26th April , 2009
GLYNIS QUINLAN

The issue of euthanasia is again raising its head in an Australian state, with Tasmanian Greens' leader Nick McKim introducing a 'Dying with Dignity' bill into parliament in late May.

This is despite a previous Tasmanian parliamentary inquiry's unanimous decision to reject euthanasia in 1998, as well as last August's resounding defeat of Victoria's euthanasia bill by 25 votes to 13 in the Victorian Upper House.

According to media reports, both Labor and Liberal MPs are to be allowed a conscience vote on the Tasmanian bill. However, thankfully, this vote is likely to meet with a delay while the bill receives closer scrutiny. Tasmania's Deputy Premier Lara Giddings has moved to have the legislation examined by a cross-party committee of both Houses of Parliament before being debated later in the year.

But why are the Greens and others continually trying to resurrect the issue of euthanasia? And why should Christians be so concerned?

According to Nick McKim, he wants to see the law reflect “the values of compassion, respect for human dignity, and freedom of choice”.

Sounds like a worthy aim, and who could fail to be moved by the thought of terminally ill people suffering intolerable pain who just want to bring it to an end?

When you consider this issue more closely, however, you soon find that legalising euthanasia is far from compassionate. Not only does it put the lives of vulnerable sick and elderly people at risk, but it profoundly affects the value of life in our society and distorts the practice of medicine.

As Christians we know that life is a gift from God and believe that the command not to murder is an important boundary that a healthy society can never afford to breach. Christians expect society to affirm the unique and intrinsic worth of all human beings, no matter what their physical, mental or emotional state might be.

When considering the issue of euthanasia in 1994, the British House of Lords Select Committee on Medical Ethics concluded that: "Belief in the special worth of human life is at the heart of civilised society. It is the fundamental value on which all others are based, and is the foundation of both law and medical practice.”

The sad fact is that once euthanasia is legalised it cannot be controlled and patients cannot be safeguarded against the fundamental philosophical shift in the doctor-patient relationship from care to killing.

In the long-run this has the potential to lead to the acceptance of killing as a cost-effective form of treatment and the killing of terminally ill patients who have not asked to die.

Legalised euthanasia also places immense pressure on those who are ill and especially those who feel that they have become a burden to society and to their loved ones. In an age of spiralling health costs and complex care needs it is all too easy for some patients to feel that they are simply too much of an economic and emotional drain on their families and that the best way out is to end their lives. What a tragic situation!

Many proponents of euthanasia, including Tasmania's Mr McKim, claim that safeguards can be introduced to prevent the misuse of euthanasia laws but these safeguards have clearly been shown not to work.

The Northern Territory euthanasia legislation enacted in 1996 contained basically the same safeguards as those being promoted by Mr McKim. However there are significant doubts about whether two of the four people who died under these laws (repealed nine months later) were actually terminally ill. Of the seven people whose deaths were associated with the laws, four were said to have symptoms of depression.

In Holland where euthanasia has been practiced since the 1990s, research indicates that around 1000 people a year are killed without their consent.

When Tasmania previously considered euthanasia laws in 1998, the parliamentary inquiry unanimously decided to reject legalising euthanasia because it “would pose a serious threat to the more vulnerable members of society”. The inquiry also found that “in the majority of cases palliative care was able to provide optimum care for suffering patients”.

This brings us to an important point - as a society we should be seeking to ease people's pain through better palliative care, not promoting killing as an alternative to actually helping people.

We know that professional palliative care can relieve the suffering of the vast majority of patients experiencing a terminal illness. What we really should be doing is putting more attention and resources into enhancing the quality of and access to palliative care in the community - not advocating legalised killing.

There is little doubt that euthanasia advocates such as Philip Nitschke will continue to push for euthanasia to be legalised and that various politicians - from a range of political parties - will lend their cause a sympathetic ear.

However we need to actively fight this push if we truly value life and care about the effect legalised euthanasia would have on sick and elderly people who may find they pay for these laws with lives ended too soon.

Glynis Quinlan is the public relations manager for the Australian Christian Lobby and a journalist with Debate magazine.

FOR MORE OF THE LOBBYIST'S VIEW...  | more... |