Outside the U.S., Canada, Holland, and UK

A survey conducted by Newspoll in 1995-JUL found 81% of Australian adults support voluntary euthanasia. This is an increase over an earlier result of 79% in 1994-JUL. A poll by the Roy Morgan Research Centre in 1995-JUN showed similar results: 78% in favor. This is an increase from 66% in 1986. A separate poll showed that 60% of doctors and 78% of nurses in Victoria favored voluntary euthanasia. An additional poll was taken among 6500 Christian congregations, representing 19 denominations. They found that 40% agreed with assisted suicide for terminally ill persons; 30% opposed; 30% uncertain. Among older church attendees, support was higher (50% among those 60 and older).

Bob Dent, 66, was the first person to take advantage of the new law. He had moved to the Northern Territory as a Church of England (Episcopal, Anglican) missionary. He became disillusioned with politics within the church and left his calling to become a building estimator. He was diagnosed with cancer in 1991, and converted to Buddhism shortly afterwards. He wrote a letter saying "If you disagree with voluntary euthanasia, then don't use it, but please do not deny the right to me." He said that no religious group should "demand that I behave according to their rules and endure unnecessary intractable pain until some doctor in his omniscience decides that I have had enough and increases the morphine until I die." In the presence of his wife and doctor, he initiated the process that gave him a lethal drug injection.

The Most Reverend Harry Goodhew, Anglican Archbishop of Sidney denounced the case on 1996-OCT-7; he said: "The moral shape of our nation is under threat with the first legally sanctioned euthanasia death in the Northern Territory, and so is the relationship between doctors and their patients. It has now been shown to us what this means [sic] doctors are no longer those who save lives. Under the Northern Territory law they are also those who kill...We must feel the deep grief of the wife of the one who died, and also understand the human pain which brought about this ending of a man's life. But these facts cannot be allowed to persuade us that this action was right. It is morally wrong. I cannot approve it from any point of view."

A second terminally ill person obtained physician assistance in dying on 1997-JAN-7. She was Janet Mills, age 52, who suffered from a rare form of skin cancer that causes the skin to disintegrate. The Anglican Dean of Sydney, Boak Jobbins, said the latest death was another day of shame for Australia. He said, "Quite clearly we are a nation that has come to the end of its resources...We no longer have anything to offer the terminally ill, the aged or the disabled but a quick exit at the end of a needle."

On 1997-MAR-25, the Australian Senate disallowed the Northern Province's law. The vote was 38 to 33. This passed the bill into law, since it had already been approved by the lower house. This action is directly opposed to public opinion. In addition to the polling results cited above, a nation-wide poll of nurses showed that 70% were in favor.

The first machine built to legally kill patients, was developed by Dr. Philip Nitschke in the Northern Territory. It was scheduled to be displayed in the London Museum of Sciences, London, England starting 2000-JUL. It involved a computer that asked the patient three times whether he/she really wanted to die. If the patient agreed each time, then 100 ml of liquid Nembutal was pumped through a fine needle into the patient's arm. She/he fell asleep and died within five minutes. ₉

1. the patient is suffering in unbearable physical pain
2. death is inevitable and imminent
3. all possible measures have been taken to eliminate the pain with no other treatment left open
4. the patient has clearly expressed his or her will to approve the shortening of his or her life.

Judge Matsuura said "Dr.Tokunaga's action did not meet all these conditions, arguing that the patient had made no clear expressions about his physical pain nor about his will to approve euthanasia. The doctor's action cannot be viewed as euthanasia and represents illegal termination of the patient's life."
 

Recent developments include: