What do you think?
Rate this book
Killing Me Softly: Voluntary Euthanasia and the Road to the Peaceful Pill
Killing Me Softly is the first book of Dr Philip Nitschke and Dr Fiona Stewart. Initially published by Penguin in 2005 and now back in print, KMS is part-biography Philip Nitschke, part-political analysis of the assisted suicide movement globally and part forward predictions of a person's right to the best end of life choices, regardless of their state of health. The focus of KMS is why Dr Nitschke thinks the way he does; what sets him apart from others in the assisted suicide movement. That this doctor rejects medical dominance in favour of every rational person's right to make their own end of life decisions is unique and it has strategic importance. It is no surprise that the first edition of KMS quickly sold out. Its roadmap for the future raises a range of philosophical, political and practical issues about death and dying that will eventually confront us all.
354 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2005
41 people are currently reading
64 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews
May 24, 2013
Those who take the view that compassion comprises "suffering with" others miss the point entirely. For starters, if everyone subscribed to that line of thinking, we would be bereft of even aspirin. That perspective is what led the ghoulish (and thankfully departed) "Mother" Teresa to withhold analgesics from her wards in India and elsewhere around the world. Funnily (but unsurprisingly) enough, she would not subject herself to the same misguided "compassion" and "love" that she lavished on those in excruciating pain. Referring to the pain of one patient as as "You know, this terrible pain is only the kiss of Jesus -- a sign that you have come so close to Jesus on the cross that he can kiss you." She was too dense to comprehend the reply, "Mother Teresa, please tell Jesus to stop kissing me" as an insult to her condescension and sadistic stand on suffering. For a more detailed expose on this charlatan, I would highly recommend The Missionary Position by Christopher Hitchens.
Why did I start a review on a book propounding the autonomy and freedoms that voluntary euthanasia would bring by mentioning Mother Teresa? Because her defeatist attitude is what pro-lifers would force on the rest of society. They claim to protect the disabled and vulnerable, ignoring the many polls that show a sturdy level of support among disabled individuals for choice in dying. It is only the arrogance of the well-funded organisations such as Care not Killing, Mouth Magazine, the activists and politicians who kept Terri Schiavo "alive" for fifteen years and their ilk who are arrogant enough to speak for the entire community.
But enough ranting. On to the book. Nitschke and Stewart mention the gruesome situation that exists for sufferers of terminal and incurably ill conditions today, such as Motor Neuron Disease. In jurisdictions where assisted dying is permitted by law, patients live longer, knowing they are able to receive assistance if they awaken one morning and discover that they have lost control of their hands. Under the current situation in Australia and most of the US, patients in such tragic scenarios are forced to take their lives early, fly to Switzerland and visit Dignitas, or lay themselves at the mercy of palliative care, which is not perfect. Even palliative care associations and professionals acknowledge this, and concede that 5-10% of their patients will not die peacefully. This is an argument that pro-lifers cannot ignore, unless they wish to appear profoundly hypocritical in addition to already being fulsomely callous.
And as for terminal sedation (falling into a drug-induced coma until death), that is hardly different than assisted suicide. It's often referred to as "slow euthanasia", but when the patient is already "under", they are dead in any meaningful sense of the term. The hypocrisy of that situation is exacerbated by the inability of the doctor to obtain consent for terminal sedation; it must be done in the most clandestine manner possible.
The hypocrisy of the law in the past is also addressed. Two quadriplegics were in hospital, but one could breathe without the aid of a ventilator, and the other could not. The one who required mechanical assistance to live was allowed to die rather quickly. It was assisted suicide, but nonetheless sanctioned and protected by law, because it was "passive" (for a more detailed analysis of the hypocrisy of this legal stance, I recommend Angels of Death - Exploring the Euthanasia Underground by Roger Magnusson). The other patient was forced to die of starvation. In what universe, on what planet could this possibly be considered compassionate?
As another reviewer mentioned, we deserve better than death by hanging. Our pets get Nembutal. Doctors and vets can get Nembutal. The rest of us, unless adequately wealthy or fortuitous, are stuck at the mercy of doctors. One could stockpile morphine until a lethal dose is accumulated, but that means more suffering in the interim. The laws must change, and they must change soon.
I will finish with a quote from Marshall Perron, former Chief Minister of Australia's Northern Territory. You will also find this quote in Roger Magnusson's book I mentioned above.
"Voluntary euthanasia and assistance to suicide are available in Australia today. The problem is that the practice is illegal and therefore only a few people can access it. You have to be affluent enough or lucky enough to have a relationship with the right doctor to be accommodated. Another problem is that it must be arranged and carried out in secret. There must be no witnesses. This means there are no controls or safeguards against mistake or abuse. From a public policy perspective, this situation is inequitable and dangerous."
Marshall Perron, former Chief Minister of the Northern Territory, 24 August 1995.
Why did I start a review on a book propounding the autonomy and freedoms that voluntary euthanasia would bring by mentioning Mother Teresa? Because her defeatist attitude is what pro-lifers would force on the rest of society. They claim to protect the disabled and vulnerable, ignoring the many polls that show a sturdy level of support among disabled individuals for choice in dying. It is only the arrogance of the well-funded organisations such as Care not Killing, Mouth Magazine, the activists and politicians who kept Terri Schiavo "alive" for fifteen years and their ilk who are arrogant enough to speak for the entire community.
But enough ranting. On to the book. Nitschke and Stewart mention the gruesome situation that exists for sufferers of terminal and incurably ill conditions today, such as Motor Neuron Disease. In jurisdictions where assisted dying is permitted by law, patients live longer, knowing they are able to receive assistance if they awaken one morning and discover that they have lost control of their hands. Under the current situation in Australia and most of the US, patients in such tragic scenarios are forced to take their lives early, fly to Switzerland and visit Dignitas, or lay themselves at the mercy of palliative care, which is not perfect. Even palliative care associations and professionals acknowledge this, and concede that 5-10% of their patients will not die peacefully. This is an argument that pro-lifers cannot ignore, unless they wish to appear profoundly hypocritical in addition to already being fulsomely callous.
And as for terminal sedation (falling into a drug-induced coma until death), that is hardly different than assisted suicide. It's often referred to as "slow euthanasia", but when the patient is already "under", they are dead in any meaningful sense of the term. The hypocrisy of that situation is exacerbated by the inability of the doctor to obtain consent for terminal sedation; it must be done in the most clandestine manner possible.
The hypocrisy of the law in the past is also addressed. Two quadriplegics were in hospital, but one could breathe without the aid of a ventilator, and the other could not. The one who required mechanical assistance to live was allowed to die rather quickly. It was assisted suicide, but nonetheless sanctioned and protected by law, because it was "passive" (for a more detailed analysis of the hypocrisy of this legal stance, I recommend Angels of Death - Exploring the Euthanasia Underground by Roger Magnusson). The other patient was forced to die of starvation. In what universe, on what planet could this possibly be considered compassionate?
As another reviewer mentioned, we deserve better than death by hanging. Our pets get Nembutal. Doctors and vets can get Nembutal. The rest of us, unless adequately wealthy or fortuitous, are stuck at the mercy of doctors. One could stockpile morphine until a lethal dose is accumulated, but that means more suffering in the interim. The laws must change, and they must change soon.
I will finish with a quote from Marshall Perron, former Chief Minister of Australia's Northern Territory. You will also find this quote in Roger Magnusson's book I mentioned above.
"Voluntary euthanasia and assistance to suicide are available in Australia today. The problem is that the practice is illegal and therefore only a few people can access it. You have to be affluent enough or lucky enough to have a relationship with the right doctor to be accommodated. Another problem is that it must be arranged and carried out in secret. There must be no witnesses. This means there are no controls or safeguards against mistake or abuse. From a public policy perspective, this situation is inequitable and dangerous."
Marshall Perron, former Chief Minister of the Northern Territory, 24 August 1995.
September 4, 2020
Thought provoking and written with compassion.
Society often worries that people like Mr. Nitschke have some sort of perverse God complex for wanting to help peopl chose their death.
Philip Nitschke's compassion shines through throughout this book.
As a person approaching my twilight years but in relatively good health, it would reassure me to know I have a choice when to end it with dignity and not in a cycle of endless suffering should that time come.
Society often worries that people like Mr. Nitschke have some sort of perverse God complex for wanting to help peopl chose their death.
Philip Nitschke's compassion shines through throughout this book.
As a person approaching my twilight years but in relatively good health, it would reassure me to know I have a choice when to end it with dignity and not in a cycle of endless suffering should that time come.
