Wallis Chelsea
Teacher, Frensham School, Mittagong, New South Wales.
J Law Med. 2018 Apr;25(3):837-858.
Australia's intermittent attempts to legalise euthanasia are typically fraught with brief, polarised, and often sensationalised, public debate. Yet beyond the sensitive arguments in favour and in opposition of reform, the practical antecedents of change that may determine Australia's genuine aptitude to enact reforms have been largely neglected. Phronetic legal inquiry thus offers insights into the euthanasia law reform experience, using Australian and international case comparisons to examine covert power dynamics, cultural discourses, and social and institutional structures that affect the practices of the legislature. On this basis, it is argued that Australia's medical profession, and particularly its dominant providers of palliative care, are hampered by an entrenched culture of medicalisation and paternalism, within which patient autonomy provides only a veneer of self-determination. This can be strikingly contrasted with the Dutch approach of patient-centred care, which seeks to produce collaborative, respectful dialogue between physician and patient and to integrate the principles of autonomy and beneficence. Furthermore, these contrasting medical cultures represent issues in the broader policymaking context, as Australia's health policy remains unduly subject to the pressure of unrepresentative yet influential conservative interest groups, most prominently including the Australian Medical Association. This pressure serves to suppress public opinion on the issue of euthanasia in a parliamentary climate that remains stifled by bipartisan alliances and political inertia. It is therefore argued that Australia's prospects for successful voluntary euthanasia law reform rest on the dual pillars of developing a more patient-centred medical culture and challenging the prevailing paternalistic approach to health policymaking in Australia's currently unrepresentative political landscape.
澳大利亚断断续续地尝试将安乐死合法化,这一过程通常伴随着短暂、两极分化且往往耸人听闻的公开辩论。然而,除了支持和反对改革的敏感论点之外,那些可能决定澳大利亚真正进行改革能力的实际变革先例在很大程度上被忽视了。因此,实践法学探究为安乐死法律改革经验提供了见解,通过澳大利亚和国际案例比较来审视影响立法实践的隐蔽权力动态、文化话语以及社会和制度结构。在此基础上,有人认为澳大利亚的医疗行业,尤其是其占主导地位的姑息治疗提供者,受到一种根深蒂固的医疗化和家长式文化的阻碍,在这种文化中,患者自主权仅提供了一层表面的自我决定权。这与荷兰以患者为中心的护理方法形成了鲜明对比,荷兰的方法旨在促成医生与患者之间进行协作、相互尊重的对话,并将自主权和行善原则相结合。此外,这些截然不同的医疗文化在更广泛的政策制定背景下代表了一些问题,因为澳大利亚的卫生政策仍然过度受到缺乏代表性但有影响力的保守利益集团的压力,其中最突出的包括澳大利亚医学协会。在一个因两党联盟和政治惰性而仍然压抑的议会氛围中,这种压力抑制了公众对安乐死问题的看法。因此,有人认为澳大利亚成功进行自愿安乐死法律改革的前景取决于两个支柱:发展一种更以患者为中心的医疗文化,以及挑战澳大利亚当前缺乏代表性的政治格局中盛行的家长式卫生政策制定方法。