euthanasia

“I’m a cultural Christian”, says Richard Dawkins

/ MurrayCampbell

“When you give up Christian faith, you pull the rug out from under your right to Christian morality as well. This is anything but obvious: you have to keep driving this point home, English idiots to the contrary.” (Nietzsche)

Richard Dawkins is now a self professing, “cultural Christian”.

Richard Dawkins is probably the most famous atheist of my lifetime. He is a noted scientist, author of the best-selling book, The God Delusion, and fanboy for many an ardent God nonbeliever. For more than 20 years, Richard Dawkins has provided millions with reason not to believe, and with an ammunition dump of rhetorical flares for dismissing theism, and especially Christianity.

“You know I love hymns and Christmas Carols. I feel at home in the Christian ethos. I feel that we are a Christian country in that sense”.

The new atheism, like earlier thought movements and ones yet to come, arrived on the scene, peaked, and is now crumbling. There will be devotees who will hold onto splintered rocks as they come hurtling down. Dawkins, however, seems to have jumped.

Okay, ‘jumped’ is an overstatement, but Dawkins’ version of atheism seems to have changed tack, and in a positive way (or at least in this interview). He has left behind the stinging attacks and is gently embracing the world that Christianity has provided.

To some, Dawkins must have suffered a brain aneurysm. 

Aaron Bastoni tweeted,

“Bizarre from Dawkins, who wrote a book called ‘The God Delusion’ claiming religion was a deeply malevolent, dividing force in the world. 

Now he’s calling himself a ‘cultural Christian’? Find it odd to use religion to extend your secular political points.”

In comes Tom Holland, the super historian to the scene of the crime. 

“Not really, because secularism & Dawkins’ own brand of evangelical atheism are both expressions of a specifically Christian culture – as Dawkins himself, sitting on the branch he’s been sawing through and gazing nervously at the ground far below, seems to have begun to realise.”

Holland is spot on. My initial response was this,

“Richard Dawkins wants to keep the fruit of Christianity while rejecting the beliefs of Christianity. 

Of course that’s not logical or desirable. Nonetheless, is Richard Dawkins moving away from his past rhetoric and a priori assumptions?”

The fruit of Christianity, the ethics and architecture, the music and its role in shaping political theory and the marketplace, all have an origin story in the Bible and especially in the God-Man Jesus Christ. The fruit comes from somewhere and that somewhere is more audacious and stunning than 21st Century observers realise.

The claim of Christianity is that there is a God behind all the fruit we taste and eat and enjoy. He is not an error or grumpy old jack-in-the-box who loves to surprise us with horrible things. 

Dawkins admits that the social good has an origins story and it is integrally tied to the Christian faith, although he is still unwilling to believe in the Divine.

“There is a difference between being a believing Christian and a cultural Christian”.

Yes,  there is one who enjoys the fruit and gives thanks to the giver, and those who eat and have their fill while not giving thanks to the provider.

Dawkin’s admission is an intellectually and morally honest one. Read Holland’s, ‘Dominion’; or Glen Scrivener’s ‘The Air We Breathe’.  For those who wish to press more eagerly into the bedrock that gives our culture form and substance, read Dr Christopher Watkin’s masterpiece, ‘Biblical Critical Theory’. 

The beautiful and the good, the necessary and the true, haven’t altogether disappeared from our culture. And while these depend upon a God of such quality, excising God has not yet fully removed them from the scene. Chris Watkin notes, 

“religious and theological ideas have not been threshed away from society, nor have they been abandoned in a general disenchantment. They have merely migrated within society, moving away from God and attaching themselves to other ideas and institutions (primarily the nation state) where their influence is still profound. “

Watkin develops what he calls, the ‘migration thesis’, 

“For the migration thesis, secular late modernity relates to Christianity neither as an antithesis nor as a carbon copy but as a parody: “The city is a poor imitation of heavenly community; the modern state, a deformed version of the ecclesia; the market, a distortion of consummation; modern entertainment, a caricature of joy; schooling, a misrepresentation of true formation; liberalism, a crass simulacrum of freedom; and the sovereignty we accord to the self, a parody of God himself.

What all these instances of migration share is a desire to appropriate the goods and benefits of God while ignoring and excluding God himself, a move I have elsewhere called “imitative atheism.””