May 14, 2017
If you can work past Nitschke's gentle, but earnest underlying plea for redemption, you'll probably reach that part of the book where you question why you're reading it. Preaching to the converted! Who would read such a thing if you didn't already believe that in this modern world a person's control of their end of life choice was inadequate.
If you go a chapter further, you'll find exceptional and respectful consideration of the debate on suicide, the health of the elderly, the rights of parents, the health budget, etc. You'll find yourself confronted with new ideas beyond "I believe that people have the right to choose...".
This is not a new book. But more than ten years on, it still has relevance. It is not a history of the debate in Australia, but it provides context and argument for the ongoing considerations of the right to life, and the right to death, and who has the right to control others.
He is perhaps too heavy handed on the case studies, letters to the editor, and extracts from Hansard; but I guess those are there for those who want them. You can gloss over some of the political hatred too if you like.
I think he misses a few arguments, although I'm sure they've crossed his mind since the book was published. What about murder? Isn't the quest for the Peaceful Pill the same as the quest for a cure for cancer? (That is to say that both are fantastical and futile).
But on the whole I think Nitschke and Stewart have done a commendable job.
Back in the 90s I was much younger, and I recall hearing about ROTI in Darwin, and thinking him somewhat of a quack or an attempted fanatical cult leader. For many people he will never outlive that image. He is a radical man, but sometimes we need radical men.
If you go a chapter further, you'll find exceptional and respectful consideration of the debate on suicide, the health of the elderly, the rights of parents, the health budget, etc. You'll find yourself confronted with new ideas beyond "I believe that people have the right to choose...".
This is not a new book. But more than ten years on, it still has relevance. It is not a history of the debate in Australia, but it provides context and argument for the ongoing considerations of the right to life, and the right to death, and who has the right to control others.
He is perhaps too heavy handed on the case studies, letters to the editor, and extracts from Hansard; but I guess those are there for those who want them. You can gloss over some of the political hatred too if you like.
I think he misses a few arguments, although I'm sure they've crossed his mind since the book was published. What about murder? Isn't the quest for the Peaceful Pill the same as the quest for a cure for cancer? (That is to say that both are fantastical and futile).
But on the whole I think Nitschke and Stewart have done a commendable job.
Back in the 90s I was much younger, and I recall hearing about ROTI in Darwin, and thinking him somewhat of a quack or an attempted fanatical cult leader. For many people he will never outlive that image. He is a radical man, but sometimes we need radical men.
June 16, 2013
Level-headed, with more Compassion than the Entire Pro-life Movement
Those who take the view that compassion comprises "suffering with" others miss the point entirely. For starters, if everyone subscribed to that line of thinking, we would be bereft of even aspirin. That perspective is what led the ghoulish (and thankfully departed) "Mother" Teresa to withhold analgesics from her wards in India and elsewhere around the world. Funnily (but unsurprisingly) enough, she would not subject herself to the same misguided "compassion" and "love" that she lavished on those in excruciating pain. Referring to the pain of one patient as as "You know, this terrible pain is only the kiss of Jesus -- a sign that you have come so close to Jesus on the cross that he can kiss you." She was too dense to comprehend the reply, "Mother Teresa, please tell Jesus to stop kissing me" as an insult to her condescension and sadistic stand on suffering. For a more detailed expose on this charlatan, I would highly recommend The Missionary Position by Christopher Hitchens.
Why did I start a review on a book propounding the autonomy and freedoms that voluntary euthanasia would bring by mentioning Mother Teresa? Because her defeatist attitude is what pro-lifers would force on the rest of society. They claim to protect the disabled and vulnerable, ignoring the many polls that show a sturdy level of support among disabled individuals for choice in dying. It is only the arrogance of the well-funded organisations such as Care not Killing, Mouth Magazine, the activists and politicians who kept Terri Schiavo "alive" for fifteen years and their ilk who are arrogant enough to speak for the entire community.
But enough ranting. On to the book. Nitschke and Stewart mention the gruesome situation that exists for sufferers of terminal and incurably ill conditions today, such as Motor Neuron Disease. In jurisdictions where assisted dying is permitted by law, patients live longer, knowing they are able to receive assistance if they awaken one morning and discover that they have lost control of their hands. Under the current situation in Australia and most of the US, patients in such tragic scenarios are forced to take their lives early, fly to Switzerland and visit Dignitas, or lay themselves at the mercy of palliative care, which is not perfect. Even palliative care associations and professionals acknowledge this, and concede that 5-10% of their patients will not die peacefully. This is an argument that pro-lifers cannot ignore, unless they wish to appear profoundly hypocritical in addition to already being fulsomely callous.
