The issue of dying

Australia, like all Western nations, is undergoing a demographic shift with an increasing proportion of the population being elderly. Will euthanasia become a cost-effective method of medical treatment for the elderly?

To guard against such an outcome, this Bill - in whatever form it takes - should not be approved.

Turning to more specific arguments against the Bill, I offer these additional points for consideration:

The focus in care should always be upon the patient and not upon family and friends, no matter how distressing the patient’s situation appears to be to them.

In respect of the incurably ill, it needs to be remembered that the diagnosis of such a condition is not always correct, as has been demonstrated in the not too distant past.

The statistics on physician-assisted suicide for persons suffering depression ought to sound a clear warning bell. Euthanasia is not an appropriate response to depression.

A major concern is that towards the end of life, people can become anxious about being a burden, not being valued. They are vulnerable to pressure from others, even family members, who from motives that may well be kindly meant, promote euthanasia to the vulnerable elderly.

Ms Hartland quoted statistics from a Newspoll poll to the effect that 80 per cent of Australians support euthanasia and only 14 per cent oppose euthanasia. But the results of polling is highly dependent upon who is polled, the information provided and the actual wording of the questions. I suggest caution be exercised over the Newspoll poll.

One particular factor that needs to be remembered is that persons who indicate when younger that they support euthanasia can and do change their minds as to whether euthanasia is for them. A very interesting poll, if polls now decide how we should act, would be a poll of the elderly and those chronically ill and facing death in the not too distant future. I suggest such a poll would not produce a figure of 80 per cent, nor even 40 per cent for that matter.

Our final point, already alluded to, concerns the nature of the doctor-patient relationship. Doctors are meant to preserve life, not end it. If the role of a doctor is redefined from that of life preserver to not only life preserver but also life terminator, that precious doctor-patient relationship will be potentially jeopardised, thus serving neither the interests of the doctor or patient.

In making the above observation and plea, I am not seeking to be somehow heartless or ignorant of the issue of great pain and suffering. The church I belong to, the Presbyterian Church of Victoria, has a proven track record for showing practical care and concern for people in need, including those who are aged and chronically ill. Currently, this involvement includes the running of a large aged care facility at Kilsyth, along with various pastoral care services conducted at the local parish level as well as through an extensive, largely self funded hospital chaplaincy network.

It is not just the Presbyterians who have been involved in such care. In one form or other, the entire Christian Church in all its varied manifestations has been involved in the care of the elderly and chronically ill for the past 2,000 years. People have been suffering and dying throughout that period. Present day individuals are not unique in that respect.

Christians worship a God whom they believe creates, sustains and protects the capacity for all human relationships and communities to function harmoniously and effectively. The commandment not to murder not only asserts who ultimately has the rights over all life, but also establishes a boundary condition for the flourishing of all human relationships and communities.

If our politicians truly care, then for the sake of, and for the dignity of our elderly and chronically ill, they should not allow Ms Hartland’s Bill to pass.