Have Your Say 

Recent Comments

1. How will your local member vote if a bill is brought on in Federal Parliament before the next election?
   We have a moral obligation to know, and we should have voted accordingly at the last election!
   Apathy on these issues will find us waking up with this type of legislation passed before we can blink.

   Posted By: David. Milton.

2. Changes in public opinion, especially changes induced by a biased media, is no justification for legalising anything.
   In any case, expect more of this during the course of the present parliament.

   Posted By: RMBH Bankstown

3. I can't recall the Greens advertising this policy as one of their main priorities.

   Posted By: Noel, Gippsland Vic

4. Those of us who can remember the arguments put up in favour of legalising abortion - that it would only be in a few cases, and then after consultation with three doctors - can see the same signs for the acceptance of euthanasia and with the same results if it is passed - open slather funded by taxpayers.
   The Greens will use their leverage to get more anti-life laws enacted, but it must be always a conscience vote, not a Party decision.
   Anyone who doubts the anti-life/anti-Christian bias of the Greens should pay attention particularly to what Sarah Hanson-Young says.

   Posted By: JAH Walloon Qld

5. The thin end of the Greens' wedge! What an agenda they must have. It's only going to get worse so let's pray for them.

   Posted By: Jeremy Wilson, Wodonga 3690

6. It is not surprising that so early in Prime Minister Gillard's term that the Greens have raised the question of euthanasia to be put back on the Federal agenda.
   However, as Australian citizens, it is important that we are made aware of some of the salient facts that surround this attempt by the Greens to legalise killing in the name of 'compassion' and 'mercy'.
   Catholic social justice has a strong focus on protection of the vulnerable and the weak in our society - the elderly, infirm, those with disabilities (especially infants) need to be protected by any such proposed law.
   In fact, Catholic social justice principles would demand that instead of opting for assisted killing, the Federal Government should invest in palliative care services for all Australians who need it, especially those who from a justice as distributive principle are currently missing out - those in rural and remote areas, culturally and linguistically diverse groups, indigenous Australians and the dying in residential care facilities.
   If the Greens want to start talking about people having a ‘choice’ in how they want to die, then at least start by actually giving people something to 'choose' other than assisted dying, that being access to quality palliative care services.

   Posted By: JoeyG Melbourne

7. My Goodness from the frying pan into the fire - progressive secularism. We reap what we sow.
   

   Posted By: Pat Victoria

8. Imagine if the woman who had cancer who received the second miracle from Mary Mckillop ad decided to euthanase rather than rely on prayer and comfort from God!

   Posted By: Allison Melbourne

9. Unfortunately, if you want to lodge a protest vote it is necessary to explore all the policies of the party you are going to vote for in protest as well as what the actual person (your local candidate) you are voting for believes.
   This is no easy task especially when the media concentrates only on the leaders of two of the many parties.

   Posted By: Margaret McDonald Brunswick West

10. I supported the Andrews bill against the NT euthanasia law at the time but I'm not sure I'd do the same this time round.
    A lot would depend on the proposed legislative terms. I'm sure the debate will be attended by alarmist hyperbole as well as reasonable opposition. However, I think it's worth approaching with a preparedness to reconsider and modify a blanket prohibition.
    In his 1989 Boyer Lecture on dying, Professor Max Charlesworth compared the ethical differences between say, the deliberate death practices of Nazis against those they thought socially useless or racially degenerate and the bringing about the death of a patient at their (or their proxy’s) free and informed request where it is clear the prolongation of their life would be of no real benefit.
    I’m guessing this might mean circumstances where palliative interventions were no longer adequate, or an irreversible vegetative condition applied.
    The lecture suggested a reliance on a “sanctity of life” argument was inadequate to grapple with all of the aspects of the issue, and a better way is to pivot the issue on the question of the patient’s moral autonomy.
    I think this is a timely and important issue which we won’t treat respectfully or comprehensively by simply denouncing it with “greens-under-the-bed” hysteria.

    Posted By: smk, Bundarra

11. smk: I disagree about the reliance of a “sanctity of life” argument being inadequate to grapple with all the issues in this debate.
    I believe that sanctity of life is the one prime, essential argument that must be considered above all other aspects. You either believe in the sanctity of life or you don't.
    If you believe in it, as I hope all Catholics do, there should be no need for any further debate.

    Posted By: Noel, Gippsland Vic

12. Noel: I think the Greens have this policy firmly entrenched. Maybe they weren't including it the soft, cuddly, 'caring' political shopfront during the election but my recollection is they didn't hide it either.
    But the green fuzzy stuff got them lots of votes. Now we have to see just how bad it will be.

    Posted By: Peter, Canberra, Australia

13. In saying there ought to be no further debate if one accepts a notion of “sanctity of life”, you illustrate, Noel, my prediction that many people will not consider the issue properly or fully.
    To begin with, what “sanctity of life” actually signifies is either vague or shifting or means only non-interference with the unborn or the suffering. It is a term rarely used to encompass all life as the justifications for war and killing animals etc. testify.
    If you protest that these and others are not equivalent cases, then it only illustrates the narrowness of the term. Perhaps only Buddhists or Jainists might really be said to believe in a comprehensive “sanctity of life”.
    What I suspect you mean by ‘sanctity of life’ is this restricted notion. So, the first impediment to examining the ethics of euthanasia is to use this vague but narrowly loaded dog-whistle phrase.
    The second thing is that as we grow and experience, it is healthy to expand and re-shape our ethical compass. How could we not, unless we spent our lives in a closed room? Were we all to cease our exploration, consideration and discourse of how we ought to apply right and wrong simply on the basis of a received notion, human moral progress would have stalled the moment we emerged from the caves.
    You hope all Catholics believe in the sanctity of life. Do you hope everyone does? I’d be more reassured simply to know that each person asked themselves ‘what do I believe and why? And could I be mistaken?’

