In a recent promotional campaign with more twists than a riveting police drama, euthanasia doyen Philip Nitschke and his activist group Exit International have achieved almost daily media attention.
Nitschke has not yet convinced Australians, still less the Australian Medical Association, that he is trusted medical authority, but he certainly has a nose for the publicity main game. Nitschke’s sound bites and appearances revolve around the simple message that he and his group will be intensifying the message about the legalisations of assisted euthanasia and voluntary euthanasia. It is a fascinating case of self-promotion really— advertising that you will advertise!
One volley of media appearances involve Nitschke’s revelation that he has taken inspiration from two fictional advertisements aired on the ABC’s satirical forum on the advertising business: The Gruen Transfer. The segment (called “the Pitch) commissioned two leading advertising houses to “soft-focus” the mandatory medical termination of the elderly, to sell the unsellable: compulsory, non-voluntary euthanasia for all Australian citizens at the age of 80. We thought that Nitschke was an advocate of “voluntary” euthanasia!
So impressed was Exit International that within two weeks, it had hired one of the advertising firms and commissioned a short film clip which almost instantaneously made its way to YouTube and then was discussed on myriad blog sites and international news centres. Nitschke also described plans for still-shots from the ads distributed on billboards along the Hume Highway.
Needless to say the subsequent controversy and the banning has given Nitschke even more media space and public sympathy, this time as a victimised hero of free speech. One article in the Sydney Morning Herald on the campaign was aptly titled: “No Publicity is Bad Publicity”. All round, it has been remarkably successful, self-generated “public awareness” campaign so far.
However, this move is not an isolated one. While Nitschke has been occupying the national media highwire, other state based euthanasia movements have been working for a D-day landing of legislation on voluntary euthanasia and medically assisted suicide. Bills have been planned and introduced in the states of Tasmania, South Australia and Western Australia. In the last few days the Greens leader, Bob Brown, has unveiled his plans to revive the legislation in the Territories. In fact, it may well be one of the first Bills tackled by our delicately balanced Federal Parliament.
In each state and nationally for many years, the Catholic Women’s League has taken an active role in monitoring, researching and submitting an alternative to euthanasia and medically assisted suicide. While many other groups seem to have been worn down by the endless waves of pro-euthanasia activism, the CWL members have continued to contribute to submission writing and public discussion.
Are there any lessons or ideas we can glean from the recent strategies of the extensive euthanasia network? Here perhaps are some brief operational principles for people who oppose euthanasia to discuss:
a) Maintain a Grass-roots Presence: One of the longest established and well organised pro-euthanasia groups resides in South Australia: SAVES (South Australian Voluntary Euthanasia Society). For many years, SAVES maintained local branches of usually older volunteers in city and regional areas. Its rather folksy newsletter details the work of its volunteers who maintain stalls at local and farmers’ markets, displays in local libraries, run “awareness days”, run information stalls at aged and disability care forums. The CWLA member organisations also have branches throughout urban and regional Australia. It is an ideal base for effective parish pump social awareness.
b) Know the Figures & If there is a “Good” Statistic, Stick to It: Recently, pro-euthanasia groups have deployed figures from a 2009 Newspoll telephone survey of just over 1,000 randomly selected Australians. It found that between 80-85% (88% for those females aged 18-25 years) of those surveyed were in favour of “lethal” intervention by doctors. It was a fairly superficial measure. The poll consisted of a single yet unexplained question, with no cross check-questions to gauge the respondent’s understanding. For example, did those surveyed believe that the legitimate withdrawal of treatment was as “lethal” as an intended death by fatal dose- since in both cases the patient died? Despite the absence of these important moral, which are also legal, distinctions, the “85%” appears in most media releases and euthanasia websites. It is also quoted as “fact” in every other news story. By contrast do those who oppose euthanasia capitalise on the existing statistics from the Netherlands, let alone realise their significance? Are we interested in conducting a more thorough-going inquiry about the confusions which beset opinion making about end-of-life decisions? Are we aware of the statistical traps? For instance, that while voluntary euthanasia groups claim that there has been a reduction in some categories of euthanasia in Holland, this is because some forms of “induced death” have been via the gradual and non-voluntary (without the patient’s consent) process of morphine induced coma. The Southern Cross Bioethics Institute reports that in the Netherlands over 30 patients a year are terminated in this fashion but that the figure does not appear under the heading “euthanasia”.
