skill that comes with practice. Your university’s style guidelines are a start, but you may also find these examples useful:

  • If you are providing several references for one or related facts, list them in the same bracket e.g.: there are three kinds of mammals: marsupial, monotreme, and placental (Farrago et al., 2017; Hepplewhite 2018).
  • If you are listing several related facts that come from a number of references, indicate the source of each one e.g.: examples of placental mammals include cats (Bornstein, Parker, and Kenan, 2012; Pederson and Geller, 2012), dogs (Pederson and Geller, 2012; O’Sullivan et al. 2014; Aaronson 2016), elephants (Singh 2011), and dolphins (Singh, 2011; Pederson and Geller, 2012; O’Sullivan et al., 2014).
  • If you are citing multiple facts from the same source, make it clear that the author/s said all the things you’re attributing to them e.g.: Pederson and Geller (2012) hypothesise that placental mammals achieved dominance over marsupial and monotreme mammals because the longer gestational period a placenta allows gives an evolutionary advantage. They add that this means young are better able to survive the death of the mother, adding that placental mammals are ambulant at birth, while monotreme and marsupial young are still essentially foetal. Of course, humans are the exception to this independence-from-birth advantage (Singh 2011), due to “a necessary compromise between foetal head/maternal pelvic circumference on one hand, and longer dependent rearing on the other” (Singh 2011).

An easy way to ensure your references are appropriately formatted is to download EndNote (or another referencing software program); it should be available to you for free, and though it requires a little set up at first, once you’ve put in the information for each reference (including directly importing them from online sources), it will insert in-text and listed references, with every one in the required format.

Finally, make sure your reference list is alphabetised. You can do this by highlighting the entire list, then hitting the A-Z↓ icon, which is about half way along the control bar when Word is in home mode; this will automatically alphabetise your list, provided you have a new line between each entry.

Finishing touches
When you’ve completed your work, and if you have time, put it aside for a few hours, to give yourself some distance from what you’ve written. Then read it aloud, slowly, or ask someone who doesn’t know the subject matter as well as you do, to do it for you, as they’ll pick up problems you may overlook because you know what you meant to write.

You’re listening for grammatical errors (e.g. ‘is’ where you should have written ‘are’), spelling mistakes (e.g. ‘separate’ instead of ‘separate’) and typos (e.g. ‘on’ instead of ‘in’), and signals for punctuation (a small pause indicates a comma, a longer pause a full stop, and a change of topic often means a new paragraph). Most importantly, you’re also checking for gaps in your work (see Key Concepts) and making sure that your writing is consistently academic in tone.

Take home points

    • Start preliminary thinking about the assessment as soon as you receive it
    • Identify the assessment requirements, and write to them
    • Remember that you’re making an argument: everything you include must support or advance your case
    • Make sure your formatting and referencing meet the instructions given and your department’s requirements
    • Everything that comes from anywhere but your own experience must be referenced
    • Take the time to review your work before submission

This short essay has outlines strategies that, if followed, will allow students to both achieve higher marks on their submission, and develop a stronger relationship with the subject material they’re working with. The key areas covered were tactics, key concepts, the importance of referencing, and finishing touches; these were then summarised in a list of take-home points. As this is not an academic work, there is no reference list, and not all references, formatting, or language are consistent with tertiary-level expectations for academic writing.

On the matter of privilege


, , , , , , ,

In the last 72 (or so) hours I’ve had six conversations about privilege. Each time I’ve been annoyed that whichever academic articulated the truth that attributes over which we have little or no control play a significant role in how we are perceived and how much (or little) we have to overcome didn’t choose a more palatable word to describe it.

Here are some of my privileges:

• I’m white, in a country and a dominant culture that prize caucasoid heritage and appearance

• I have been able-bodied for all but a small percentage of my life

• my parents were married and lived together throughout my childhood and adolescence

• my father was employed the entire time I was dependent on him

• I grew up never knowing food scarcity, and never worrying about a roof over my head

• my parents prized education, and read to me from birth

• I am intelligent and literate

• I am cis-gender

• I am middle-class and well-spoken

• I did not grow up at risk of or exposed to crime or illicit drugs

These privileges, which I had no input into and cannot take credit for, do not mean my life has been a cake walk, or that I haven’t worked hard for where I am now. They do mean that I had, and have, things easier that someone else who, all other things being equal, didn’t have those unearned advantages.

Acknowledging my privilege doesn’t mean denying or ignoring aspects of myself or my life that were disadvantageous. I experienced abuse; was raised by an alcoholic and a narcissist; spent much of my teens, all of my twenties, and some of my thirties with an eating disorder that’s now in remission; I am female, fat, and queer in a country and a culture that repudiates these to various degrees.

