My deep concern
The human right is to live, not to demand death.
My recent article expressing grave concerns about euthanasia ‘reform’ elicited some encouraging response from readers. I share with you a comment made on my blog by the Revd Marie White, Co-incumbent with the Revd Jo Pyecroft, of the Parish of Quamby.
The original article appeared in both the Examiner and Tasmanian Anglican, in June. I strongly urge readers to follow the links listed below this article and hope you will share my deep concern about this move to a ‘right to demand death.’
‘Having spent 35 years of my nursing in aged care and palliative care, I remain convinced’
Dear Bishop John,
The Mercury (newspaper) article (13/6) was fairly even handed, but on reading the comments from both the nurse and the doctor, it seems that there may be problems convincing both these groups of health professionals to participate even if the (euthanasia) bill became legal.
Nurses and doctors take an oath to preserve life. Both professions can be censured for deliberately ending a patient’s life, so it seems unlikely that there would be ready participation.
Social mores and convention would be likely to prevail, as it already does, with many doctors and nurses refusing to take part in early or late term terminations of pregnancy; some nurses or doctors also refuse to participate in sterilisation surgery, vasectomy and tubal ligations. This is considered professionally appropriate; so I can only assume that if the bill became law it may run into the same issues.
Jo and I attended a seminar on this matter sponsored by the Roman Catholic Church in Launceston last Wednesday. The speakers, Barbara Baker, a palliative care nurse; Dr Paul Dunn, a palliative specialist; and Dr Stan Gauden, a radiation oncologist, reinforced my stand against this bill.
Having spent 35 years of my nursing practice teaching and administering in aged care and palliative care, I remain convinced of the sanctity of human life; we do not give life therefore we cannot take it away. It is against the law of the land and also church law.
I shall be writing a submission to the committee, in which I shall give my objections; as in spite of its name (Dying with Dignity) the bill is an affront to human dignity. The countries who already have such a bill, the Netherlands and Belgium are already having to rethink their approach to these matters because of complaints of abuses, and of course we all know where such distortions of the law led to the abuse of power in Nazi Germany.
I realise that many will see my stand as one not to be taken seriously because it is ‘tainted’ by my Christian faith! Well so be it!
I trust these observations will be useful to you.
Yours in Christ,
Marie White
PS Dear Bishop John, yes I am happy to see this letter on your blog. I would urge all Christians to speak against this bill, rather than remain passive. Many elderly people in the Netherlands are frightened of hospital admission because of the laws there. Marie
Note
More information can be found here. The Bill is now being considered by the Joint Standing Committee on Community Development, which will report its findings to Parliament by 2 October.
The links below may be found on Bishop John’s blog
- Euthanasia push in the UK
- The human right is to live, not to demand death
- Is Euthanasia A Morally Acceptable Way To Ease Suffering Of The Elderly?
- Euthanasia: ‘Dying with dignity’ or ‘The throw-away society’?
- Letters I’d like to write to two leaders
Also read
The human right is to live, not to demand death.
In a recent opinion piece by Greg Barns in the Hobart Mercury 1 June 2009 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’.
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.
Read more at Bishop John’s blog.