November 13th 2010

  Buy Issue 2840

Articles from this issue:

REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH: Inquiry ruled out into atrocities of late-term abortions

COVER STORY: Election outcome will weaken Obama

CANBERRA OBSERVED: Voters abandon directionless Labor

ELECTORAL REFORM: The undetectable crime of electoral fraud

HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION: Sexual 'diversity' now AHRC's obsession

WATER POLICY: Commonwealth Water Act must be rewritten

EDITORIAL: Global implications of Europe's fragility

EUROPE: Multiculturalism has 'utterly failed': German chancellor

AFGHANISTAN: The case for Australia's continued engagement

CHINA: How 'one child' policy threatens China's future

SPECIAL FEATURE: Creativity suffocated by managerialism and HR

NORTHERN TERRITORY: A backward step for the policing profession

QUEENSLAND: 12 per cent swing in favour of protecting unborn

REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH: Inquiry ruled out into atrocities of late-term abortions

OPINION: Why we should not legalise euthanasia

OPINION: The history book that helped bind a disparate nation

MEDIA: American conservative pundits hail voter revolt

BOOK REVIEW: OPERATION MINCEMEAT: The True Spy Story that Changed the Course of World War II, by Ben Macintyre

Books promotion page

Why we should not legalise euthanasia

by Peter Kavanagh MLC

News Weekly, November 13, 2010
Support for euthanasia is motivated by compassion, but it is clear that any conceivable good that could come from legalising euthanasia would be far outweighed by its harmful consequences.

Euthanasia is rarely about suicide - it is not about people killing themselves; it is about the ending of another person's life.

It undermines the principle that another person's life is of such value that it may be taken only in the individual or collective defence of life itself. Legalising euthanasia would reduce the protection that is provided by our legal system and by dominant social attitudes.

The principle that life is of inestimable value has contributed to a sense of awe over the taking of another's life. That awe, and the consequent inhibition and reluctance at the taking of another life, would be diminished if euthanasia were legalised.

Even more profound and disturbing would be the effect on how people see themselves. Famous proponents of euthanasia have argued that it would be a selfless act to volunteer. However, the elderly and sick already fear being a burden on their loved ones and on the community. Wouldn't the knowledge that some other elderly and sick people are volunteering to be killed cause some of the elderly and sick to view continuing to live as selfishness?

In addition to the implicit pressure that euthanasia would bring to bear on the vulnerable themselves, there would be explicit pressure from other people. Euthanasia would allow some to seek the deaths of others through the simple application of gentle encouragement. It would probably not be in the form of a demand; it would not be angry or direct. Betrayal, as we know, is almost always done with a kiss.

We could imagine, for example, a man going to see his mother-in-law. He might say something like, "You know, you have had this problem, this diabetes, for a while now. You are a good age, you are over 60 years old and getting on. Don't you think you ought to tell them that you have had enough and that you cannot take it any more?"

The case for euthanasia presumes that a person in severe pain is in a position to make rational, monumental decisions. In fact, of course, a person in this condition is in precisely the kind of state which prevents him or her from making a life-and-death decision.

This case for euthanasia also presumes that medical science can make consistently accurate diagnoses and prognoses. In recent years, two high-profile cases in Australia involving euthanasia have demonstrated a 100 per cent failure rate in medical diagnoses and prognoses. In both cases, while alive, the deceased had been diagnosed as dying from their illnesses. In both cases, autopsies after their deaths by euthanasia revealed that neither of them had had terminal illnesses.

Legalised euthanasia presumes that a suffering person may revoke a certificate of request to be killed. Do we have any idea at all of what is going through the mind of a person who has lost consciousness? What of the sufferer who has changed his or her mind but is unable to express those new wishes because of physical incapacity? Under "voluntary euthanasia" schemes such people will be killed without their consent.

In the euthanasia debate "dignity" seems to refer to continence and a lack of pain. Isn't there actually more dignity in a life lived to its natural conclusion, possibly in spite of pain and incontinence?

Whatever safeguards are initially imposed will be eroded over time because once it becomes accepted that killing people can be "assisting" them, then the floodgates are opened and restraints and inhibitions on the taking of imperfect lives are washed away.

Advances in palliative care now make it possible for the vast majority of people to experience a fulfilling and relatively pain-free death. Legalising euthanasia would detract from the considerable achievements being made in palliative care.

In Victoria, a person may legally refuse life-prolonging treatment and keep taking only pain-relieving medication. This is entirely proper, because in such a situation the patient will be killed by his or her illness and not through the intervention of another person as is the case with euthanasia.

Legalising euthanasia would have a wide range of profoundly detrimental effects. It would diminish the protection offered to the lives of all. It would allow the killing of people who do not genuinely volunteer to be killed, and any safeguards, although initially observed, would inevitably weaken over time.

There would be other long-term consequences of legalising euthanasia that we cannot yet envisage. We can be sure that these consequences would be pernicious, however, because they would emanate from an initiative which, while nobly motivated, is wrong in principle - attempting to deal with the problems of human beings by killing them.

Peter Kavanagh MLC is the Democratic Labor Party (DLP) state upper house MP for Western Victoria.

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 Bill Shorten imposes his political will on the nation

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

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