These and other aspects of who I am and what I’ve experienced don’t cancel out my privilege.

We live in a society that prioritises straight, white, cis, able-bodied, wealthy men. The more closely one fits that ideal, the more credit one is given – to be more readily heard, believed, perceived as honest/intelligent/promotable; the further away one is, the more likely one is to be ignored, mistrusted, arrested, convicted, attacked.

This doesn’t mean every straight, white, cis, able-bodied man has been handed life on a plate, has experienced no hardship, or lives a life of luxury.

It means that being aware of fortune makes us more compassionate. Noticing the distance we have to travel compared to those with less congenital luck makes us more likely to extend a hand to those with further journeys. Seeing systemic injustice makes us work to level out what we can, to increase fairness, equity, the proverbial fair go Australia prides itself on.

Surely there’s nothing so threatening in that?

Victoria’s Voluntary Assisted Dying Bill – it’s hanging in the balance (and I kinda know how it feels)

A shared post by Victorian Nia Sims, whose father died in distress despite palliative care involvement, and who writes from the perspective of both witnessing this and having scleroderma, a rare autoimmune disease that may result in her applying for voluntary assisted dying herself.

via Victoria’s Voluntary Assisted Dying Bill – it’s hanging in the balance (and I kinda know how it feels)

What do AMA members really think about voluntary assisted dying?


, , , ,

In my previous post I wrote about why we (including the media) should pay less attention to the pronouncements of the AMA on voluntary assisted dying, and instead look at organisations that better represent the population/s for which they speak. While there’s a general belief that the AMA represents most, or at least many, doctors, that’s far from true. Even taking that into account, however, the AMA’s stated position on behalf of its members isn’t as representative as it appears.

In 2015, the AMA (Federal) announced that it would review its policy on ‘euthanasia and doctor-assisted suicide’ , which had previously been unremittingly negative – a position that had, in turn, affected the willingness of politicians and the public alike to support various incarnations of assisted dying legislation. The review process, which concluded in 2016, included an online survey in which 3700 members participated. The conclusion? The AMA continues to oppose any legislation around assisted dying, but wants its members involved should such legislation come to pass.

A logical assumption from this is that the majority of AMA members, if not Australian doctors in toto, oppose voluntary assisted dying. But Neil Francis of Dying for Choice analysed the review process, in a fascinating report titled AMA Uncovered,  in which he examines design flaws that encouraged desired responses, on the analysis of results, and on the way the survey was selectively publicized to justify the policy. The full report runs to 50 pages, but I’ve summarised what I see as the key aspects to take into account when assessing the AMA’s ‘revised’ position.

Doctors often underestimate the severity of patient symptoms but want significantly less medical end-of-life care for themselves. Nearly nine out of ten USA doctors would not want intensive end-of-life treatment they provide to others. Yet patient death, despite its inevitability, is often regarded by doctors as a ‘failure’ of medicine, with many still uneasy even about withholding and withdrawing life-preserving interventions. – p.15

There are three main areas to appreciate about the original report, as unpacked by Francis.

First, the data comes from an opt-in survey that captured just over 3,700 AMA-affiliated doctors; as the AMA represents just under 30% of Australian medical practitioners, respondents to the survey represent 12% of AMA membership, and only 3.6% of Australian doctors.

What the methodology variations suggest is deeply-entrenched hostility towards assisted dying that has flowed through to substantial biases is the survey design. These in turn will result in significantly more negative responses toward assisted dying in later questions than if the AMA’s policy had been revealed later in the questionnaire, after doctors had been asked their attitudes about various facets of assisted dying. – p. 21

Second, the survey is multiply flawed, a fact that was brought to the AMA Executive’s attention and dismissed.  The most important of these flaws are briefly listed below:

  • the way questions are worded means responses are less likely to be genuine reflections of respondents’ beliefs and more likely to be weighted toward an anti-assisted dying response (see p. 16 of the critique for specific analysis)
  • the survey omits suffering or intolerable pain from its definition of euthanasia/assisted dying
  • the survey definition of euthanasia/assisted dying includes neither voluntariness or competence, both of which are key requirements
  • some established life-limiting practices (withholding/withdrawing treatment, the doctrine of double effect) are defined as separate to euthanasia/assisted dying
  • the introductory statements prime participants to lean towards then-current, anti-euthanasia/assisted dying policy
  • multiple questions presuppose a response in the framing of the question (e.g. “Do you agree…” or “To what extent do you agree…”
  • the first two questions separate ‘good medical practice’ and ‘clinically appropriate’ treatment when they’re dependent components of appropriate professional practice
  • similar, often successive, questions are differently constructed for no apparent reason
  • at least one question rolls two aspects of euthanasia/assisted dying together: being compelled to participate in the practice and (if unwilling) being compelled to refer a patient to another practitioner
  • Third, despite these significant methodological flaws, Francis notes these outcomes, which don’t correlate with the AMA’s ‘revised’ position:

