November 14th 2009

  Buy Issue 2816

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

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

SAME-SEX MARRIAGE Memo to Shorten, Wong: LGBTIs don't want it

COVER STORY Shorten takes low road to defeat marriage plebiscite

COVER STORY Reaper mows down first child in the Low Countries

SAME-SEX MARRIAGE Kevin Andrews: defend marriage on principles

CANBERRA OBSERVED Coalition still gridlocked despite foreign success

COVER STORY Bill Shorten imposes his political will on the nation

ENVIRONMENT More pseudo science from climate

News and views from around the world

Menzies, myth and modern Australia (Jonathan Pincus)

China’s utterly disgraceful human-rights record

Japan’s cure for childlessness: a robot (Marcus Roberts)

SOGI laws: a subversive response to a non-existent problem (James Gottry)

Shakespeare, Cervantes and the romance of the real (R.V. Young)

That’s not funny: PC and humour (Anthony Sacramone)

Refugees celebrate capture of terror suspect

The Spectre of soft totalitarianism (Daniel Mahoney)

American dream more dead than you thought (Eric Levitz)

Think the world is overcrowded: These 10 maps show why you’re wrong (Max Galka)

© Copyright 2011
Last Modified:
November 14, 2015, 11:18 am