Bishop John

Is the Bill as proposed, ‘a simplistic reaction and a threat to the ethical basis of our society’?   Two comments indicate that this is so. See Current Practices (Part 4- Incidental Matters), of the “Report on the Dying with Dignity Bill 2009″ pages 39, 40.

But before noting these comments, the Report sets out the pro-euthanasia/patient assisted suicide (PAS) argument that compassion be a valid motive, “The law as it currently stands does not take into consideration compassion as a motive nor the consent of the patient if assistance is given by a medical practioner to end the life of a person suffering a terminal illness.”

And secondly, the Report notes that the pro-euthanasia/PAS advocates declare that legislation should legitimise current practice: “Surveys in 1997 and 2001 of medical practioners show that active euthanasia was occuring in Australia and in such circumstances it is argued that the leglisation would provide a regulated environment that would afford protection to both medical practioners and patients.”

However, “The proposed Legislation of such incidents of active euthanasia was critised by some as a simplistic reaction and a threat to the ethical basis of our society by others.”

We know that there are doctors killing their patients; we do not know what the motivations are. That is one of the really problematic issues here…the fact that we have this happening tells us there is an issue that needs to be addressed. The question is what do we do next? And I am suggesting that it would be a serious mistake and a severe oversimplification to suggest that what we do is simply legalise the problematic behavior. In fact if we did I would suggest that we would be pushing the real problem under the carpet because the real problem will require a much broader and more complex set of arrangements in order to address it….There isn’t going to be one single solution, and physician assisted suicide is certainly not the silver bullet that will solve this problem. – Prof. Jeff Malpas (Transcript 31/8/09 p. 19 & 20)

More-over, “It was also argued that the legalisation of voluntary euthanasia would compromise the ethical and legal foundations of our society.”

…what you are being asked to do as a parliament is to change the fundamental principle within Tasmania….that it is wrong to use lethal, deadly force against a person who is not harming or attempting to harm you. This Bill is designed to modify that principle and it does so in relation to the Criminal Code. What you are being asked to do is to go beyond what parliament now does…You are being asked to change the Criminal Code in relation to a specific profession – and it is ironic that I don’t think the profession is very much in favour of it – so that they will be allowed to use lethal force against a person who is not themselves using deadly force against them. – Prof. Michael Tate (Transcript 10/8/09 p.15)

 Read the full Report here

The Tasmanian Parliamentary Committee’s ‘Report on the Dying with Dignity Bill 2009′ sets out in Part 3 ‘Analysis of the Bill’, comments and observations on major sections of the proposed euthanasia/patient assisted suicide legislation. I found this to be a useful guide to the arguments both pro euthanasia and against. e.g.:

It is concerning that this title of the Bill lays claims to Euthanasia as being a dignified death, promoting the premise that any other avenue of death is undignified and euthanasia (or medical assisted suicide) as the only method of a dignified death. The excellent levels of palliative care provided in Tasmanian hospitals and aged care facilities do allow a person to die with dignity. – Archbishop Adrian Doyle (Submission No. 121, page 1)

 

As a legislator, it is my duty to put forward law reform proposals when the law diverges too greatly from reality. A landmark study conducted in 1997 found that, “Australian law has not prevented doctors from practicing euthanasia or making medical end-of-life decisions explicitly intended to hasten the patient’s death without the patient’s request.” Clearly existing criminal law against assisted suicide has failed to prevent euthanasia. – Mr Nick McKim (Submission No. 494 p.2)

 

 …the title “Dying with Dignity” this is sheer sophistry. No-one could argue that the taking of a human life conveys dignity…the word “dignity”… should not be in the title at all. The title of a Bill should always accurately convey the content. So I would suggest, ‘A Bill to Permit a Person to be killed with a Lethal Substance on Request’ would be a more appropriate title. – Mr Rene Hidding (Transcript 10/8/09 p.6)

 

The value of the Netherlands experience is not in the establishment of the right to die a dignified and humane death. The value is in providing an example of the perils of active voluntary euthanasia as a whole. And for each vulnerable person within that society a right to die, once accepted too easily becomes a duty to die or an excuse to kill. – Reverend Richard Humphrey (Transcript 24/8/09 p.15)

 

We believe, and have evidence in our document and in these other documents, that this legislative option is responsible, democratic and safe. – Dr Margaret Sing (Transcript 24/8/09 p.76)

 

An individual with decision-making capacity should…be able to determine how and when he or she dies as long as this does not interfere with the rights of others…self-determination does not entail a right to demand and receive active voluntary euthanasia… The Bill … contains a number of provisions to ensure the voluntariness of the doctor’s decision to provide assistance under the legislation. – Prof. Margaret Otlowski (Submission No. 487 p.8)

  Report here

The Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts, the Honorable Peter Garrett AM MP was in attendance at St David’s Cathedral (Tuesday 13th October) for an important heritage funding announcement.