  • 68% of respondents agreed suffering can’t always be relieved with even optimal palliative care
  • 60% want doctors to perform lawful assisted dying (i.e. be involved if it’s legislated)
  • just over half of those (32% of respondents) were prepared to be involved
  • 52% said this is a legitimate intervention
  • 50% disagreed with the AMA policy against E/AD “under any circumstances”
  • over half of 20-29 year old respondents agree with euthanasia/assisted dying, compared with a third of those 70+
  • when a question was reframed to ask about legalized euthanasia/assisted dying, approval rates jumped, indicating some resistance is because of illegality, not the act itself
  • 35% of respondents thought euthanasia/assisted dying should be lawful
  • A couple of additional notes:

  • Swiss, Dutch, and Belgian populations rank in the top 3 when it comes to trust in doctors (Aus is tenth); they have AD laws
  • the AMA has published and not corrected information about E/AD that they know is false, including that palliative care deteriorated in Belgium; the opposite is true
  • despite claims by many opponents, including AMA President Dr. Gannon, there has been no slippery slope targeting minors, incompetent people, or the vulnerable, in any jurisdiction (see pp. 31-32)
  • an overwhelming majority of Australian doctors (SA: 89%, Vic 93%, NSW: 96%) believe patient suicide can be rational


Many Australian doctors don’t believe that the law is as important as medical and family consensus when making such decisions, and are inclined to ignore the law anyhow. – p. 19

Finally, and worryingly, it seems as though much of the opposition to or concern about this legislation is that a sizeable proportion of doctors don’t want this practice legalized. From the report, Francis notes that:

  • complementary research demonstrates 25% of Aus MDs support E/AD but don’t want it regulated/performed with oversight!
  • a significant proportion of doctors already deliberately assist patients to die, with neither protection of law nor, necessarily, patient consent

    In a 2006 study “25% doctors were not opposed to euthanasia itself yet were opposed to its legalisation. In other words, a quarter of doctors thought ‘private’ euthanasia practice acceptable, but didn’t want the practice legalised.” The researchers said this was “in significant part due to ‘the resistance of doctors to further intrusion by the law and bureaucracy on their clinical and professional autonomy.’” – p. 25

    I leave you with this observation by Francis, which should be particularly alarming for all of us (including opponents to voluntary assisted dying) who champion voluntariness, competence, and consent:

    Francis 1Francis, p. 39

    Medical support for voluntary assisted dying

    Much has been made of the AMA’s divided stances on voluntary assisted dying: while the Federal Association seems somewhat united, both past and present (the Federal president and three former Federal Presidents) have strongly come out against voluntary assisted dying.

    On another the Victorian AMA President has both pushed back against this, and released a non-committal statement that neither supports nor opposes the Bill.

    The AMA represents some 28,400 practicing Australian doctors, of some 66,660 registered medical practitioners and, as I’ll discuss in the next post, the official position does not so much represent the plurality, or even majority, of those members it has.

    In contrast, the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners has over 35,000 members (making it “Australia’s largest professional general practice organisation”) and has come out in full support of the legislation:


    In addition, almost 80% of the Australian Medical Student Association support the Bill, demonstrating that the next generation of doctors appreciate the autonomy of patients whose dying suffering can’t be eased.

    View from the ‘accessible’ section: Victoria’s delirious, heartening euthanasia vote

    Nia has a highly informed perspective – an experienced nurse, she watched the protracted death of her father with cerebral cancer (recreated by Go Gentle in Stop The Horror), and is living with and dying from the autoimmune connective tissue disease scleroderma. For her, voluntary assisted dying is not hypothetical or professional but as personal as it gets.

    Nia Sims

    Image: View from a red velvet couch, Parliament House library, 6am, Friday 20.10.17

    First published – Crikey.com, 23.10.17

    By the wee hours of Friday morning, the mood in the house was slightly delirious. My friend, colleague and registered nurse Jane Morris and many others cried when the vote on voluntary assisted dying, 47-37, was finally declared to a packed house at 11am after a record 22 hour sitting in Victorian Parliament. It was met with a weary but fulsome round of applause from most in attendance.

    My vantage point from the “accessible” section of the public gallery was one of the few perks of being, as far as I know, the only visibly seriously physically sick or disabled person to attend the sitting. I could see the entire public gallery, press gallery, and members to the right of the speaker. If I craned my neck forward, I could watch the…

    View original post 694 more words