Bishop John

Further comment on the human rights argument for – here against – legalising euthanasia,

• Euthanasia is contrary to the International Human rights instruments.  When the Human Rights Committee of the United Nations considered a euthanasia law enacted in the Netherlands to codify what had become euthanasia practice, the Committee said that where a State party seeks to relax legal protection with respect to an act deliberately intended to put an end to human life, the Committee believes that the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights obliges it to apply the most rigorous scrutiny to determine whether the State party’s obligations to ensure the right to life are being complied with (articles 2 and 6 of the Covenant).  The Committee expressed the concerns that the new Act (in the Netherland) contains a number of conditions under which the physician is not punishable when he or she terminates the life of a person, inter alia at the “voluntary and well-considered request” of the patient in a situation of “unbearable suffering” offering “no prospect of improvement” and “no other reasonable solution”. The Committee also expressed concern lest such a system may fail to detect and prevent situations where undue pressure could lead to these criteria being circumvented. The Committee was also concerned that, with the passage of time, such a practice may lead to routinization and insensitivity to the strict application of the requirements in a way not anticipated. The Committee learnt with unease that under the present legal system more than 2,000 cases of euthanasia and assisted suicide (or a combination of both) were reported to the Netherlands’ review committee in the year 2000 and that the review committee came to a negative assessment only in three cases. The large numbers involved raise doubts whether the present system is only being used in extreme cases in which all the substantive conditions are scrupulously maintained. 

Article, A dying man explains why euthanasia is dangerous.

Further research for my sermon, fast becoming a lecture (beware Bellerive!), follows on the former Dutch Minister for Health and her realization that legalising Euthanasia was a mistake. Now the Dutch Health Ministry has an inquiry into the effects of the legalising of euthanasia in the Netherlands – the country that is often held up as the great example of so-called ‘Dying with Dignity’ – now, sadly, apparently not!  Dutch hold inquiry as number of euthanasia cases continues to rise

This week I participated with the Registrar in a two day Course Update of the five day intensive Company Directors Course of the Australian Institute of Company Directors (AICD) which I undertook in 2007. 

The Course Update was excellent and despite the usual last minute angst: “How can I find the time to do this training when there is so much to do?” the need for ongoing professional development thankfully won out and I attended the course.  

Some reflections based on both courses: I find the particularity of the role of a company director both enlightening and challenging. Most of the ministry situations I have found myself in have required entrepreneurial leadership built on strong interpersonal relationships and a free-wheeling spirit that in retrospect has fallen within appropriate limits more by intuition than a trained mentality of compliance. God has been wonderfully gracious!

Although the legal framework presented at the Course was initially terrifying and indeed almost paralyzing, light broke through when the Judeo-Christian concept of faithfulness in the form of fiduciary relationships entered the Board Room as a centralizing key to the role of the director.

Faithfulness lies at the heart of Christian discipleship: God’s faithfulness to us and our response to the faithfulness of God. The faithful God calls a people to be faithful to Him and to join in God’s purposes in the world.

Thus “loyalty and good faith”: to action good faith in the best interests of the company for a proper purpose, avoiding conflicts of interest and misuse of position, all resonate with the great Shema, “Hear O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one” and continues with the duty of total devotion to this One God; “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and all your soul, and with all your might.” [Deuteronomy 6:4-6] 

Our duty is to act with care and diligence and in the interests of the company for a proper purpose. “Faith and works” at the Company Directors Course – Praise the Lord!

Emphasis was also placed on the alignment of the Board and Staff in the development of a strategy that will deliver visions of, “a healthy church … transforming life” (Anglican Church Tasmania) and “Our vision for every child, life in all its fullness. Our prayer for every heart, the will to make it so.” (World Vision Australia)

The length of tenure of directors was raised amidst the vexed issue of the polar organizational dangers of the loss of corporate memory along with director inexperience versus board fossilization. I am of the opinion that the answer to leaders’ length of tenure is not found in the number of years served but in the director’s capacity in skill, dedication and availability. In other words, performance review with ongoing professional development and conversations of loving integrity. The three key words: Review. Review. Review.

Directors’ responsibilities, board health, governance, risk appetite, strategy, implementation and monitoring amidst the necessities of internal and external audits and the wrongly construed apposition of board/staff trust and audit yet the heart to build with clarity, collaboration and celebration – all make for a lexicon and life of fulfillment and adventure as an organization engages people to fulfill its purposes. 

The Company Directors Course challenged participants to step up to the privilege of faithfully fulfilling the mission of our company directorships with diligence and care.

This challenge has a familiar ring. A Nazarene by the name of Jesus Christ said, to the person who is given much, much will be demanded and the fields are ripe for harvest – the harvest is plentiful but the laborers are few – go therefore…

The AICD Course and Update helped equip this disciple to go therefore and I thank the Anglican Church of Tasmania and World Vision Australia for this opportunity to grow.

One of the most irritating things about people wanting to change ‘marriage’ is that they limit their definition of marriage to just two people.

If the argument for same-sex marriage is that, ‘It is my right to be married’, then why not a threesome or foursome, etc? Why not polygamy? Why any limitations on who we can marry? Why not marry my mother or my adult offspring? Why limited to consenting adults? Why not marry the forest?

As I have said previously, ‘marriage’: why corrupt it?,

I have never quite understood what drives the militancy of the same sex lobby regarding the name for their relationship. If a same sex couple or triple for that matter, wish to live in that sort of relationship, why not come up with a name for it?

Why choose a pre-existing word and corrupt its meaning?

Marriage is a commitment between a man and a woman.

Same sex is a relationship between two (or more?) people of the same sex. So please,  let’s find a word for it.

Current ‘marriage’ debate, see, Vowed to fight for recognition.

I stand by my media release of 5 years ago:

 Church supports current marriage status

 The Anglican Bishop of Tasmania, the Right Reverend John Harrower, has spoken out in support of the current definition of marriage in Tasmania.

 Bishop Harrower said, “Last year I was pleased to support the rights of gay and lesbian couples in seeking such things as access to superannuation, visiting rights in hospitals and establishing a register of significant same-sex relationships.”

 “Today I would like to voice my support of the understanding of marriage as being between a man and a woman.  I believe that marriage relationships, understood in this historical way, are a vital foundation of our community life and its definition should remain as is currently the case.

 Bishop Harrower said, “Same-sex couples have access to register their significant relationships, and I believe it is appropriate to keep this register separate from the registry of marriage.”

See, ‘marriage’: why corrupt it?

Anglicare Australia’s 10th State of the Family report – In from the Edge states,

 2010 has been a year in which care for others – inside or outside our immediate communities – seems to have faded from view. The five essays of In from the edge look at some of the barriers leading to social exclusion. They also point to what we need to do if we care to break those barriers down.

 Each year Anti-Poverty Week draws our attention to the history and circumstances of people living in poverty. In that context, the first essay – Trouble rarely travels alone by Jo Flanagan from Anglicare Tasmania – talks to the lived experience of poverty within our mostly affluent society.

 In from the Edge can be downloaded here.