In other words, Richard Dawkins is admiring and eating the fruit of Christianity. He is happily tasting the sweetness and embracing the aromas and feeling the textures of the fruit, but he still denies the reality of the living tree from which the fruit has grown. The tree is no more dead or invisible than is the fruit we eat.

If you are looking for a ‘right now’ example of where both the root and the fruit of Christianity have been severed, look no further than Matthew Parris and his Easter edict in The Times. In ‘We can’t afford a taboo on assisted dying’, Parris says the unspeakable, euthanasia should not be limited to those with terminal and imminent death, but open to all who are a ‘burden’ on society. 

“Let’s acknowledge and confront the strongest argument against assisted dying. As (objectors say) the practice spreads, social and cultural pressure will grow on the terminally ill to hasten their own deaths so as “not to be a burden” on others or themselves.I believe this will indeed come to pass. And I would welcome it.”

The elderly, the mentally unwell, the sick, and the poor, should all have death presented to them as a viable option, to stop their lives from being a burden to others.

“Often not for the final years of these extended retirements, often characterised by immobility, ill-health and dementia: and typically wildly expensive, cornering resources to fund our health and social care sectors. This imbalance helps explain governments’ desperate reliance on immigration — to the rage of electorates who won’t face the fundamental question: how are our economies going to pay for the ruinously expensive overhang that dare not speak its name: old age and infirmity?”

Parris is willing to throw away both the fruit and the tree. What remains? It’s every man for themselves. It is self-interest and self-preservation. He isn’t utilising the more carefully constructed argument of how euthanasia is an act of love for the sufferer. No, he preaches that those who weigh down society with cost and time and energy, are a problem to him and his own flourishing.

For all the double-speak about equality and human rights, the logical endpoint of secular humanism is mass selective death: death of the vulnerable, the aged and infirmed, for the sake of the fit and strong. 

Australia’s Peter Singer has been singing this tune for decades, following his mate Nietzsche. He has been lauded in the halls of our ABC and presented as a voice to listen to. Universities pine for opportunities to hear him espouse his liberation to death sequence of ethics. And now, voices like Matthew Harris are deemed important enough to have their vision of death published in the United Kingdom’s most famed newspaper. 

The irony of the timing. Easter has been and gone, but the reality of the Easter event remains constant and ever relevant. 

God hates death and so should we. His Son endured death on our behalf. The resurrection of Jesus says that every human life has value. Death is a great enemy. How different is the Apostolic testimony to Matthew Parris. Which resonates more? You are a burden, so die! Or the words of the Apostle Paul,

“I declare to you, brothers and sisters, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed— in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. For the perishable must clothe itself with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality.  When the perishable has been clothed with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality, then the saying that is written will come true: “Death has been swallowed up in victory.”

 “Where, O death, is your victory?
    Where, O death, is your sting?

 The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law.  But thanks be to God! He gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ”. (1 Corinthians 15:50-57)

Going back to Dr Dawkins, perhaps we have entered a ‘watch this space’ moment. 

We can only eat the fruit of Christianity for so long before the season runs out. Then, we will either go hungry and starve, or we will repent and return to the source and cry out to God for food to eat and enjoy.

The symbol of shame is removed from Calvary Hospital

/ MurrayCampbell

On Sunday afternoon as the sun shone in Canberra, a shadow emerged as the cross was removed from Calvary Hospital. The blue cross that hung on the building front and centre, was taken down as the ACT Government prepares to take control of the Hospital Monday morning.

Calvary Hospital is (was) owned and run by the Catholic Church, along with the ACT”s only inpatient palliative care home, Clare Holland House. As of Monday, both will. be under the control of the Government, a government that is also preparing to introduce legislation allowing 14 year old children access to euthanasia. 

Whether it’s the youngest or the terminally ill, Catholic hospitals are renowned for believing in the sanctity of life. We don’t take the life of the unborn and we don’t assist the terminally ill to take their own life. As we sit fit to turn our backs on the God of the Bible, Western cultures are turning to ideas and practices that so often belittle the vulnerable, and in the name of ‘kindness’ or ‘choice’, we invite and protect their killing. 

Christian Churches have long been associated with hospitals and hospices. Indeed, Australia continues to rely upon these healthcare providers to carry the weight of caring for the sick, the injured, and the dying. Aussie society may be turning its back on Churches, but whether it’s education, social work, and medical care, we require the organisations that our churches have started and support.  Monday morning will see a hospital and hospice join the ranks of our post-Christian culture that perceives the message of the cross as objectionable and interfering with our preferred ethics of life and death, truth and lie. 

