Tag: Euthanasia

Linda Smith, Crowd welcomes Nitschke at June 18, 2009 12:55pm, includes:

‘An enthusiastic crowd packed a public meeting to listen to euthanasia advocate Philip Nitschke in Hobart this morning.

‘About 70 Tasmanians — mostly elderly — turned out for the meeting in North Hobart this morning and an afternoon workshop about obtaining and using the illegal euthanasia drug Nembutal is now underway.’

A riposte, Latest push for mercy killings is dangerously ill informed by Michael Cook, includes:

‘A few years ago Nitschke wrote a book with Fiona Stewart, ‘Killing Me Softly’, in which he unveiled the full scope of his vision for euthanasia. . . . End-of-life care is expensive, Nitschke mused in his book. If voluntary euthanasia lopped a mere six months off the lives of ailing elderly people, immense savings would result:

‘One can but wonder when a government will have the guts to stop digging the fiscal black hole that is their ever-deepening legacy for future generations. While the enabling of end-of-life choices will not fix the economic woes of the next forty years, it would not hurt, given half a chance.

‘So the next time you hear a government minister trying to argue why this or that payment or welfare program for single mothers or war veterans must be cut, counter their argument with their fiscal irresponsibility on end-of-life choices.

‘He also advocated voluntary euthanasia for “the troubled teen” and involuntary euthanasia for seriously ill newborns.’

We live in troubled times! 

In a recent opinion piece arguing pro euthanasia in Tasmania, two human rights, dignity and privacy, were joined to argue for the human right to demand death; ‘dignified death is a right’.

This conclusion is not just contrary to the right to life but it runs counter to the whole flow of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which is about life, about living. The human right is to live, not to demand death.

The opinion piece raises a more general issue which concerns the effectiveness of a charter or bill of human rights to protect and promote human rights in Australia. The use of the Declaration of Human Rights to demand a right which was neither included nor I suggest intended, moves me from my fence sitting on the need for a charter or bill of human rights in Australia to deep concerns about having such a charter. If the Universal Declaration on Human Rights can be used to join two rights which have nothing to do with demanding death to argue for the right to demand death, then I for one am deeply disturbed at our having such a charter or bill.

I do not want to see the legal captivity of ‘unintended human rights’.

There is a fundamental shift in the argument used to promote euthanasia. This shift is from dying with dignity arguments based on the alleviation of terminal suffering to rights based arguments on the exercise of personal choice: ‘It’s my life. It’s my right to choose when to end it.’

The ‘rights’ case was argued today by Greg Barns, ‘Dignified death is a right’

‘In other words, the state has no right to interfere with a person’s right to privacy, that is to choose the timing and method of his death, or the right to dignity, when a person is suffering to the point that they are humiliated or they feel somehow less than human.’

This shift of argument forms part of an insightful article, ‘Dying and choosing’ by Ilora Finlay a in the prestigious British medical journal, The Lancet, Volume 373, Issue 9678, 30 May 2009.

‘This shift of emphasis in the pro-euthanasia campaign has potentially serious implications. As long as the case for euthanasia was linked with the symptomatic suffering of the dying process, the issue was more or less anchored to terminal illness. With the recent emphasis on personal choice and control, however, it is coming to encompass people whose illnesses are characterised not so much by distressing symptoms as by conditions, such as immobility and dependence on others, that are essentially person-centred.’

What are the implications of this shift of argument?

‘To put it another way, the choice and control agenda contains within itself the seeds of a natural progression from terminal illnesses, such as cancer or end-stage organ failure where those diagnosed usually have life expectancies of weeks or months, to chronic or degenerative illnesses whose sufferers may have years, even decades, of life ahead of them. If the keystone of the case for legalising euthanasia is to be the right of a patient to decide when he or she has had enough of coping with illness and to demand medical help to die, it is but a short step from there to arguing that such a facility ought to be available to people who face the prospect of many years of living with their conditions as well as to those who are in the closing stages of their lives.’

Also of interest is the compelling life story with which the article commences,

“I have never seen such a clear cut case for euthanasia” were the general practitioner’s words when he referred to me a young man with a fungating malignant spinal tumour. The patient’s distress was palpable and compounded by neuropathic pain. But, most of all, he hated losing control through creeping paraplegia and through his increasing dependence on his young wife, who was struggling to cope with their two children and 7-week-old baby. He asked me to end it for him, and his request persisted …’

‘Dying and choosing’ – valuable food for thought.

You probably expect an Anglican bishop to oppose a euthanasia ‘reform’. I do, but maybe not for the expected reasons.

First, some theology: life is a gift from God, a sacred trust, not to be taken by human hand.

The proposed legislation’s title, ‘Dying with Dignity’, is misleading, spin to suggest euthanasia is the best way to care for people with terminal illness. I challenge that. The best way to care for dying people is to relieve from pain and suffering, helping them to enjoy as much quality of life as possible so they can, genuinely, ‘die with dignity’. The Bill before parliament seeks approval of assisted suicide. Assisting my parents to commit suicide would have denied them dignity, and tainted our own humanity.

Alarm bells are ringing, indeed clanging, for me. People will place immense pressure on themselves. Family members, friends and society may, intentionally or not, put immense pressure on those with terminal or long-term illness. Yes, the emotional, physical and financial cost of caring for the ill is immense. The cost of care is the cost of love. Love is not easy. Costly care is the mark of a loving society. Known professionally as palliative care, it receives Government funding. Clinicians and nurses are trained in therapies and medicating to relieve pain without making people comatose, helping people live out their last days or months with a quality of life where they can farewell their families.

And what about human rights? Elderly or terminally ill persons have the right of access to the best palliative care. What if, after diagnosis of terminal illness, a patient falls into temporary depression? In that state, would it be right for that person’s life to be placed in the hands of two medical practitioners with the power to take life?

Then there is the question of family members feeling the ‘burden’ of care is too great or, worse, the temptation to hasten death to inherit an estate. Where is the protection in this legislation against such manipulation? Who can I trust with such a decision? I am not sure that I can trust myself. We should not place such a burden on carers and loved ones, already bearing so much pain in giving life, not in bringing death.

In our impatient, secular society, the culture of life as entertainment is promoted every day. Our society is becoming impatient with death, especially if it takes too long. There is a human right to stay alive, to celebrate God’s gifts. When death comes naturally, we can celebrate all that God has provided for that person.

May love and life be the hallmarks of Tasmania, lest we become known as the Isle of Death.

John Harrower OAM
Bishop of Tasmania

*Appeared in the Examiner newspaper, Tasmania, Friday May 29 2009.

On the Friday afternoon of May 22 just prior to Synod’s commencement, I was contacted by the ‘Mercury’. My rather longer interview comments were reduced in the Saturday newspaper to ‘the proposal set off “all his alarm bells”.’

I had elaborated on four basic points:

1. God gives life and God takes it away
2. It is not for another human being to take life
3. Dangers of euthanasia to the sufferer, family & friends, and society
4. Need for society to provide proper care for sufferers (palliative care)

On the way home from Synod I was contacted by ‘Examiner’ reporter Ellena Midgley whose report, ‘Church condemns euthanasia bill’, appeared Monday May 25:

“THE Anglican Church has condemned the latest bid to legalise voluntary euthanasia, while new polling has shown that three- quarters of Tasmanians want the option.

“Bishop John Harrower said he strongly opposed Tasmanian Greens Leader Nick McKim’s Dying With Dignity Bill, and encouraged MPs to vote against it for the betterment of Tasmania.”

This Tuesday’s May 26 ‘Mercury’ has brilliant comment by the highly respected and experienced Hobart Dr Paul Dunne in an article by Sally Glaetzer, Doctor challenges death Bill In part,

TASMANIANS will lose the ability to “grow” from the experience of death if euthanasia laws are passed, an expert says.

Hobart palliative care physician Paul Dunne said he often marvelled at the benefits a family got when their loved one was on their deathbed.

“It is one of the remaining rituals that we have in our society because that person lying in the bed is very powerful in bringing families together.”

Dr Dunne said (if the euthanasia legislation was passed) the result would be a “throw-away society”.

“As a society we’re going to lose a hell of a lot of wisdom, that ability to grieve properly and live properly,” he said.

“It is really treating life like a commodity.”

The Australian Christian Lobby is participating and has a link to a Sunrise interview on the Tasmanian bill. ACL also provides links: click here to view the piece and to Channel Seven’s blog discussion which you may wish to join.

Bishop Ross Nicholson is participating on a ‘Hypotheticals’ panel for the palliative care unit in Launceston.

I have been asked to write an article to appear on Friday in the Examiner newspaper.

It’s all happening in Tassie! We work and pray, pray and work. Please join us.