And as for terminal sedation (falling into a drug-induced coma until death), that is hardly different than assisted suicide. It's often referred to as "slow euthanasia", but when the patient is already "under", they are dead in any meaningful sense of the term. The hypocrisy of that situation is exacerbated by the inability of the doctor to obtain consent for terminal sedation; it must be done in the most clandestine manner possible.
The hypocrisy of the law in the past is also addressed. Two quadriplegics were in hospital, but one could breathe without the aid of a ventilator, and the other could not. The one who required mechanical assistance to live was allowed to die rather quickly. It was assisted suicide, but nonetheless sanctioned and protected by law, because it was "passive" (for a more detailed analysis of the hypocrisy of this legal stance, I recommend Angels of Death - Exploring the Euthanasia Underground by Roger Magnusson). The other patient was forced to die of starvation. In what universe, on what planet could this possibly be considered compassionate?
As another reviewer mentioned, we deserve better than death by hanging. Our pets get Nembutal. Doctors and vets can get Nembutal. The rest of us, unless adequately wealthy or fortuitous, are stuck at the mercy of doctors. One could stockpile morphine until a lethal dose is accumulated, but that means more suffering in the interim. The laws must change, and they must change soon.
I will finish with a quote from Marshall Perron, former Chief Minister of Australia's Northern Territory. You will also find this quote in Roger Magnusson's book I mentioned above.
"Voluntary euthanasia and assistance to suicide are available in Australia today. The problem is that the practice is illegal and therefore only a few people can access it. You have to be affluent enough or lucky enough to have a relationship with the right doctor to be accommodated. Another problem is that it must be arranged and carried out in secret. There must be no witnesses. This means there are no controls or safeguards against mistake or abuse. From a public policy perspective, this situation is inequitable and dangerous."
Marshall Perron, former Chief Minister of the Northern Territory, 24 August 1995.
Those who take the view that compassion comprises "suffering with" others miss the point entirely. For starters, if everyone subscribed to that line of thinking, we would be bereft of even aspirin. That perspective is what led the ghoulish (and thankfully departed) "Mother" Teresa to withhold analgesics from her wards in India and elsewhere around the world. Funnily (but unsurprisingly) enough, she would not subject herself to the same misguided "compassion" and "love" that she lavished on those in excruciating pain. Referring to the pain of one patient as as "You know, this terrible pain is only the kiss of Jesus -- a sign that you have come so close to Jesus on the cross that he can kiss you." She was too dense to comprehend the reply, "Mother Teresa, please tell Jesus to stop kissing me" as an insult to her condescension and sadistic stand on suffering. For a more detailed expose on this charlatan, I would highly recommend The Missionary Position by Christopher Hitchens.
Why did I start a review on a book propounding the autonomy and freedoms that voluntary euthanasia would bring by mentioning Mother Teresa? Because her defeatist attitude is what pro-lifers would force on the rest of society. They claim to protect the disabled and vulnerable, ignoring the many polls that show a sturdy level of support among disabled individuals for choice in dying. It is only the arrogance of the well-funded organisations such as Care not Killing, Mouth Magazine, the activists and politicians who kept Terri Schiavo "alive" for fifteen years and their ilk who are arrogant enough to speak for the entire community.
But enough ranting. On to the book. Nitschke and Stewart mention the gruesome situation that exists for sufferers of terminal and incurably ill conditions today, such as Motor Neuron Disease. In jurisdictions where assisted dying is permitted by law, patients live longer, knowing they are able to receive assistance if they awaken one morning and discover that they have lost control of their hands. Under the current situation in Australia and most of the US, patients in such tragic scenarios are forced to take their lives early, fly to Switzerland and visit Dignitas, or lay themselves at the mercy of palliative care, which is not perfect. Even palliative care associations and professionals acknowledge this, and concede that 5-10% of their patients will not die peacefully. This is an argument that pro-lifers cannot ignore, unless they wish to appear profoundly hypocritical in addition to already being fulsomely callous.