Calvary is a Bible word, describing the location outside Jerusalem where Jesus was crucified. The symbol of shame has been removed from Calvary Hospital by the Government. I’m not one for displaying religious images, icons, and crosses. We are a people of the word not iron illuminated icons. But leaving aside the question of physical representations of the faith, the sight of a government taking down the Christian cross is telling. It’s as though through the blindness or perhaps sheer arrogance of government officials, they think that removing the cross is a mark of progress. Far from it! 

The cross, now so familiar to the world, carries with it disdain and misunderstanding. For some, it is a fashion item to wear around the neck imbedded with jewels. For others, the cross represents an era of human history that we will do well to move on from. 

The cross has caused offence for millennia. The Romans understood the ignominy and shame attached to this cruel machine of torture and execution. More recently, ISIS crucified Christians in Syria and Iraq as an attempt to terrorise populations into submission. Philosophers and comedians alike continue to ridicule the cross, as though it’s worthy of a public mocking. 

The early Christians were aware of both the political and personal shame attached to the figure of the cross, as was Jesus. The Apostle Paul famously picked up on this theme of shame in his letter to the sex crazed city of Corinth. Writing to the Christians of Corinth, he said, 

“For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.  For it is written:

“I will destroy the wisdom of the wise;
    the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate.”

Where is the wise person? Where is the teacher of the law? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?  For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom,  but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles,  but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.  For the foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than human strength.”

The cross is the ultimate emblem of suffering and shame. The cross is also the symbol of salvation and life. For in that single death, our shame was taken by the one without, and he died the death that sinners deserve. The cross also confuses and collides and will not allow us to ignore it: we either embrace its message or push against it.

Perhaps there are internal politics going on between the government and calvary care that we are not privy to. But from the information that has been published and made public, it’s difficult not to conclude that there is something hideous about a government punishing an organisation for not welcoming death for young and old alike. There is no sophistry in denigrating the cross. There is no wisdom or pride found in removing Christian freedoms and stamping the authority of the State on religious institutions. What you call the stench of death, the believer finds the aroma of life, for in the crucified and risen Christ is the greatest stimulus for love for neighbour and care for society’s most vulnerable.

To build an ethic of medicine and care while rejecting the Lord of life is doomed to failure. But the long and dark road is likely to be littered with the bodies of the unwanted and the inconvenient. My mother died recently, following a long illness, and the care she received in both hospital and hospice was excellent and ensured her pain was managed. If hospitals are in short supply of effective pain management for the terminally ill, then we would do well to better finance and equip doctors and nurses for such essential care. 

As Jesus hung on the cross, gasping for breath, muscles contorted, and with blood, running down his fastened body, he cried out these words which have echoed through the generations, 

 “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing.”

Subsequent to public statements made including by Archbishop Christopher Prowse who explained,

“The very first thing a totalitarian government does, when it seizes Christian assets, the very first thing they all do … they take down the crucifix…When the religious cage is shaken by a wolf, when the cross … is taken down, we realise how important our religion is, when it’s under attack’,

The ACT Government and Hospital Board have each produced a statement, saying that it was the Hosptial who took down the cross and not the Government (https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-07-03/former-calvary-hospital-becomes-north-canberra-hospital/102554384). The distinction in this case is little. It’s a case of semantics as the Govt has taken control of the hospital (despite Calvary appealing to the Federal Court to stop the take over). The removal of the cross is symbolic of this forcible snatching and bringing Calvary health under the control of the ACT.

As one friend has suggested, given the Government wasn’t behind the removal, are they now prepared to reinstate it?

The Uniting Church of Victoria/Tasmania votes to use Euthanasia

/ MurrayCampbell / 4 Comments

The Uniting Church has been chasing after the culture ever since its creation in 1977. While there are evangelical churches and ministers within Australia’s 3rd largest Protestant denomination, they are relatively few, and these have been engaging in formal discussions to review their association within the denomination. If the final nail in the coffin hadn’t already been laid, surely it has after today’s proceedings.

Today, the Uniting Church (Synod of Victoria and Tasmania), voted in support of motions to allow euthanasia in their agencies.

UC_lp

In a statement released on their website we read,

“Key points from the resolution included:

There was a range of faithful Christian responses to voluntary assisted dying.