    Posted By: smk, Bundarra

14. smk: You assume I have not considered the issue properly when I base my position in this debate solely on the 'sanctity of life'. Not so.
    You then try to confuse the argument by relating sanctity of life to war and the killing of animals etc. We are commenting on the opening of a national debate on euthanasia and this is solely what I was referring to.
    The other examples you raise are different issues and you are certainly drawing a long bow comparing the killing of animals to human euthanasia.
    You suggest we should look to grow and use our own experiences to form our own opinions rather than rest on a pre-conceived notion. I agree, but why dismiss sanctity of life as a pre-conceived notion rather than a principle that could be gained from life's experiences?
    Have you considered that this notion could actually be a concluding principle gained from our own moral growth and development?
    For me anyway, and I imagine for many, these principles were not available to me in my formative years and I have only learnt to embrace and cherish them as a result of my own experiences and my own moral growth.
    Do I hope all people believe in the sanctity of life?
    In a perfect world, yes I would hope so. But, because of the number of people who now actively, and aggressively, promote a culture of death such as abortion and euthanasia, I realise this is not so.
    But as this is a Catholic News service which I presume is read predominantly by Catholics, Catholics that I hope would have at least a basic understanding of the teachings of the church, I would hope they also cherish the overiding principle of the sanctity of life, especially as it relates to euthanasia.
    I do not apologise for my belief that the sanctity of life is paramount in this debate.

    Posted By: Noel, Gippsland Vic

15. I don’t expect you to apologise, Noel, for believing “sanctity of life” is paramount in the debate. That notion may indeed be a meaningful conclusion people can arrive at.
    But it is a rubbery term, even if what you mean by it is quite defined in your own mind. And if you don’t include all killing, including animals, then I would recommend using a different and more precise term, perhaps “inviolability-of-humans-in-suffering” so the meat of your principle is more openly revealed and conveyed.
    No, what I find regretful is the notion that many, Catholics or not, might - especially where they simply proclaim and conform to what effectively is a slogan and selective application of a view that human life is privileged - desist or cease from questioning or examining the merits of their current position and being open to wondering whether the idea of euthanasia might not in fact be a good one in some circumstances.
    If you have arrived at your position, as you say, after experiential growth and reflection, good on you. But it’s best not to presume that others, even amongst Catholics who understand the teachings of the church, will agree your analysis is the correct one, or that they must be wrong in coming to a different conclusion. It is slavish or unreflecting compliance that impedes developments in moral understanding, so may reflection, and discussion, and a wide examination of all the arguments, continue.
    
    

    Posted By: smk, Bundarra

16. But weren't Catholics told by a very prominent Catholic priest that a Catholic/Christian could vote for the Greens without fearing it conflicted with their Christian conscience?
    I was perplexed then, and I'm more perplexed now. I wonder if that same priest will now come out against euthanasia, and stand against this social engineering agenda of the Greens.

    Posted By: CD Cairns

17. Yes, CD, I wonder the same thing. And I feel very angry that any leader in the church could promote that extremely misguided view.
    This issue of euthanasia, as someone here rightly pointed out, is merely the thin end of the wedge in terms of the dangerous, anti-life policies the Greens will try to push.
    God help us all and God help any Catholics who helped their cause by voting them in.

    Posted By: LG, Canberra

18. As Peter from Canberra rightly pointed out, the Greens pre-election website named their support for (from memory) euthanasia, abortion on demand, gay marriage, abolition of daily prayer in parliament, considerable reductions in government funding for Catholic and private schools, abolition of the right of Catholic schools to discriminate in hiring of staff or selection of students etc.

    Posted By: Kathleen, Albury

• » Advertise in CathNews

Email to Friend Please fill out the following details (fields marked with a * are mandatory):
Send To Email Address*:
Send To Name *:
Sent By Email Address*:
Sent By Name *:
Text to include in email:
Captcha validation:	please enter the code above:

^ Page Top

Comment on this article

More from this section

1. Euthanasia bill defeated in WA

   A voluntary euthanasia bill has been defeated in the Western Australia parliament by 24 votes to 11, after two days of debate.

2. Legislative Assembly examines options for Canberra's Calvary

   A Legislative Assembly committee will examine future options for Canberra's Calvary Public Hospital, saying the ACT Government has thus far poorly handled a process of trying to buy the hospital from the Little Company of Mary. 

3. Australia Post marks canonisation with commemorative stamp

   Australia Post has announced the October 18 release of a new commemorative stamp series to mark of the canonisation of Mary MacKillop.

4. Cardinal Pell pays tribute to St Mary's architect at book launch

   Cardinal George Pell has described a new biography of St Mary's Cathedral architect William Wardell as a tribute to his "irreplaceable contribution to the colonies of NSW and Victoria".

5. Euthanasia conscience vote for NSW MPs

   NSW MPs will get a conscience vote on euthanasia, while a leading Catholic advocate has labelled the idea a "corrupting quick fix".