c) Realise the Power of Empathetic Language and Images: Images of suffering and disability are much harder to beat than lots of words. However the choice of phrasing and attitude is important too. This fact is not lost on the euthanasia activists. It is hard to beat the appeal of Exit International’s “Peaceful Pill” campaign—a blackly effective variation of the problem solving “magic bullet.” In South Australia, there is a petition circulating headed: “I want the choice of a peaceful death” (well, who doesn’t?). The Age newspaper featured a touching story of “a bloke from the bush” who was suffering (but not yet dying) of stomach cancer. In a few lines, “this battler” was able to dismiss the position opposing assisted suicide as “all that caper” of a fear generating “church” and “politicians who have never suffered”. Compassion and true palliation has an image and story too—a truly inspiring one.
d) Enlist the Profiles of Ordinary & Outstanding Australians: The success of programs such as the ABC’s Australian Story and Andrew Denton’s Elders as well as shows like Masterchef, reminds us of the importance to Australians of the personal life story and the authentic attraction of “achievers”. The SAVES website includes a scrolling portrait series of “inspiring” supporters of the legalisation for euthanasia. They include doctors, ex-statesmen, philosophers, authors and Order of Australia members. The gallery includes unsurprisingly libertarian advocates such as Leslie Cannold and Marshall Perron, but also more surprising such “ordinary” mid-day TV personalities such as Denise Drysdale and a number of Christian ministers of religion. This sort of profiling carries much emotional “authority” for many people. Do we hear of inspiring people who stand for an alternative to medical killing?
e) Convert Just a Few Opponents to Your Cause: The voluntary euthanasia network in Australia is very aware of traditions and philosophies that have until now prevented euthanasia and assisted suicide from becoming legal: the AMA, activists for disability, palliative care activists and Christians. One of the most effective ways to overcome this opposition is to recruit just a few advocates from the other team. Listed on the SAVES website as: Christians Supporting Choice for Voluntary Euthanasia; the political lobby group which ran for the South Australian Upper House called Dignity for Disability (which advocates for PAS and euthanasia choices); and two working groups, one named (heavily) Doctors for AMA Neutrality on Voluntary Euthanasia. Have we had in this country such groups as: Environmentalists Against Medical Death or Atheists For Genuine Palliative Care?
f) Be Aware of Cultural and Political Opportunities: The significant increase in the Green Party’s primary vote in nearly all electorates throughout Australia during the recent Federal election has provided a timely impetus for a confident surge in euthanasia activism. While the Greens did not highlight their strong platform in favour of the legalisation of euthanasia and PAS during the election campaign, the huge protest vote they received has given them an apparent mandate for their shadow-side policies. This political fact of life will play along the social change brought about by the growing secularisation of Australian society. There are many other issues such as the fragmentation of traditional family support, the lack of support for volunteers and carers, the pressures upon the health dollar which place additional pressures and fears upon those facing ageing, disability and a protracted or uncertain dying process. Dr Margaret Somerville, an eminent author and philosopher who is also the director of Canada's McGill Centre for Medicine, Ethics and Law is an imaginative opponent of euthanasia. She explained that in the Netherlands, the elderly and disabled are so uncertain about their care, that they either cross the border to Germany for hospital care or refuse to be hospitalised. Which palliative care organization made a press statement of her interesting insights? "Pain and suffering is not usually the reason any individual wants euthanasia. It's social isolation and a fear of being a burden on others.” Have we thought of opportunities for a culture of life alternative? There may be opportunities to encourage the positive growth of “self-help” groups, the young who are concerned about poverty and social equity, the attraction of alternative therapies, the feminist concern for the social vulnerability of older women, the belief in the dignity of suffering and life held by other faith groups and ethnic communities.
g) Make the News not only Read it: Although it is clear that many media outlets and personalities are attracted to the supposedly “libertarian” assumptions of the pro-euthanasia lobby, it is not universally the case. Journalists are after all fairly representative of the wider population in both their beliefs and their concerns. The lesson we can learn from Exit International and its relatives is that one does not wait to be interviewed by the national and international media. Nor need we limit our media involvement to letters to the editor- which are often vetted in any case. We can create our own news networks too. If we have an articulate and compelling story and position (and who can doubt that we do) opinion pieces, interviews, local interest stories (and however old we are) blogspots and other new media have an audience.