Exploring, accessing and conscientiously objecting to voluntary assisted dying were all within the range of faithful Christian responses to the Victorian Voluntary Assisted Dying Act 2017.

To give permission within Victoria to UCA institutions (Uniting Vic.Tas and Uniting AgeWell) and the UCA-affiliated hospital group Epworth HealthCare to make voluntary assisted dying allowable within the context of their facilities and services for their patients, clients and residents.

Moderator Rev Denise Liersch said afterwards: “The decision was made after a long period of careful consideration, discussion, and prayer.

“As followers of Jesus, we affirm that all human life is precious and has God-given dignity.

“We believe allowing voluntary assisted dying in our agencies, under the constraints of the legislation, is consistent with this belief.

“The Synod will prepare pastoral responses and resources that reflect the Synod’s decision.

“The Synod acknowledged that exploring, accessing, and conscientiously objecting to voluntary assisted dying was within the range of faithful Christian responses to the Victorian Voluntary Assisted Dying Act 2017.

“As outlined in the legislation, any individual in our agencies or Church members may act in accordance with their own conscience in this matter.

“I was impressed with the way in which the Synod members grappled with this issue openly, honestly and faithfully with its theological and practical implications.”

 

Let’s get our heads around the moderator’s assertion, “in the name of Jesus…voluntary assisted dying in our agencies, under the constraints of the legislation, is consistent with this belief”.

‘In the name of Jesus’, we support the killing of terminally ill human beings?! What a disgrace to attach Christ’s name to such an ignominious and evil practice. 

It doesn’t matter how much they couch the decision in terms of careful discussions or extended times of prayer and thought, or listening to ‘expert’ panels, a wrong decision is still a wrong decision. This is not the first controversial decision to be made by the Uniting Church. In 2018 the Uniting Church (Synod of Victoria and Tasmania) adopted same-sex marriage. With an unsurprising congruity, a denomination known for its ‘liberal theology’ is quickly falling into line with mainstream positions on many social issues, including calling for the decriminalisation of illicit drugs, and vocal support of abortion among some of its leaders, including the Victorian Synod’s bioethics committee. The very trajectory designed to make their churches more inclusive is, in fact, making them redundant. Why become Christian and join a Church if Christianity simply mirrors the worldview I already hold? According to the 2016 Census, the Uniting Church is one of the fastest declining denominations in the country, losing around 22% members since 2011 (almost 200,000 people). There is little doubt that the direction will continue.

The Uniting Church has already littered the landscape with graves where there were once churches, and now they are giving consent for their health agencies to sanction euthanasia. It is one thing for a Government to legalise euthanasia, but for an association of Christian churches to stand together and vote in favour of their own agencies to allow this practice? And then have the audacity to attach the name of Jesus to this?

As I pastor I am not immune to the terrible suffering people experience, including among some who have a terminal illness. As a member of the community, I’m not blind to awful suffering experienced by friends and family. No one wants people suffering, and yet there is a line we ought not to cross, namely sanctioning the killing of human beings because they are ill. Hundreds of medical professionals urged the Victorian Parliament not to accept this legislation, but instead provide proper funding to palliative care. Sadly their concerns and appeals were ignored. 

This is State sanctioned suicide which has now become Church approved suicide. When Churches decide that handing out lethal pills to patients is in accord with the Christian faith, it is clear that they have long deserted the faith and are now following a very different religion to the one taught in the Scriptures. The fruit of today’s decision may lead to the deaths of vulnerable people who are using Uniting Church health facilities. It is hard to grasp how such fruit can ever be equated with the work of the Holy Spirit or with a Christian Church. The careful use of doublespeak, i.e. giving employees freedom of conscience on this issue, does not remove the force of the Synod’s decision. The same tactic was employed in last year’s marriage debate. 

No doubt there will be Christians within the Uniting Church of Victoria/Tasmania who are tonight grieving this decision. These brothers and sisters need our prayers as they discern what to do.  Many other Christians share their grief tonight and we ask for God’s mercy. 

 

 

Update July 15: A few people have responded to the article, saying that the Uniting Church has not accepted euthanasia, but rather VAD (voluntary assisted dying). First of all, euthanasia is the big umbrella term, with VAD being one form of euthanasia. Second, voluntary assisted dying is a disingenuous term that seeks to cover the reality, which is, it is voluntary assisted suicide. I believe it is important for churches to have integrity and to name things accurately.

