Editorial: Rossiter case not about euthanasia

The Chief Justice of WA Wayne Martin and the Premier Colin Barnett were of one mind that the Rossiter case on which Mr Martin ruled in the Supreme Court last Friday was not about euthanasia. In the Premier’s case, he also said it did not change his opposition to the introduction of euthanasia laws.
These clear positions by the two men in offices with the greatest responsibilities for the creation and interpretation of law in WA, were in accord with statements made earlier last week by the head of the Church’s LJ Goody Bioethics Centre, Rev. Dr Joseph Parkinson, who is the spokesman for the Archdiocese on complex bioethical issues.
Fr Parkinson explained that Christian Rossiter’s case had to be determined on its own merits and it could not be used as a precedent for any other case.
He explained that Mr Rossiter had a legal right to ask for his feeding (PEG) tube to be withdrawn, and he had a moral right to ask for it to be withdrawn if in his view the tube itself imposed an unreasonable burden on him.
The assessment of burden could include pain, discomfort, personal repugnance or cost. It might also be judged overly burdensome if it imposed excessive demand on Mr Rossiter’s family or carers.
The assessment of burden was his alone to make.
Dr Parkinson emphasised that life in itself is never a burden. No one, not even Mr Rossiter, has a moral right to remove the PEG tube because life is ‘futile’. However, life could involve suffering which could become unreasonably burdensome, and no one had a right to force a person to preserve his life regardless of his suffering.
The assessment of suffering ought to be made in full knowledge of the medical and palliative care available.
The case of Christian Rossiter was further complicated by the fact that he could not remove the PEG himself, which would be the nearest equivalent to an able-bodied person simply ceasing to eat or drink. The legal and ethical responsibilities of carers, including their right to make their own moral choices, had to be considered in relation to each individual case.
There were considerable dangers in the assumption that any wish expressed by a patient had to be carried out by carers. Such an assumption enshrined in law could put immense pressure on other patients to behave in the same way even when that was not their personal inclination.
The tumultuous public debate surrounding the Rossiter case has not been characterised by the sort of clarity displayed by Mr Martin, Mr Barnett, and Fr Parkinson. Nor has it shown much consideration for the position of carers. Opinion polls and letters to editors have, for the most part, been swamped by writers eager to declare their own or other people’s lives not worth living except to the extent that they would be improved by death.
Without commenting on Mr Rossiter’s previous position, his current position or any future position he may adopt in relation to his own life, it is a fact that his change of heart at the time of his Supreme Court hearing gave all of us a valuable lesson about the wisdom of not discarding anyone’s life as futile or unbearable (two of the preferred words of those writing in favour of death over life). His change of mind shows us that life depends very largely on the attitudes we adopt to it, and the mental and/or spiritual activities we engage in.
This demonstration that life cannot be measured and found wanting solely because of the physical limitations we have in living it, is a reminder of the long human tradition of valuing life intensely even at times of great suffering.
We can remind Catholics of the tremendous example of Jesus on the Cross, and of the saints who followed his example in numerous ways throughout their lives. Unfortunately, the mention of Jesus and/or saints tends to arouse resentment among many.
However, there is a well-known Australian tradition of great courage and perseverance in the face of suffering that is not uniquely religious or confined to any particular religion.
It is the courage and mutual support that Australian men and women showed to one another during the darkest days of their incarceration and slave labour in Japanese prisoner-of-war camps. No matter the depth of their suffering nor the near certainty of death, no one was left without whatever medical treatment could be scraped up, and no one was left without the companionship and comfort of at least one of their mates.
It was a remarkable and lasting demonstration of the value of life itself and of every life, a story that has aroused great admiration and pride among Australians ever since. It is a story that every journalist and letter writer would do well to remember before putting pen to paper to advocate anything less than complete commitment to the lives of those who suffer.