The recent tragic deaths of an elderly Albany couple again raises the issue of voluntary euthanasia. Federal members Alannah MacTiernan and Richard Di Natale now seek cross-party support for a private member’s Bill to legalise voluntary euthanasia nationally.
As the Catholic Archbishop of Perth, I am often asked to comment when such issues arise. Because the Catholic Church consistently advocates profound respect for every human life, regardless of the person’s status or circumstances, the Church stands firmly against voluntary euthanasia.
Respect for human life, from conception to natural death, is a fundamental pillar of the Catholic understanding of what it means to be human. Every other human right ultimately becomes groundless if this absolute right to life is compromised.
If the inviolability of human life is relativised, if our society’s basic prohibition on one person killing another is violated even once, then every other human right is also relativised.
In such a scenario nothing is absolute and we become vulnerable to the influence of pressure groups and the tyranny of those with the loudest voices or more immediate access to power.
As human beings we are, by our very nature, oriented to others. From conception and beyond birth we are intimately connected to, and dependent on, others.
As we grow and develop, so too the web of our relationships grows more intricate with others also depending on us.
While we may strive to establish our own independence, the really happy people are those whose well-being, value and purpose lie in the life-giving relationships that develop over time.
The point is, of course, that responsibility works both ways. The decisions I make, even deeply personal ones, impact on others.
This is obviously true at the level of those closest to me, my family and closest friends.
It is also true at the wider level. I have a responsibility both for and to the society in which I live.
Indeed it is not too much to say that I have a responsibility both for and to the human race of which I am a part.
Significant in the euthanasia debate is this: decisions individuals make about their desire to determine the time and manner of their death have implications beyond their own lives.
Once the “right” to end one’s life is established and legislated for it becomes possible to ask if and under what circumstances others might have the “right” or even the obligation to end someone’s life.
It also becomes possible to ask if a person has not only the “right” but sometimes the “duty” to end their life.
This is the slippery slope argument, dismissed by some as a scare-tactic.
To counter this, some suggest enshrining suitable safeguards in legislation: require the agreement of two medical professionals; restrict euthanasia to those terminally ill; require informed consent; have a cooling-off period before the person is assisted to end their life; specifically legislate so that no changes can be introduced to the legislation; and so on.
Such an approach betrays a somewhat idealised view of how governments work.
Even with good intentions of legislators, there is no way of ensuring that future governments will not change legislation should they have the required number of parliamentary members to do so. The experience of other countries reveals this.
Belgium introduced voluntary euthanasia in 2002. Earlier this year, merely 12 years later, euthanasia is now permissible not only for the terminally ill but for those experiencing unbearable suffering.
Terminally ill children of any age can also request euthanasia (The Netherlands sets the age at 12 years) as long as they are capable of discernment, attested to by psychologists, and with their parents’ approval.
Considering these developments, it is not scare-mongering to ask if future legislation might include severely physically disabled people, those suffering distressing and degenerative neural conditions such as dementia, and infants whose medical conditions are incurable, though not life-threatening.
Although those calling for legalised euthanasia across Australia may reject the extreme examples cited, once the fundamental principle of the inviolability of human life is breached, no firm guarantee can be given against any future breaches.
In some jurisdictions active participation by medical personnel is required to administer euthanasia.
Presumably, under any proposals put to the Federal Parliament medical professionals will be able to conscientiously object and not be required by law to assist in such procedures. But how confident can we be?
Abortion law reform in Victoria demands that doctors who conscientiously object to abortions are required by law to refer patients requesting abortions to another doctor who will agree to this procedure.
Their legal right not to be complicit in something they find morally objectionable no longer exists.
Although proponents of voluntary euthanasia suggest otherwise, many people do not seem to understand the difference between active euthanasia and care for the terminally ill and dying.
Once a person has entered into the dying process, burdensome or therapeutically futile medical treatments are often legitimately withdrawn.
When pain is severe, strong medications can be administered to bring relief, with the secondary effect of shortening a person’s life. This is not active euthanasia but good medical care.
Its aim is not to kill but to make the person comfortable, enabling them to die with dignity and, where possible, serenity.
What we need is not more legislation but to extend the provision of palliative care services and facilities to help support both the dying and their loved ones.
This support needs to be medical, psychological, spiritual and practical, readily available and affordable and above all holistic.
All of us – governments, churches, institutions, families, individuals – must accept this responsibility to truly care for and support people throughout their lives, and especially as they come close to death.
An even greater challenge is this: we need the courage to ask ourselves if we are creating a society in which people are more or less likely to be lonely, isolated, deprived of adequate medical and social support, abandoned or neglected by family and friends, and unsupported if family and friends are unable or unwilling to care for them.
How good are we as Christians in caring for people who are struggling to care adequately for themselves?
How can we strengthen and support those many institutions in our society which can help us maintain and develop a deep sense of compassion, generosity, and a ready acceptance of our mutual responsibility for each other?
In this sense the question about voluntary euthanasia is part of a much wider issue of our society’s capacity to care for all human life.
Whenever a representative of the Church speaks out against proposed legislative changes which have a moral dimension, the Church is accused by some of trying to force its views on others.
It is pointed out that no one is forcing Catholics to exercise or even to support voluntary euthanasia. It is further stated that in a pluralist society the Catholic Church needs to understand that it cannot force its own moral standards on others or expect everyone else to follow its teachings.
I am not, in the name of the Church, seeking to impose the beliefs or values of the Catholic tradition on anyone else.
Furthermore, I am not trying to disguise the fact that the Church’s position, as well as encompassing real concerns about the likely outcomes of the proposed legislative changes, is deeply grounded in our religious conviction that life is a precious gift from God which no one has the right to terminate.
As Catholics we are motivated both by our faith and by our humanity which are intimately related to each other.
And yet not everyone, not even all Catholics, will be convinced by the Church’s teaching. However, the Church exists in society.
It is the bearer of a wisdom that derives from Jesus Christ and which has developed and deepened over 2,000 years in a wide variety of social, political, religious and historical contexts.
The Catholic Church, and the Christian faith generally, has profoundly influenced Western Civilisation over many centuries.
Our involvement with many intellectual and cultural movements has helped the Church to refine its message on respect for human life at every stage.
This fundamental tenet of our Western Civilisation should not be endangered. Any proposal to legitimise a fundamental breach in the prohibition on one person killing another risks unravelling this basic principle of our social order – with unknown long-term consequences.
No one has the right to take the life of an innocent person. Neither do we have the right to take our own lives.
In the context of the current debate, and out of a sense of responsibility to contribute to the health and common good of our society, the Church offers this teaching and this wisdom to the wider community in the conviction that it is the best way forward for our society.