Victoria about to legalise euthanasia

/ MurrayCampbell / 1 Comment

It has been another sad day in Victoria. Victoria is set to become the first State in Australia to legalise euthanasia. We used to say how we were better than NSW in everything, but in recent times we have demonstrably shown ourselves to be less safe, less caring, and less reasonable.

In contrast to the NSW Parliament who last week knocked down a euthanasia bill in its early stages, this afternoon the Victorian Legislative Council vote 22-18 in favour of the euthanasia bill. There were several amendments, but none take away the basic design of the legislation. The bill will soon return to the Lower House for final ratification, and becoming law. However, euthanasia won’t be permitted until June 2019, which ironically gives Australians from other States sufficient to move to Victoria and begin making plans (one has to be a resident in for Victoria for 12 months in order to have access to this law).

img_9452

If there is one comment from today that sums up this legislation, it comes from Upper House Labor member, Jaclyn Symes. Liberal member, Craig Ondarchie, had asked for an amendment, which would have made it lawful for Doctors to name the cause of death on the death certificate, namely, assisted suicide by the administration of xyz drug. The amendment was an important one,  because under the proposed law,  doctors won’t cite the cause of death, instead they would record the illness with which the patient was suffering.  The amendment failed to find sufficient support. Anyway, Ms Symes said in response to the amendment (to paraphrase),

“Mr Ondarchie, your amendment is cruel and lacks empathy.”

Think about it –  if writing down the true cause of death is cruel and lacks empathy and can’t be recorded, what does that tell us about euthanasia?

A short time ago our Premier, Daniel Andrews, announced to the media, “This is Victoria at its best.”

No, the State sanctioning the killing of human life is not our best, it is our worst.  We should commend our Governments when they do good and serve our communities well, but this is not one of those days. Hundreds of medical professionals urged the Parliament not to accept this legislation, but instead to give proper funding to palliative care. Others encouraged the Parliament to understand the moral line they would cross, should they legalise euthanasia. There were indeed many from within Parliament, and across party lines, who spoke against this bill, but to no avail.

Tonight, it seems as though Victoria is taking glory in our shame. Our Premier and others are  taking pride in a law that is designed to kill people, and that should frighten Victorians and sadden us.

I’m reminded of Proverbs which says,

“Pride goes before destruction,
a haughty spirit before a fall.
Better to be lowly in spirit along with the oppressed
than to share plunder with the proud.” (Proverbs 16:17-19)

It is better to stand for what is right and good, and to lose, than to stand and share in the glory of dreadful and immoral lawmaking.  This does mean though, Churches must ready themselves to love and support families who have loved ones who’ve made the decision to take their own life, and we must be ready to offer gentle and wise counsel to people who are considering the path of taking their own life.

Doctors, nurses, pharmacists, and others, must ready themselves for how they will address patients who come to them and asking drugs in which to take their life.

Over the course of the debate several members of Parliament and staffers have indicated to me that we should expect the parameters of the euthanasia law to be broadened, in the next 5-10 years. In other words, don’t think that this issue is a done deal.

As the debate continued today in Spring Street, I was preparing a sermon for this Sunday at Mentone Baptist, our passage is Matthew 9:18-34. In this portion of Scripture we find Christ who has come to restore all that is wrong and broken and hurting and sinful. People in the darkest times, who had lost all hope and for whom others could no longer assist, in Jesus they found God who loves and who one day will restore all things.

In that passage there are two blind men who come to Jesus, crying out, “Have mercy on us, Son of David!” That is a great response for Christians today. As our State further dehumanises its citizens, and demonises those who oppose their agenda, let us cry out to God for his mercy, not only for ourselves but also for those who voted ‘yes’ today, and for those in our community who are struggling with the realisation that death is not far away.

As the song of Isaiah promised,

“Surely he took up our pain
    and bore our suffering,
yet we considered him punished by God,
    stricken by him, and afflicted.
5 But he was pierced for our transgressions,
    he was crushed for our iniquities;
the punishment that brought us peace was on him,
    and by his wounds we are healed.
6 We all, like sheep, have gone astray,
    each of us has turned to our own way;
and the Lord has laid on him
    the iniquity of us all.” (Isaiah 53:4-6)

 

 

What is happening to my beloved State of Victoria?

