By Anthony Barich
Analysis
THE pro-life battle is far from over in South Australia and other States despite a euthanasia Bill being defeated in its Legislative Council on 24 November.
Greens MLC Mark Parnell – who sponsored the defeated Bill with Labor backbencher Stephanie Key – said that while he was disappointed, it could return to the Upper House next year if adequately amended in the Lower House.
“A number of members have expressed their support for the concept but for a variety of reasons they are not able to support this Bill tonight,” he told News Ltd. “Of course we are disappointed the Bill didn’t pass the Upper House last night, but this by no means is the end of the debate.”
Had it passed, the Bill would have amended the Consent to Medical Treatment and Palliative Care Act to allow a person to request to end his or her life.
The retirements of pro-life Liberal MPs Robert Lawson QC and Caroline Schaefer at the 20 March election had pro-lifers worried that the Bill would succeed, and the Bill’s supporters confident.
But the unexpected votes of three MPs, strong public statements from Adelaide’s Catholic Bishops and the Health Minister, and the activism of a non-Christian national network begun in the weeks prior to the debate led to the Bill’s demise.
Liberal MLC Jing Lee, who had not publicly declared her hand prior to the vote, voted against the Bill, as did Independent Ann Bressington, who abstained in the 2009 vote that defeated a euthanasia Bill, 11 votes to 9.
Michelle Lensink, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Legislative Council who has changed her mind in the last two debates, also argued against the Bill in a speech which pro-lifers called “a triumph of commonsense”.
The day before debate started, Health Minister John Hill attacked the Bill, calling it “clunky” and “flawed” and said that euthanasia should not be associated with palliative care.
Paul Russell, former Family and Life Officer for the Archdiocese of Adelaide, founded a national network of people opposed to euthanasia called “Hope” and www.noeuthanasia.org.au, which marshalled expert opinion from around Australia.
“With the Federal Greens Bill, another in NSW and another expected in Victoria after its 27 November State election, these threats were becoming more real and we needed to have an organised standing network of people willing to help in whatever way they could to fight these bills,” Mr Russell told The Record.
In an unexpected twist and a sign of the persuasiveness of the euthanasia movement, Kelly Vincent, an MLC of the Dignity for Disability party, supported the SA Bill on the grounds of individual autonomy.
“This came as a shock considering the vast majority of disability organisations around the world are solidly against euthanasia due to the risk to the vulnerable that euthanasia entails,” Mr Russell said.
Mr Hill is also seeking to amend the criminal code in a similar way that the current exemption for abortion exists by having an alternate Bill introduced into the Lower House. This will create an exemption for doctors to make an act of euthanasia, but pro-lifers warn that it contains no safeguards or limits on bureaucrats who would design the regulations.
Adelaide Archbishop Philip Wilson issued a Pastoral Letter that was read in every SA parish two weeks before the vote that galvanised Catholic voters.
Port Pirie Bishop Greg O’Kelly SJ also issued a pastoral letter on 24 September, expressing “sadness that the first moves around our nation under our new political arrangement seem to be a promotion of death and an abuse of marriage”.
Archbishop Wilson urged Catholics to write to local MPs to make it clear that the Catholic Church supports the development of advanced directives, is clear on the right to refuse futile and burdensome treatment and supports excellence in health care around Australia.
He said euthanasia challenges the accepted understanding of the importance of human life and impacts on the way the dying are cared for; and warned of its far-reaching ramifications for society, health professionals, individuals and the vulnerable.
The Bill’s aim to make provisions for killing – “suggesting the aim of the bill is merely to bring order to a practice that is currently prevalent and unregulated” – is “a groundless slur on doctors, implying that they are routinely killing patients in the guise of relieving pain by administering large doses of pain killers.
“There is a profound difference between intending pain relief and intending death. In good palliative care, the intention is to relieve the patient’s distress.”
Euthanasia is seen as a “quick-fix” to fears of a long and painful death, he said, which denies the opportunity for a dignified death that is provided when people are loved and cared for during the dying process.
The Bill’s apparent compassion to suffering is also misleading, he said, as it is already possible for people to indicate their preference not to undergo treatment that is burdensome or futile.