November 14th 2009


  Buy Issue 2816
Qty:

Articles from this issue:

COVER STORY: Why Australians should oppose a human rights charter

CANBERRA OBSERVED: The Rudd Government's asylum-seeker dilemma

EDITORIAL: Emissions trading scheme in trouble

CLIMATE CHANGE: Rudd's ETS will hit country towns hardest

ECONOMICS: Rising interest rates create speculative bubble

SOUTH AUSTRALIA: Will SA be the first state to legalise euthanasia?

FOREIGN AFFAIRS: Australia's crude Fiji sanctions policy backfires

BRAZIL: Lula's infatuation with tyrants and mass-murderers

OVERSEAS AID: Exporting death in our overseas 'aid'

ASIA: Taiwan's modified UN bid prospects rated as 'good'

EDUCATION: A destructive doctrine called 'diversity'

SCIENCE: Can computer games harm children's brains?

OPINION: Why I lost faith in the Left

Australian aid to China (letter)

Rags-to-riches story (letter)

Kokoda and Japan (letter)

AS THE WORLD TURNS: Western nations must prepare for cyber attacks; The tyranny of unelected 'experts'; School reform that works.

BOOK REVIEW: OUT FROM UNDER: The Impact of Homosexual Parenting, by Dawn Stefanowicz

BOOK REVIEW: THE ART OF WAR: Great Commanders of the Ancient, Medieval and Modern World, Andrew Roberts

Books promotion page

survey link

FONT SIZE:

SOUTH AUSTRALIA:
Will SA be the first state to legalise euthanasia?


by Damian Wyld

News Weekly, November 14, 2009
There is nothing unusual in the South Australian Parliament debating a euthanasia bill. Indeed, it seems to happen with predictable regularity, year in, year out. This difference this time, however, is the chance of such legislation passing.

There are currently two euthanasia bills in SA: one in the House of Assembly (the lower house), courtesy of Independent MP, and former Liberal Government minister, Bob Such; and another in the Legislative Council (the upper house), courtesy of Greens MLC, Mark Parnell.

This latter bill is being debated in the final days of the parliamentary session, with parliament effectively prorogued in a few weeks' time until the SA state election, set for March 20, 2010.

Previous upper house votes on the issue have seen defeats in the order of 13-8. With some changing of the guard - and minds - those results were turned around to a recent 11-10 vote in favour of the second reading of Mr Parnell's bill (the penultimate stage).

Previous euthanasia bills have also passed this hurdle, but only for reasons of allowing debate before finally being defeated at the third reading.

This bill, however, seems to have a firm 10 in favour, 10 opposed and one still considering. That undecided MLC is independent Ann Bressington, who spoke firmly against the bill. She did so, not so much on moral or ethical grounds, but to argue that the state government could hardly supervise a regime of legalised euthanasia when, in her opinion, it can scarcely manage the departments it already has.

Ms Bressington was not the only speaker to express misgivings about euthanasia solely on grounds of impracticality. Some other MLCs who spoke against the bill hinted that, should better safeguards be incorporated in the legislation, they too might be persuaded to vote "yes" down the track.

The coming state election will see the retirement of two anti-euthanasia MLCs, and the likelihood of a second Green joining Mr Parnell in the upper house. So 2010 does not look like a bright year for pro-life forces. In fact, it could mean that the lower house will become the unlikely battleground for euthanasia. The numbers of lower house MPs for and against euthanasia are hard to determine at present, let alone after the 2010 state election.

The final upper house debate is set for November 18. Even if the bill passes, it will proceed no further due to parliament rising and the approach of the election. However, it would be a huge shot in the arm (if you'll excuse the pun) for the euthanasia lobby, which has already built up considerable momentum in recent months.

The South Australian Voluntary Euthanasia Society (with its most inappropriate acronym, SAVES) has been quite ingenious in its recent actions, forming an almost symbiotic relationship with a curious body called "Christians Supporting Choice for Voluntary Euthanasia".

This latter group, which conveniently materialised just in time for serious debate, maintains an online presence on SAVES' website and welcomes membership from "non-Christians and ex-Christians" - which scarcely seems representative of actual Christians. In any event, their numbers seem few. Yet MLCs, both for and against the bill, have been falling over each other to pay respect to these self-styled "Christians" who support euthanasia.

The group has moreover gained this credibility with parliamentarians, despite the various Christian leaders in SA roundly condemning euthanasia.

The current impasse should lead to some serious soul-searching by the wider pro-life movement. Questions should be asked regarding the effectiveness of its campaign and lobbying strategies. As with Victoria's extremist abortion legislation of 2008, a situation seems to be fast approaching where lobbying proves less and less effective. Most MPs are already entrenched in their positions, so any subsequent lobbying may at best influence only a very few votes.

In such an environment, the short-term goal of preventing harmful legislation must be coupled with a renewed, long-term effort to see a greater number of pro-life, pro-family members elected to our parliaments.

This is the only feasible way forward. Such a goal is not only reasonable, but quite realisable, considering the widespread political apathy in the community, to say nothing of the massively shrinking membership of the major parties.

Movements such as the National Civic Council have long proposed "taking back the institutions", that is, allowing the maligned, marginalised and silent majority of Australians a greater say in academia, the media and public life.

Slide to the secular left

Playing a more prominent role in choosing who gets elected to parliament would seem a good place to start. Otherwise, if parliament continues its current slide to the secular left, no amount of frantic campaigning and lobbying by pro-life forces is likely to influence the final outcome.

Rome wasn't built in a day. However, over time, it was built - not by apathy, nor by despair, but through sheer, stubborn effort and unshakeable faith.

Damian Wyld is South Australian president of the National Civic Council.




























Join email list

Join e-newsletter list


Your cart has 0 items



Subscribe to NewsWeekly

Research Papers



Trending articles

NATIONAL AFFAIRS Cardinal rebuts commission's 'Get Pell' campaign

COVER STORY Anti-discrimination law validates Safe Schools

U.S. AFFAIRS First Brexit, now Trump: it's the economy, stupid!

INDUSTRY AND ENVIRONMENT Wikileaks reveals U.S, funding behind anti-coal campaign

COVER STORY QUT discrimination case exposes Human Rights Commission failings

FOREIGN AFFAIRS How the left whitewashed Fidel Castro

ANALYSIS What is possible to a Trump Whitehouse



News and views from around the world

19-year-old homeschooled pro-lifer wins Ontario election by landslide (Lianne Laurence)

Trump makes right choice for education secretary (National Review)

Transgender conformity (Katherine Kersten)

Sex education programs do not reduce teen pregnancy or STI rates (Philippa Taylor)

Photographer who captured Safe Schools founder harassing bystander shuts down business (Frank Chung)

Is the global middle class here to stay? (Samuel Rines)

Donald Trump could end America's new feudalism (Joel Kotkin)

It just got easier to find the perpetrators of Stalin's purges (David Filipov)

Castro's death eradicate bacillus of old-style Marxism (Gerald Warner)

Labor MP Terri Butler in QUT race case apology (Geoff Chambers)



























© Copyright NewsWeekly.com.au 2011
Last Modified:
December 2, 2016, 2:36 pm