/ MurrayCampbell / 1 Comment

What is happening to my beloved State of Victoria?

In so many ways she is the envy of the world, with our tremendous prosperity, sport, food, and lifestyle. And yet an out of control ideology is driving Victoria to a place that we ought not visit. Vehicle number plates are soon to be changed from, “stay alive” and “the place to be”, to “the place to die”.

The centrepiece of the economy is a casino.

Our favourite public holiday is all about gambling and drinking.

Best education practice has been overturned by one of the most dangerous social engineering projects we’ve ever seen in this country.

Opt-in Religious Instruction classes are almost impossible to hold, while parents are refused permission to opt-out their children from non-scientific and ideologically heavy sex programs.

No, I’m not entering the nutty world of wowserism, but I’m searching for reasonableness and compassion where both are fast exiting north along the Hume Highway.

vicV65108.jpg

The Victorian Parliament is about to decide whether to legalise euthanasia. The Bill is being debated this week, and it will almost certainly pass in both houses.

Daniel Andrews has called this legislation, “conservative assisted dying”, as though adding an obtuse adjective makes killing people somehow ok. Let us be clear, there is nothing conservative about handing out poison to human beings so that they can commit suicide. The fact that this is even being considered, demonstrates how warped we’ve become in our rationalisation. Despite some of the dishonest rhetoric accompanying  arguments for euthanasia, I have been informed by sources inside Spring Street that the intention is to soften and broaden the parameters for euthanasia down the track.

Medical experts have called for the Parliament to reject this legislation.

Over 100 palliative care specialists have pleaded that Victorians Parliamentary members stop this legislation from becoming law.

Over 100 oncologists informed the Government that assisted suicide is dangerous and should not be permitted.

“Physician assisted death is not, by definition, medical treatment. It is not palliative care.  We as doctors and medical specialists do not want   to intentionally end the lives of our patients, or provide them with the direct means to do so. Assisted suicide is in conflict with the basic ethical principles and integrity of medical practice and undermines trust in the medical profession. We strive to eliminate suffering but not the sufferers themselves.

Where cure of cancer is not possible, we seek optimal palliative care services to support and care for patients and their families at the end of life. Without easy access to quality palliative care, some may request physician assisted dying as they feel they have no other choice. This is especially so for people who live in rural, regional and remote areas and for people from culturally and linguistically diverse communities who have less access to palliative care services.

We are very disappointed that discussion of the Voluntary Assisted Dying Bill has dominated the agenda to improve end of life care in Victoria. We are dismayed that the multiple recommendations made by the Victorian Parliamentary Inquiry into End of Life Choices (June 2016) to strengthen palliative care have not been actioned. Until this is addressed, discussing physician assisted dying is premature.”

Pharmacists have warned that they will be placed in an intolerable position, whereby they will be forced to subscribe poison to Victorians, with the aim of killing them.

Palliative care experts have called on the Government to provide a more compassionate and human alternative to euthanasia, namely, providing proper funding for palliative care.

Victoria isn’t losing its soul, we are actively killing the soul in order to win the prize of becoming the most socially progressive society in the nation. Sure, we’re winning the praise of many inner-surbanites, favourable editorials in The Age, and the adulations of those who want to be like Peter Singer, but is sacrificing our humanity worth it? When the warnings of hundreds of medical professionals are ignored, and when common sense becomes a liability in framing law, we know that we’ve jumped into the murky depths of the Yarra river.

Do Victorians truly want the State to justify killing its own citizens? What is more human, to kill the sick or to ensure they receive proper palliative care?

I am reminded of the words of Jesus, “What good is it for someone to gain the whole world, yet forfeit their soul? Or what can anyone give in exchange for their soul?” (Mark 8:36-37)

Victorian Greens banning the conscience

/ MurrayCampbell / 1 Comment

The Victorian Parliament is expected to commence debate on an assisted-suicide Bill next week, although the conversation has been taking place for many months already.

Two of the main issues that I have heard expressed concern the ethics of killing human beings, and the question of safeguards. In regard to the latter issue, Peter Singer (who is one the most notable global pro-euthanasia voices) recently admitted in a Melbourne meeting,

“Euthanasia without patient consent does happen in Europe. Don’t worry it happens here too.”

 

img_9452

This week, however, another important area of debate has been brought to the fore by the Victorian Greens.

