Trial for euthanasia?

The
Catholic Weekly
Online

Sydney
26 October 2003

Meaning of life

Tuition fee jump

Award for Reservist chaplain

Outreach

Priests set priorities

Step behind the convent walls

Desire to serve others

Trial for euthanasia?

Interfaith

Seminar on self help in action for hearing impaired

Editorial: Enormous debt

Letters: Interstate appreciation

Conversation: Br Dan Stafford, chaplain to the Australian Jockey Club - A generous fraternity of 'saints and sinners'

Voice of Youth: Blessed upon the earth

‘Wonderful occasion’

Stone takes the cake

Bumper crop of students

Concert ‘journey’ by young honours Pope’s anniversary

‘My kids’ bring tears

Trial for euthanasia?

By Chris Lindsay

A legally and medically supervised trial of voluntary euthanasia for 18 months could be held in NSW if a bill now before State Parliament is passed.

Greens MP Ian Cohen has introduced the Voluntary Euthanasia (Referendum) Bill into the Legislative Council, saying all Members of Parliament should recognise the overwhelming level of public support for voluntary euthanasia.

Debate on the bill has been adjourned and will resume on October 30.

It is expected to be heavily defeated.

The Dean of St Mary’s Cathedral, Mons Tony Doherty, says the Catholic Church rejects the whole concept of a trial of euthanasia.

“The Church has had a consistent position against euthanasia for many years,” he said.

“We are fundamentally opposed to it.

“The Church argues that people facing death must be provided with as much loving support and companionship as possible, and the best medical treatment.

“As a priest I have discovered that the last weeks of some people’s lives are the richest part of life’s whole journey.

“Any hastening of death is contrary to the very principle of life itself.

In debate in the State Upper House, John Tingle (Shooters Party) said the bill was “a means to an end”.

“It is the thin end of the wedge to introduce euthanasia into our society”.

“Once a community accepts voluntary euthanasia and believes that it works to solve perceived personal needs, how big a leap is it for that community to be conditioned to believe that maybe involuntary euthanasia would solve perceived community needs?” he asked.

“The obvious expectation would be that, as with the heroin injecting room, the trial would be extended, and extended again, because, as would be claimed, it seemed to have worked well and to have done no harm.

“The only difference between this and the injecting room is that this could not be claimed to have saved lives.”

Robyn Parker (Liberal) said her party opposed the legislation and that the bill was “a gutless way to introduce a policy”.

“The proposal of a referendum is a backdoor way to introduce euthanasia, a means to an end.

“It is bizarre that we are talking about a euthanasia trial. If we decide it has not worked, what do we do?

“Do we admit that we have made a mistake and try to revive those who have died? How will we decide when the trial should end and how will we evaluate it?”

Dr Peter Wong (Unity Party) said euthanasia was “a type of emotional blackmail”.

“That is why the overwhelming majority of medical practitioners will not condone this selfish, cowardly practice. It takes much more courage to live through a terminal illness or through old age.

“Advocates of voluntary euthanasia may be mistaken about what courage is.

“As a doctor I regard human life as a gift.

“Dealing with life and death all the time I know too well that life does not come without its challenges.”

Rev Gordon Moyes (Christian Democratic Party) said: “I believe euthanasia is a strange kind of compassion which says that the best way to relieve suffering is to kill the sufferer.”