Dying with Dignity campaigner Dr Rodney Syme has accused the Royal Australasian College of Physicians (RACP) of “cowardly” and “insulting” behaviour and of trying to stifle debate, after withdrawing his invitation to speak at its upcoming annual conference.
“The outcome is an act of academic censorship of the worst kind – they did not know the content of my address,” Syme said in a statement to colleagues that has been widely shared, at his behest.
Croakey has sought a response from the RACP, whose Congress 2015 is being staged in Cairns from 24–27 May on the theme of with the theme ‘Breaking Boundaries Creating Connections’.
The Age reported on Tuesday that the RACP’s decision came before the publication of an article in Fairfax media on 11 May which reported that Syme had publicly handed lethal illegal medication to a terminal cancer victim. It quotes former Northern Territory Chief Minister Marshall Perron as saying the RACP decision was “disgraceful”. It said Perron, the architect of Australia’s first euthanasia laws, wrote to the RACP saying it should encourage open honest discussion. “Instead you demonstrate a cowardly approach of which you should be ashamed,” he wrote.
Professor Peter Brooks, from the Centre for Health Policy in the School of Population and Global Health at Melbourne University, told Croakey he was “appalled” by the RACP’s decision, which he said amounted to “outrageous behaviour”.
In his emailed statement, Syme says he was invited in February by a member of the Congress organising committee to deliver a plenary address on ‘Caring for those at the end of their journey’ .
“ I was very honoured to receive such an invitation, particularly since I was not a physician, and was in the twilight of my professional career (although I have a considerable experience in the subject),” he said.
“I did not think a polemic on voluntary assisted dying (voluntary euthanasia) would be suitable, and offered to discuss the gap between the rhetoric and the reality of palliative care, basing it on published material,” he said.
Syme said he spent considerable time developing and honing his address over the next 10 weeks, but was then phoned on 8 May by two representatives of the College, who told him there was “considerable unrest” among palliative care specialists about his address.
He was told that “due to large amount of dissent by Fellows, a decision had been made to withdraw my invitation to attend the meeting, and to speak.” That was followed up three days later with an email from RACP Vice-President Dr Catherine Yelland, confirming the decision to withdraw.
Syme said his response was, “as follows:
- I personally feel deeply insulted.
- I regard the behaviour of those at the highest level of the college, an academic institution of high repute, as being less than expected of an academic body.
- For the college to surrender to “significant disquiet” from an unknown and undisclosed number of members in this way is cowardly.
- The Lead Fellow who invited me was incensed at the College’s reaction.
- The outcome is an act of academic censorship of the worst kind – they did not know the content of my address.
- It illustrates the extreme depths to which those opposed to open debate on an important medical and social issue will descend to stifle debate.”
Croakey will update this article with any response from the RACP.
Below are some related tweets:
Hang on. Before the outraged freedom of speech people rock up, you don’t think that inviting a known Euthanasia advocate (who is a Urologist at the end of the day) to talk about Palliative care is a bit wrong? In my opinion, the Palliative care specialists have every right to feel aggrieved…
To me, the RACP is just rectifying the original error by the Lead Fellow who invited Dr Syme to speak.
Speaking of which, if these guys continue to be activists for Euthanasia, they should really give up their medical titles. Medical Doctors hold such trust in our society that having such a person agitate (and, allegedly, provide medication) for assisted suicide is debasing the profession in my view.
Actually I would have though a Urologist had a particularly relevant disciplinary insight into late life/end of life conditions that can afflict patients.
But that’s nothing compared to you very obvious bias against the very idea of euthanasia. The entire point of this article is that the “old guard” of the profession is the one part of it obstructing essential discussion, including the legal ramifications for medical and paramedical professionals who might one day have to deal with the issue and may or may not have their own ethical issues with it.
Censorship isn’t about simple minded opinion like yours, it’s about the suppression of ideas, which is what you’re promoting.
It’s one of the core definitions of fascism. But that seems to be standard for Australian discourse on serious ideas these days.
Easing the burden of the dying process, which is what palliative care claims to do, is very close to making available the choice of reducing the span of the burden of the dying process.
If Scott has no objection to whatever burden of dying fate doles out to him that should be his choice but when he dictates that I may not choose to reduce the span of the burden of my dying he is demanding a control of my body to which he is not entitled. Palliative care doctors must be aware of the needs of the dying and their pleadings should not be overridden.
Don’t be insulted Dr Syme, be grateful that the RACP leadership has so clearly demonstrated its theocratic constipation to the membership. That membership now must choose whether to take the necessary purgative, or to stick to being faecally replete.
A Crikey site concerned about free speech / censorship / professional standards?
Praise the Lord.
A woeful lack of imagination and insight