St Vincent’s Health Australia has made it clear that should euthanasia be legalised in Victoria, they will not be offering this ‘procedure’, given that killing human life contradicts their values. In response, Victorian Greens have asked the Government to review public funding of St Vincent’s if clinicians are banned from administering assisted suicide. How extraordinary that a political party would remove funding from a major health care provider on account that they refuse to assist patient suicide. Imagine living in a State where hospitals were forced to participate in killing patients; welcome to Victoria. In all probability, it is unlikely that the Parliament would support such measures, but this is yet another example of how far our society has moved in the dehumanisation project.

A Greens spokesperson then had the audacity to attack St Vincent’s hospital, accusing them of lacking compassion for the terminally ill and “condemning people to pain.” One can imagine what the doctors and nurses at the hospital think of such a repugnant comment.

I am a strong supporter of the Greens policy to ban Greyhound racing because of the appalling statistics of these dogs being euthanised. We own a greyhound rescue dog, and he’s a much loved member of our family. How ironic that the same political party not only support proposed legislation to encourage assisted suicide of human beings, they would also threaten health providers who find such action unconscionable.

Should Victoria introduce laws permitting doctor assisted suicide?

/ MurrayCampbell

Who can live and not see death,  or who can escape the power of the grave? (Psalm 89)

Pastoral ministry is one of the few professions where you get to  travel with people from birth through to death. It is a privilege to minister to people who are facing their final weeks and days. Sometimes it is a brief period of illness, other times it is an elongated time of suffering. I have known people in their final days who were keen, not to die, but to see their suffering come to an end and to see their hope in Jesus Christ realised. It is an extraordinary privilege to sit beside a person who in approaching death is joyful and at peace. I have also witnessed people wrestling with their own mortality and doubts of what lies beyond death. A pastor’s care in such circumstances also extends to a spouse, to children and friends. Indeed, for many pastors, these relationships are not merely ‘professional’, for those whom we serve are much loved, and they are our friends and family.

Several members of my family work in the medical field, including my wife who worked as a nurse for 10 years, spending much of that time caring for patients with terminal and chronic illnesses. On more than a few occasions she would come home after a shift in tears, having witnessed a patient die.

I wanted to begin by mentioning the above contexts because it would be wrong to assume I am writing from a distance. Indeed, I appreciate that there are many personal stories, from people who hold to various views on euthanasia, and while these stories are all important, stories alone are not suffice for creating law.

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

If there is common ground to be found in the debate on euthanasia, albeit a rather morbid commonality, it is agreement that death is a terrible reality in the human experience.

It is no small thing for the State to legalise killing another human being

It is of paramount importance that we recognise that the State exists not only to protect life but to enable human flourishing. Similarly, our health system exists to save human life and to bring healing of body and mind. Introducing a law that permits taking a human life is no small thing.

Physician assisted suicide not only contravenes the very purpose of our health system, it would require medical professionals to discard both the Hippocratic oath and the Declaration of Geneva.  Such a law would introduce to society the morality of taking human life, legislating that our society condones the killing of another human being. Again, this is no small and insignificant line in the sand.

Dr Michael Bird recently made the astute observation that Victoria could potentially have two hotlines: one for suicide prevention, and the other, suicide permission. The conflict is clear for everyone to see.

Palliative Care as a better option

I am not unsympathetic toward those who wish to end their lives; I hate human suffering and long for the day when it will desist forever.  I do not, however, believe that euthanasia is either morally right nor is it the only option available for terminally ill Victorians. We have been led to believe that the only choices available are either ongoing treatment or euthanasia, but there is a third option, and one that avoids unnecessarily prolonging a patient’s life and avoids actively killing them, palliative care.

Palliative care is designed to provide the greatest possible comfort for patients, without undue intervention and causing protracted suffering.

Dr Megan Best is a senior lecturer at the University of Sydney Medical Faculty and works as a palliative care physician in Sydney. In a recent article, Dr Best has argued that a better way forward is to provide adequate resources for palliative care. She says,

“While services such as palliative care and hospice can do much to relieve the distress dying people experience, many still do not have access to it. We must do better.”

It is a travesty that many Victorians cannot currently access proper care that they deserve and need at such an urgent time.

Similarly, Dr. Ian Haines is a medical oncologist, and he believes, 

“Like Andrew Denton and others who have observed unbearable suffering in loved ones and the terrible failures of modern medicine in the past, I had once believed that euthanasia was the only humane solution.

