Children and ‘frail elderly’ at risk

Sydney
24 August 2003

Catholic Mission aid boost

Weekly crusade wins news prize

Me and the Pope: Photo jogs memory

Kids celebrate Mary’s day

Virus boy will join Susan’s pilgrimage

Situation ‘much improved’, says Solomons trust chief

Challenge to Catholic men

Something to Yell! About

Children and ‘frail elderly’ at risk

‘Immensely in debt’ to women’s league

Scholarship honours Fr Les

Editorial: A small crusade

Letters: Bob Hope’s faith

Conversation: Fr Phillip Linden, priest and theologian - Suffering in the face of the poor

Voice of Youth: Rich Dad, Poor Dad poorer still

Jubilee of a ‘loving and caring priest’

British movie on Mother Teresa dropped from festival

Bl Mary Mackillop Feast Day ... by the people, for the people

Catholic Women’s League: Our women are still in a league of their own after 90 years

Readers open their hearts to students

Solomon Islands: What can the Church do?

Children and ‘frail elderly’ at risk

The Great Hall at the University of Sydney was packed to overflowing for the debate between Bishop-elect Anthony Fisher and euthanasia campaigner Dr Philip Nitschke

By Marilyn Rodrigues

The lives of little children, the handicapped and frail, elderly people are endangered in a society that accepts euthanasia, says Bishop-elect Fr Anthony Fisher.

Prof Fisher was speaking during a debate at Sydney University with euthanasia advocate Dr Philip Nitschke.

The university’s Great Hall was packed to overflowing for the crackling debate Euthanasia? Yes or No, between Dr Nitschke, director of Exit Australia, and Prof Fisher, bioethicist and soon-to-be Catholic bishop.

The debate was co-ordinated by the university’s Catholic chaplaincy, medical students’ society, psychology students’ society and the student union’s debates and public issues committee as the first event of Life Week, an initiative of the Catholic chaplaincy.

Dr Nitschke said during question time that babies who are born disabled should be legally killed by a doctor if their parents think they will not have a good quality of life.

“If a child is born and one can only see that that child will lead a life which is not worth living, as assessed by the person whose child it is, it (should be) sometimes appropriate for the child to have its life ended,” he said.

“The idea of somehow or other prolonging that life as long as medical science can, knowing that child will inevitably die and not allow that death to be humane, I think is an obscenity.”

Prof Fisher responded by saying he thought that pediatricians have “a very good sense that you do what is best for the child; in some cases that would be largely palliative, in other cases it would be more active if the possibilities are greater.

“I think that’s not the same as saying we would prolong life indefinitely; that the baby’s only alternative to euthanasia is that obscenity of having forced every possible treatment or device on (him or her).”

The Dominican professor said the focus of the pro-euthanasia cause has shifted significantly.

“It’s not about voluntary euthanasia any more,” he said. “It is not about competent adults having the decision about how to end their lives after being given all the options and so on.

“In fact, the euthanasists have on their agenda a whole lot of people who can’t be asked, who haven’t been asked, and that includes little children, handicapped people, frail elderly people and so on.”

And when euthanasia is accepted by a society, he said, it endangers the lives of these groups of people.

“Once it becomes routine, it puts tremendous pressures on those patients who come to think of themselves as burdens on their families, their health carers, on their community, to seek euthanasia,” he said.

Prof Fisher said that compassion demands ensuring that the terminally ill, the handicapped and the frail elderly have access to top quality health care and community care in the home, including a range of non-medical social and human supports.

“They deserve our best care and the protection of our laws,” he said. “Surely Australians can find better, more creative, more compassionate ways of dealing with suffering than lethal injections and gas bags.”

Dr Nitschke said that the push for euthanasia is a modern issue because advancements in medical technology mean that a person’s life can now be extended by life support machines without their consent.

He argued that access to control over securing death at the time of one’s own choosing is being frustrated by the medical profession and especially by the Catholic Church, which have worked to prevent attempts to legislate for euthanasia, and to overturn the short-lived euthanasia law in the Northern Territory.

Prof Fisher countered that the Church and organisations such as the Australian Medical Association have “some wisdom to offer” to the euthanasia debate and that he was proud they have joined forces to fight against its introduction.

Dr Nitschke said he did not believe it was reasonable for politicians to be allowed conscience votes.

“That has led us to where we are now,” he said. “We are driven to more strategies and initiatives (such as plastic bags and carbon dioxide generators) that will ultimately let people go down this path whether the politicians pass legislation or not.

“We’ve effectively abandoned the legislation solution; we are pursuing a technical solution. And it’s not difficult to do; this is not a cure for cancer we’re looking for.”