And as for terminal sedation (falling into a drug-induced coma until death), that is hardly different than assisted suicide. It's often referred to as "slow euthanasia", but when the patient is already "under", they are dead in any meaningful sense of the term. The hypocrisy of that situation is exacerbated by the inability of the doctor to obtain consent for terminal sedation; it must be done in the most clandestine manner possible.
The hypocrisy of the law in the past is also addressed. Two quadriplegics were in hospital, but one could breathe without the aid of a ventilator, and the other could not. The one who required mechanical assistance to live was allowed to die rather quickly. It was assisted suicide, but nonetheless sanctioned and protected by law, because it was "passive" (for a more detailed analysis of the hypocrisy of this legal stance, I recommend Angels of Death - Exploring the Euthanasia Underground by Roger Magnusson). The other patient was forced to die of starvation. In what universe, on what planet could this possibly be considered compassionate?
As another reviewer mentioned, we deserve better than death by hanging. Our pets get Nembutal. Doctors and vets can get Nembutal. The rest of us, unless adequately wealthy or fortuitous, are stuck at the mercy of doctors. One could stockpile morphine until a lethal dose is accumulated, but that means more suffering in the interim. The laws must change, and they must change soon.
I will finish with a quote from Marshall Perron, former Chief Minister of Australia's Northern Territory. You will also find this quote in Roger Magnusson's book I mentioned above.
"Voluntary euthanasia and assistance to suicide are available in Australia today. The problem is that the practice is illegal and therefore only a few people can access it. You have to be affluent enough or lucky enough to have a relationship with the right doctor to be accommodated. Another problem is that it must be arranged and carried out in secret. There must be no witnesses. This means there are no controls or safeguards against mistake or abuse. From a public policy perspective, this situation is inequitable and dangerous."
Marshall Perron, former Chief Minister of the Northern Territory, 24 August 1995.
November 29, 2010
Anyone interested in ethics should read this book. It doesn't matter if you're a fervent Christian appalled by the idea of euthanasia, nor does it matter if you're already set on the idea that everyone should be allowed freedom of choice in all aspects of life. Nitschke has been labelled "Dr Death", in a manner that I think is both unfair and completely off the mark. On the contrary, I'd argue that his respect for life, human worth and dignity makes him just the opposite. It is his belief in the human spirit free from suffering that compels his book.
"Killing me softly" contains real life stories of people facing unspeakable pain and ongoing suffering. There are pages that will move the most hardened character to tears. The whole book makes you think and question any opinions you may have initially held on the subject. If it's about anything, it's about choice: Who makes decisions? Who influences these decisions? What is the result, and most importantly - what are the consequences of all these things on your OWN prerogative...? Definitely a must read.
"Killing me softly" contains real life stories of people facing unspeakable pain and ongoing suffering. There are pages that will move the most hardened character to tears. The whole book makes you think and question any opinions you may have initially held on the subject. If it's about anything, it's about choice: Who makes decisions? Who influences these decisions? What is the result, and most importantly - what are the consequences of all these things on your OWN prerogative...? Definitely a must read.
May 16, 2011
Don't worry amici I'm not planning mors voluntaria, rather I'm reading this in preparation for a writing project/interview with the good Dr Nitschke...
OK, not exactly a 'fun' read - focussing one's attention on the unavoidable pain of death fast approaching all of us - I must admit I needed to go 50 pages at a time and then turn to a chapter of something more cheerful like The Fatal Shore or The Tyrant's Novel - but strangely comforting in that it not only poses the problem but shows that there are morally and logically straightforward, if politically complicated, solutions.
This is an enormously important topic, and one that will no doubt come ever more to the fore as - as Nitschke points out - the ever-independent and demanding baby boomers deal with the difficult subject of dying with dignity.
OK, not exactly a 'fun' read - focussing one's attention on the unavoidable pain of death fast approaching all of us - I must admit I needed to go 50 pages at a time and then turn to a chapter of something more cheerful like The Fatal Shore or The Tyrant's Novel - but strangely comforting in that it not only poses the problem but shows that there are morally and logically straightforward, if politically complicated, solutions.
This is an enormously important topic, and one that will no doubt come ever more to the fore as - as Nitschke points out - the ever-independent and demanding baby boomers deal with the difficult subject of dying with dignity.
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews