Section 14

Late last week the Otago Daily Times reported that euthanasia campaigner Lesley Martin has been barred from holding a public meeting at the University of Otago.

University vice-chancellor Prof. David Skegg said, “The University of Otago encourages academic debate on ethical matters such as euthanasia, but it is not obliged to provide a base for advocacy groups wishing to promote behaviour that is illegal in this country.”

He didn’t mention how you’re supposed to have the debate to legalise something if one side of the argument is banned for promoting something illegal.

Ms Martin said, “To have a knock-back from an academic body, to us, flies in the face of what the university is all about.”

The meeting will now be held at Cargill’s Hotel tomorrow (March 8th).

The Australian Classification Review Board has banned Dr Philip Nitschke’s Peaceful Pill Handbook.

The decision (PDF) states that

The Classification Review Board determined that The Peaceful Pill Handbook warrants Refused Classification (RC) because it instructs in the crime of the manufacture of barbiturates. Further, a majority of the Review Board determined that it also instructs in the crimes of the possession and importation of barbiturates and in offences under Coroners legislation in all States and Territories.

So there you have it. In Australia (and stay alert in New Zealand), free speech is less important that the idea that citizens should surrender control of their lives to their political masters and the loss of free speech is regarded as the acceptable collateral damage from the war on drugs.

Dr Philip Nitschke’s Peaceful Pill Handbook was launched in Auckland yesterday. The censorship threat to this book was mentioned here a couple of weeks ago.

The launch featured a speech by Lindsay Perigo, available from Not PC (MP3, 5.5 MB, 24 min), in which he vigorously defends of freedom of speech. He labels politicians and priests history’s greatest enemies of free speech and discusses the views of some of those we remember as advocates of free speech.

Hat tip: Not PC.

UPDATE 13/2/07: The Dominion Post reports (p A3) that Dr Nitschke is voluntarily taking a copy of the book into the Office of Film and Literature Classification today on the understanding that chief censor Bill Hastings “wanted to review its contents”.

95bfm has an interview between Dr Nitschke and Mikey Havoc (MP3, 16 min), that also touches on censorship and free speech. He mentions that Exit International has shifted its website to New Zealand because Australia has banned discussing suicide over the phone and on the web.

The Dominion Post has launched an attack on New Zealand’s suicide reporting rules with a front page article in Saturday’s paper, an editorial, and a four-page article in its Weekend section.

Reporting on suicides is covered by the Coroners Act 1988 (s 29), which automatically supresses all details of any self-inflicted death, except name, address, and occupation of the deceased. Any further details must be explicity released by the coroner before they can be published. A detailed Suicide and the Media booklet (PDF, 60 pages) is available from the Ministry of Health.

The theory seems to be that if we don’t talk about it it will go away. Chief promoter of New Zealand’s head-in-the-sand approach to suicide and fervent advocate of press censorship is Annette Beautrais, head of the Canterbury Suicide Project at Otago University’s Christchurch School of Medicine. Her attitude to free speech seems to be that it should be illegal to shout “Fire!” in a theatre even if the theatre is on fire.

There is evidence to suggest that high-profile reporting on suicides leads to a temporary increase in the suicide rate (and that these are “extra” suicides, not people who would otherwise have killed themselves). What hasn’t been shown is that a society-wide taboo on discussing suicide is of any use whatsoever in reducing New Zealand’s appalling suicide rate. We’re not talking about a tabloid-style revelling in the gory details of someone’s death. We’re talking about sober reporting of the manner of 500 deaths a year in this country.

Dr Beautrais has backing from Jim Anderton, the minister responsible for suicide prevention. While, in this arena, there can be no doubting Mr Anderton’s good motives, there is no problem he’s found that can’t be fixed by more regulation.

Mr Anderton says he has sympathies for the mainstream media, who, he believes, would take a repsonsible approach to publicity of suicides if the laws were relaxed. But he says, like all laws, they are written to keep a small number of citizens in line, “the lowest common denominator”, and the media reporting element of the Coroners Act is no different.

Wellington coroner Garry Evans said in a submission to the select committee considering changes to the Coroners Act that

We live in an open, and not a closed, society. It follows that strong reason must exist for the suppression of evidence relating to important matters affecting society, including, among other things, the frightening phenomenon of self-inflicted teenage deaths… It is at once a community tradgedy and a community problem. The community must know what is going on. Concealment of evidence from the community disempowers it in dealing with the problem. It is a truism that knowledge is power. There is a difference between the gratuitous publication of evidence which is of no interest to the community, and the publication of eveidence that is important to a healthily functioning democratic society.

Outside the debate on whether censorship helps or hinders the battle against suicide there is a wider point. A free press is vitally important to an open society and we tamper with it at our peril. We must not give in to the temptation of censoring the press and closing our society in the long term in the (possibly vain) pursuit of short-term goals.

The press have the right to report the facts - and opinions - surrounding any story. Knowledge is superior to ignorance. In other areas, such as incitement of violence towards others, a free and open society will only allow speech to be curtailed if there is an immediate danger of harm. The link between publishing stories on suicide and people choosing to kill themsleves, even if real, is not direct enough to justify censorship.

Dr Philip Nitschke is planning to launch his latest book The Peaceful Pill Handbook in Auckland next month (Dominion Post, Jan 26, pA5) and there are concerns that the Office of Film and Literature Classification (OFLC) will “review” the book.

The book includes recipes for fatal drug cocktails and instructions on how to make a “peaceful pill” - a DIY suicide tablet.

Office of Film and Literature Classification spokesman David Wilson said it had not reviewed the book, but it was possible it would do so because of the content.

It would most probably be reviewed for criminal activity, he said.

Though suicide is not illegal, it is a crime in New Zealand to incite someone to take their own life.

The office could ban the book or place restrictions on its purchase, including an age limit.

When the book was published in the United States in September, it was classified as a prohibited import by Australian Customs. A more recent decision by the Australian OFLC has meant that the book can be sold to people over 18. Importing the book is still banned and the Australian government is seeking a total ban.

Dr Nitschke’s visit to New Zealand for the book launch is already under a cloud as the Medical Council of New Zealand has written to the Ministry of Health seeking Dr Nitschke’s prosecution here.

The Medical Council of NZ doesn’t want people hearing about euthanasia. They have written to the Ministry of Health claiming that Australian euthanasia advocate Dr Philip Nitschke would be practising medicine without a licence during a scheduled trip to New Zealand. He plans to hold two workshops for Exit International.

Dr Nitschke’s last visit to New Zealand in February last year was met with the same response from the Medical Council but the Ministry of Health declined to prosecute, citing insufficient evidence.

Dr Nitschke says that his visit is not illegal: “It’s ridiculous to suggest that the provision of general information about, for example, Switzerland - where assisted suicide is legal - or Mexico … in any way constitutes medical practice. This is a matter of free speech.” (Dominion Post, Jan 24, pA10.)

Following his experiences in Australia’s Northern Territory, Dr Nitschke claims he has given up on political efforts to legalise euthanasia. He is now focussing his efforts on the development and promotion of the “Peaceful Pill”, which would present doctors and politicians with a fait accompli, rendering euthanaisia laws obsolete.

His book, Killing Me Softly, promises “a future where a ‘Peaceful Pill’ could revolutionise euthanasia just as the contraceptive pill revolutionised birth control a generation ago.”

Dr Nitschke claims that doctors have a stranglehold on the dying process and regard death as an affront to their profession to the point that they will completely ignore a patient’s wish to die peacefully at a time of their own choosing. The Medical Council looks as if it’s keen to maintain that stranglehold and is quite happy to use the power of the state to silence its critics.