Does anyone have the right to stand at the end of a bed occupied by a person who is consumed by unrelenting agony, someone whose most basic human dignities have been demeaned until they no longer exist, whose condition can only continue to degrade and who only wishes to pass on, and say to that person: "No. You must continue to suffer"?
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
And, furthermore, does anyone have the right to say to the family, as they weep endless tears over their loved one's suffering and wring their hands in futility and misery: "You too must endure it"?
As our NewsScope articles today illustrate, few issues are as emotive as euthanasia. The arguments for and against are deeply held and powerful, and stories of profound personal suffering are used to support both sides of the debate.
At one extreme, church leaders tell us that the sanctity of human life is paramount. Many people would find it hard to disagree.
At the other extreme, we are told no human being should be forced to endure an existence that no reasonable person would wish on a dog. Again, many would be hard-pressed to disagree.
In between those two polar views, medical professionals and bio-ethicists probe the grey areas, always ready to disagree with each other, always ready to raise another example to test the convictions of anyone who thinks there's a clear-cut answer, always attempting to rationalise what is, in so many ways, a predominantly emotional issue that defies intellectual objectivity.
With so much strongly held passion on all sides, it is inevitable that the debate will sometimes degenerate into pure spin.
Euthanasia, we are told, is nothing less than "legalised murder" - a contradiction in terms if ever there was one. Upon hearing that one survey showed 85 per cent of Australians support euthanasia, one medical student opined that this only showed people were swayed by "a fear of suffering and of being forced to live in pain". Well, yes - and the point is?
Some of the arguments in favour of euthanasia are equally specious. Amazingly, some would seek to reduce the issue to an exercise in cost management by suggesting we should not "waste" expensive resources on keeping someone alive against their wishes, when those resources could be better used elsewhere.
In this context, it is entirely appropriate that all members of the NSW Parliament be allowed to vote on the Rights of the Terminally Ill Bill 2013 as a matter of conscience. In doing so, every member will need to examine his or her conscience closely.
They will need to ask if the legislation could be abused, and how they might feel about that.
And they will also need to ask: could I stand at the end of that bed and say, "No. You must continue to suffer."
LIFELINE
Lifeline offers help and counselling on 13 11 14.
