By Martin Laverty
Western Australia’s Parliament is still debating the Voluntary Euthanasia Bill.
Catholic Health Australia (CHA) opposes this Bill. Representing all Catholic providers of hospital and aged care services in Western Australia and across the nation, our opposition should come as no amazing surprise.
When introducing the legislation to Parliament in May, the proponent of the Bill articulated five arguments as to why Upper House members should vote yes to euthanasia. We don’t simply dismiss these arguments. Each contains some substance.
Many of the medical, nursing, and pastoral staff in our hospitals and aged care services have cared for thousands of people at the time of their natural death. They will tell you there is another side to each of the five arguments.
The first of the five was that “the last stages of terminal illness are often times of unbearable pain, suffering, and great anguish.” For some this is tragically true, but it needn’t be that way. For many it isn’t.
Palliative Care, when available and of good quality, relieves pain, addresses suffering, and alleviates anguish. That high quality palliative care is not available to all who need it is no reason to sanction euthanasia as an alternative.
Only one in three of all people who could benefit from quality palliative care receives it because of inadequate funding. Surely we should address this funding shortfall so that all can be provided with appropriate care when it is needed.
The second of the five arguments is that we should “no longer force a person to suffer just because we used to believe, or because some still believe, it is wrong to end suffering through death”.
Yes, many still believe euthanasia is wrong, CHA included. But even those who don’t hold such a view needn’t put up with themselves or their loved one facing suffering through illness.
When a multidisciplinary care team is available to a person who is dying, suffering can be genuinely relieved. The proponents of the Bill don’t seem to, or want to, believe this. The reason some today don’t have their suffering relieved is because of government funding shortfalls.
While there are shortfalls in funding for palliative care in Australia today, in Holland there has been a 10 per cent increase in euthanasia this year because of a massive decline in Dutch palliative care funding. There is evidence that people there are opting to die because of palliative care shortages.
The third argument offered is a right to personal autonomy. It was argued a person should determine when they want to die.
This argument of a personal right was central to the decision to allow euthanasia in Belgium. A study released there this year found nearly half of a group of euthanasia nurses – 120 of 248 – admitted they had taken part in “terminations of patients’ lives without request or consent”.
As the Belgium experience indicates, euthanasia does not necessarily result in autonomy if people are being euthanised without request.
In fact, many believe where euthanasia exists, it creates a new pressure on some with terminal illnesses to end their lives for financial, family, or other reasons.
The fourth argument, labelled when the Bill was introduced as almost irrefutable, is that euthanasia already occurs without any legal framework and that “euthanasia is a frequent … result of good palliative care”.
There is a legal framework that responds to death with intent. It is called the criminal law.
The suggestion palliative care is a cause of death is also to misunderstand its purpose. Its purpose is to attend to suffering, to relieve pain, and support a person facing the end of their natural life. This is in part achieved through medication control, but where palliative care is provided properly, its purpose is not to end life.
The fifth and final reason offered in support of the euthanasia Bill is that a majority of West Australians want it.
It sure is hard to argue with a majority.
But we should be grateful that whereas market surveys determine the colour of a breakfast cereal box or the smell of a shampoo, they need not determine the outcomes of complex questions of life and death.
Parliamentarians have a much more serious challenge to manage.
The debate in Parliament today is one that should occur. It is appropriate for our Parliamentarians to be tackling the real moral challenges of our time.
But instead of the option of allowing the premature end a person’s life, the Parliament should focus on how to expand palliative care to all who might need it.
Expanded palliative care means training more doctors and nurses in how to properly care for the dying. It means funding more palliative care teams to be able to work in people’s homes. It means extending palliative care to the two out of three who currently miss out.
The doctors and nurses who oppose euthanasia, who number in their thousands and all of whom vote, are trained to care for the sick. They are hopeful the Parliament will reaffirm their role to do just that.
Martin Laverty is the CEO of Catholic Health Australia, representing the Catholic hospital and aged care network that operates one in ten of all hospital and aged care beds in Australia.