$1.6 million has been granted for the enhancement and maintaining of St David’s Cathedral. This is further to the 1.5 million granted in 2008. Hon Peter Garrett stated that the funding will complete the conservation project. He was also impressed that $600,000 has been contributed by the community to the conservation works.

The Hon. Peter Garrett spoke of St David’s as being a place of worship that has meaning and significance to the community. He recalled from his recent visit, the crucial role that the Cathedral has played in the City of Hobart, the importance of the site from the colonial years and noted that the conservation work will allow improved engagement with the community.

The Hon. Peter Garrett inspected the recent improvements with Mr Paul Davies (Architect) followed by afternoon tea, supplied in abundance by the St David’s hospitality team.

Did you know that last Wednesday fortnight was the first ‘Blasphemy Day’? But then growing up in Australia I have heard blasphemy go unchecked since childhood. Just attend a sporting event in Australia!

I recently read an article by Ronald Lindsay, “Taking aim at God on ‘Blasphemy Day”.  I found it liberating (I want people to talk freely about God) and troubling (I want to live in loving relationship with my neighbour).

Outraged by nations that want to execute blasphemers and propelled by a deep belief in the freedom of expression, Lindsay is forging ahead with his “nothing is sacred” movement. Wednesday marked the first organised observance of Blasphemy Day, a series of events, exhibits and lectures unfolding in a host of mostly North American cities that are part of a larger Campaign for Free Expression. 

But to Lindsay, a society is not truly free unless people can freely air their views on any subject – including God. I have areas of agreement with Lindsay but also some questions:                                                                                                                                                   

• I wonder if offensive remarks were made about issues and persons that Lindsay values highly; would that be acceptable to him?
• Is it too easy to seek the freedom to say offensive things about aspects of life that we do not hold in esteem?
• At what point is community harmony broken by ‘free speech’?
• What does love of neighbour call me to say to those at variance with my beliefs and values?
• How do we treat people?
• How is love of neighbour shown, lived?
• Does ‘in your face’ offense of deeply held loves such as family, friends and ‘God’ enhance our shared life?
• Does the prohibition of deeply held religious belief lead to social harmony?

Race and Religion: Note that race and religion are different and therefore should be spoken of differently. A person’s race cannot be decided upon or denied wheras religious or ideological belief is said to be chosen and is therefore open to questioning and challenge.

Clearly I urge people not to blaspheme. But along with Voltaire I would prefer to endure disrespect to my beliefs, including irreverence towards the God of my religious beliefs, than curtail the right of a person to express those beliefs. The fact that blasphemy is a crime under our Tasmanian legislation is potentially dangerous to free and honest conversation about deeply held religious beliefs.

A cultural aspect of this issue is the use of what is technically blasphemy, but which is a vernacular use of the divine names in Anglo-Saxon Australian culture. While I and many other Christians find the (mis)use of the divine names ‘Jesus Christ’ and ‘God’ to express surprise or disapproval, to be hurtful and offensive, I also recognise that this (mis)use is not meant to give offense to either Christians or to God.

In conclusion, I believe the crime of blasphemy should be removed from the criminal code and we should work towards social harmony through our own offices. A high priority must be given to the education of Tasmanians in different religious beliefs and practices.

My full article on Blasphemy is here.

Professor Ian Harper gave an outstanding address at this week’s Tasmanian Parliamentary Prayer Breakfast (now in its fourth year) about the Global Financial Crisis and our response to it. My notes, with apologies to the Professor 🙂 

The Global Financial Crisis has called forth moral responses – “greed”, “excess”, and “selfishness”.

•  Society has shifted its moral and philosophical moorings.
• The great economist Adam Smith (Professor of Moral Philosophy) is best known for his book “An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations” but he also wrote “The Theory of Moral Sentiments” – the essential foundation for the “Wealth of Nations”.

The morning’s text was Luke 12:15-21, the Parable of the Rich Fool, from which Professor Harper posed the question, “Where is your security?” – a person’s life is more than their possessions.

The moral failure of the Global Financial Crisis allows us to speak of moral failure, sin.

• We are not surprised to see “sin” in others, in ourselves. His own confession of failure at the news of the GFC, “I went to the ATM.”
• We are all sinners.
• As Christians we have the Gospel, life of Jesus Christ and the power of the Holy Spirit working in us.
• We have God’s grace and forgiveness, then when we fail, God’s moral remedy to go on: integrity, not moral compartmentalizing of our faith. 

He posed two questions to people without Christian faith:

• How do you call yourself to higher ends, moral conduct?  
• Where do you look when you fail?

Professor Harper went on to say that:

• We need to rebuild trust and rebuild on moral foundations
• We need to live for others as much as for ourselves
• Regulations will not be enough
• We need trust and faith
• We need something beyond ourselves
• He is calling for “Moral revival”
• We need to live our lives with moral courage
• Our faith in Christ empowers us and gives us grace when we fail

This response is up to me and you!

 You can find the basis of this address at “Morality and the GFC” here, which is an extract from his lecture (Transcript will be available end of October) at the 2009 Smith Lecture