I no longer believe that.

The experiences of countless patients and families should be the inspiration for continuing to improve palliative care, for general introduction of advanced care plans and not for euthanasia with its openness to misuse.”

In other words, our Government would do better to invest properly into palliative care, providing the kind of support patients and their families need at such a time.

Unsafe safeguards

The model of euthanasia being considered in Victoria is that which is currently practiced in Oregon, USA. The process involves a Doctor prescribing a lethal capsule to a patient who has been diagnosed with a terminal illness that will lead to death within six months.

In a report recently published by the Health Department in Oregon, are a series of startling revelations regarding doctor assisted suicide in Oregon: First, 49% of patients state as a major reason for taking their own life, the belief that they are being a burden to their family. Second, once the doctor has prescribed the capsule containing secobarbital or pentobarbital, there is no guaranteed follow up in patient’s home where most are said to take their life, with no safeguards to ensure only the patient can consume the lethal dose. Third, patients with non-terminal illnesses have been given access to these lethal drugs and taken their own life.

Both Dr Megan Best and Dr Ian Haines, are among numerous medical professionals who believe the introduction of euthanasia will lead to abuses and even to amendments and extensions down the track.

Dr Best explains,

‘It upsets healthcare providers when their patients are distressed. Don’t tempt them. You can’t rely on the rules. It is not possible to write a law that can’t be abused. That’s why euthanasia bills get defeated in parliament. Because, even though we ache for those who are suffering and desire to die, we feel responsible to protect the vulnerable who would be at risk of dying under the legislation if it were to pass. Surely the worth of a society lies in how it treats those who can’t care for themselves.’

Does this not at least raise questions in our minds, if not grave concern? If medical professionals working in palliative care are already communicating that the rules will be broken, we ought to take notice.

And for to those who allege slippery slopes are mythical, have they not looked to Northern Europe, and seen how euthanasia laws are now regularly broken and expanded, to include killing children, killing people with mental illness and dementia and even gender dysphoria?

Behind the debates on many ethical issues including euthanasia, is what is known as utilitarian thinking, most notably advocated by Professor Peter Singer. Utilitarian ethics ditches belief in the inherent value of every human life, and instead determines moral good by what the greater number of persons believe will maximise their happiness. In other words, for example, killing unborn children is a moral good when the mother believes the child will not add to her own happiness. This is one of the chief reasons why the number of children with Downs Syndrome has decreased significantly in Western societies because the vast majority are now killed in the womb.

There are Parliamentary members across the spectrum who are expressing support of a Bill legalising assisted suicide, and similarly, across the parties are members who disagree and are concerned. We have all heard heartfelt stories being told from different viewpoints, but we must judge what is right. There is an overarching principle with which the State of Victoria must decide, is it the role and right of Government to introduce law that permits the killing of human life? If so, what promises will be given that no further legislative changes will be made in the future?

When society cuts our humanity away from the imago dei, we always slide down a path toward dehumanisation. Bringing the two together again requires humility and more. It requires the loving actions of God to restore and heal this broken image. Is this not the wonder of the Easter event?

If the moral compass of our State is utilitarian ethics, which certainly appears to be the case, then further expansion of euthanasia laws is almost inevitable, as is happening across many countries who’ve already taken the pledge to kill. Indeed, I have already been informed, on sound advice, that the Bill shortly to be presented to the Victorian Parliament will be in the first place be a conservative pro-euthanasia Bill, but the intent will be to extend it 3 to 5 years down the track.

When we begin defining the value of human life by the kind of utilitarianism pursued by Peter Singer and others, we should not be surprised to find ourselves in a few short years permitting and even pressuring the expungement of all manner of people whom society deems a burden. I realise all this sounds rather Stalinesque and outrageously impossible; we would never traverse such dreadful ground. But look to Belgium and the Netherlands, and consider how our own society has already deemed moral, killing unborn children, and possibly now, those who are at the end of their days.

“Have you journeyed to the springs of the sea

    or walked in the recesses of the deep?

 Have the gates of death been shown to you?

    Have you seen the gates of the deepest darkness?

 Have you comprehended the vast expanses of the earth?

    Tell me, if you know all this.” (Job 38:16-18)

Are we prepared to cross the line, or instead, can we do better by providing improved and greater resources in palliative care?