A firm statement against Euthanasia by Melbourne Synod
Rev Tracy Lauersen and Dr Justin Denholm presented a motion opposing Euthanasia at the 50th Melbourne Anglican Synod on Saturday 10th October 2010. The motion was passed by a very clear and loud majority on Synod.
Motion before Synod
That this Synod reaffirms the resolution of the General Synod of Australia (1995) concerning Euthanasia, namely:
- We affirm that life is a gift from God not to be taken, and is therefore not subject to matters such as freedom of individual choice.
- We cast doubt on whether a practice of voluntary euthanasia can be prevented from sliding into a practice of involuntary euthanasia.
- We affirm the right of patients to decline treatment but not to expect the active intervention by medical staff to end their lives.
And calls upon
- Members of the Victorian State legislature to vote against legislation to legalise euthanasia when such matters come before our Parliament; and
- governments to further improve access to high quality palliative care to ensure that all people will be able to die with dignity.
The Revd Tracy Lauersen
Dr Justin Denholm
Speech
Thank you. Tracy Lauersen, St Matthew’s Prahran.
Mr President, members of synod.
I move the motion standing in my name and this motion will be seconded by Dr Justin Denholm. Both of us are members of the Social Responsibilities Committee of the Diocese and bring this motion to Synod on behalf of the Committee.
Members of synod, I stand before you today with a motion that has passed in 1995 at General Synod and in abbreviated form just a few weeks ago at our 2010 General Synod. It is a motion that is both moral and pastoral. We ‘happy clappers’ as our kinder critics sometimes call Christians in the media blogs have been accused of taking the moral high ground at the expense of personal and individual realities. The Church is seen to be saying ‘No’ all the time…. standing in judgment – ‘no’ to abortion, ‘no’ to euthanasia, ‘no’ to rights….and yet I put it to you that the current highly politicized issue of euthanasia is both a highly moral and a deeply pastoral issue and that the two are intertwined. Yes, a motion opposing euthanasia is a moral one, but it also deeply respectful of personal and individual rights and needs.
On a moral note and mindful of our Vision as a Diocese ‘to make the Word of God fully known”, Scripture and the teaching of the Church affirm the dignity of human life, the sanctity of human life and that life is a gift from God. By Sanctity I mean that life is holy, important, and should be secure from any violation. Human dignity means that those possessing life are worthy of respect and ethical treatment and are all equally valuable. The dignity of life is not diminished by its quality or its stage. It is given to us and we are not designed to be the masters of its length or the arbiters of its dignity. Genesis 9:6 says that whoever sheds the blood of a human is condemned by their actions for in his own image God made humankind.
On a pastoral and personal note, I cared for my mother as she died from widespread and terminal cancer and sat with her as she breathed her last breath and passed on from this life. In the last months she refused further treatment. She declined chemotherapy, reasoning that it would only, and then only maybe, give her a short amount of extra time, she declined any idea of further surgery. All those were her rights as a patient. In her last weeks, to deal with her pain, she received palliative pain relief. Her medical chart read ‘TLC’ – tender loving care. And this was administered in large doses by all who came to her room. Her refusal of treatment to unnaturally lengthen a life at its close was legal, wise and good common sense. Her pain management was also legal, wise and good.
I say all of this to reassure members that in bringing this motion we are not seeking to censure current lawful practices. In debate, positions are exaggerated. Those who oppose euthanasia are painted as people who want others to suffer unnecessarily. This is not so and a clarity about what euthanasia is is helpful.
Euthanasia is “the act by which one person intentionally causes or assists in causing the death of another who is terminally or seriously ill in order to end the other’s pain and suffering.”
Euthanasia usually involves the intravenous administration of a lethal substance.
The administration of pain relief for palliative purposes is not euthanasia. The refusal of futile or burdensome treatment by a patient is not euthanasia. This motion does not oppose the administration of palliative pain relief or the rights of patients to decline treatment, however well intentioned by others.
But what it does do is draw a boundary within which we can respect the dignity of human life, within which we can demand and provide excellent multi-disciplinary palliative care, within which we can treat and care and grieve and process and prepare for the end of this life: body, mind and soul.
If we approve of euthanasia, in a legal sense, how will we safeguard people’s rights to life? What will we be doing to doctor-patient relationships if doctors are no longer always protectors of life? What happens to the person dying in the aged care facility, who has given her power of attorney over to someone else and who wants treatment, not euthanasia, but has lost her power to choose and fells she is a burden? Our own prime minister has admitted the complexity and confusion when thinking how such laws could have adequate safeguards. Try to think where such a law would lead 30 years from now, with cases testing boundaries and setting precedents and softening the edges of such a law. The situation in Holland beggars belief: The Journal of Medical Ethics tells us that in a few short decades, they have progressed (although progress is not the right word) to an annual statistic of 24,500 intentional deaths in 1995 and in a growing number of these cases, the patient did not make any explicit request.1 Euthanasia has grown to encompass not only the terminally ill, but the chronically ill, the chronically depressed and the mentally and physically disabled. Inevitably the law becomes liberalized by the frequency and pressure of cases and precedents. Lets just not go there in Australia.
We need better palliative care. A Commonwealth Review in 1997 estimated that less than half of the Australian population that would benefit from Palliative care, receive it. We need more money spent on end of life care. We need to stop seeing people die badly due to lack of palliative services. We need to advance in our understanding of what pain relief works with what illness. But if we legalise euthanasia, we will not get this. And we will not honour the dignity of human life.
Members of synod, please show your support for this motion. Please send a message to the community and the politicians which is both life affirming and pastorally caring. Make a stand that seeks to alleviate suffering but states firmly that Euthanasia is not an acceptable way to do this. Put a dignified and protective boundary around how we can treat people who are ill and demand better palliative care.
1: Euthanasia Does Not Seem To be Under Effective Control In The Netherlands, Journal of Medical Ethics, 1999 25:16-21