Faith

To use religion—or the claimed tenets of a particular version of a particular religion—to argue that all others should adhere to its values and abide by its rules of conduct.

0
More Dutch evidence contradicts Margaret Somerville's 'suicide contagion' theory

I’ve previously published an extensive analysis of how Professor Margaret Somerville, of the Catholic Notre Dame University of Australia, cherry-picked her way through select data that seemed to be (but wasn’t) consistent with her ‘contagion’ theory from assisted dying to the general suicide rate. I provided ample evidence from lawful jurisdictions that comprehensively contradicts her claim. I also published the summary in ABC Religion & Ethics.

Yet Somerville still says despite extensive real-world experience to the contrary, that “I believe that my [suicide contagion] statement will prove to be correct.”

She and her Catholic colleagues still hold onto several tenuous threads of information that might — just might — appear consistent with her theory, despite the truckloads of evidence to the contrary.

One of those tenuous threads is that the general suicide rate in the Netherlands has increased from 2008, around the same time that use of the Dutch euthanasia law also increased. (The general suicide rate previously fell as assisted dying rates increased.)

I reported official Dutch government statistics and expert financial reports to show that the unemployment rate explains most (80%) of the variation in the Dutch general suicide rate since 1960, and that the Netherlands was particularly hard-hit by the global financial crisis from 2008 — whereas neighbouring Belgium wasn’t and its suicide rate dropped as assisted dying numbers increased. Unemployment in hard times is a known significant risk factor for suicide.

Now, a detailed and peer-reviewed analysis of Dutch data recently published in the Netherlands Journal of Medicine throws more mud in the face of Somerville’s theory.1

The research looked at the Dutch assisted death and general suicide rates from 2002 through 2014, separately for each of the five Euthanasia Commission reporting regions.

Headline results of the averages for 2002–14 are shown in Figure 1.

netherlandsfiveregionmap.jpgFigure 1: The average assisted death rate (and suicide rate) as a percent of all deaths by region, 2002-14
Source: Koopman & Putter 2016

As you can see, Region 3, which includes Amsterdam, had by far the greatest assisted death rate (3.4%), compared with the other four regions (1.7% – 2.0%). Yet Region 3’s suicide rate at 1.2% was the same as Region 5 which had only half the assisted death rate of Region 3 (1.7% vs 3.4%). (The authors, unusually, expressed suicides as a percentage of all deaths rather than per 100k population.)

The results are the opposite of Somerville’s theory which says that Region 3’s general suicide rate should be much higher than (not the same as) Region 5’s.

Those figures are the average for 2002–14. It’s possible that the picture is a little different for the more recent years in which the assisted dying rate is higher.

To answer that question, I’ve retrieved official Dutch Government data and calculated the assisted dying rates and general suicide rates for 2014 alone, the most recent year for which all the data is available. I’ve also calculated the general suicide rate per 100,000 population, the more usual way of reporting and comparing suicide statistics. The results are shown in Figure 2.

dutchregionsveandsuicide2014.gifFigure 2: The Dutch assisted death rate and general suicide rate by region for 2014
Sources: Euthanasia Commission annual reports, Dutch Government statistics

While region 1 (the far north) has the lowest assisted death rate (3.2% of all deaths), it has by far the highest general suicide rate (13.6 per 100k population).

The latest Dutch regional data shows the opposite of Margaret Somerville’s ‘suicide contagion’ theory, adding to the already extensive evidence against it.Conversely, region 3 (which includes Amsterdam) has by a very large factor the highest assisted dying rate (6.0% of all deaths), yet it has the second-lowest general suicide rate (10.3 per 100k population).

This latest empirical evidence is consistent with other extensive evidence I’ve published showing an inverse — or no — relationship between assisted dying rates and general suicide rates.

The question is whether Margaret Somerville and her Catholic friends will pay the slightest attention, or continue to rely on invalid, cherry-picked morsels of data that they think support their theory, but don’t.

 

References

  1. Koopman, JJE & Putter, H 2016, 'Regional variation in the practice of euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide in the Netherlands', Netherlands Journal of Medicine, 74(9), pp. 387-394.

Share This Post:
0
The Age reports a 'gloves off' campaign of misinformation

Both the Herald Sun and The Age reported last week that religious anti-assisted dying crusaders are running a 'gloves off' campaign in Victoria.

Religious forces are gathering once again to attempt to thwart the views of the great majority of Victorians in favour of assisted dying law reform.

Matt Johnston in the Herald Sun quoted Paul Russell, a long-term figure in Catholic circles, and Greek Orthodox Bishop Ezekiel, in statements against assisted dying.

Farrah Thomazin in The Age quoted religious stalwarts Margaret Tighe of Right To Life, and the Australian Christian Lobby, in further statements against assisted dying.

The crux of the story is that 'pollsters' claim to have run a survey in Victoria. They refuse to be identified. They refuse to publish their methodology. And they refuse to publish all their results. Enough said.

They cherry-pick an item from their supposed poll to claim that 33% of Victorians who oppose assisted dying will change their vote against a supporting politician at the next election. They neglect to mention that only a tiny minority of Victorians actually oppose assisted dying. Their analysis is astonishingly superficial, even assuming they ran a proper, robust poll and didn't manufacture the numbers themselves.

They then use this tidbit of 'data' to put the fear of electoral defeat into politicians who will soon to face an assisted dying Bill in the Victorian Parliament.

What rubbish. Assisted dying (AD) opponents seem to be utterly shameless in misrepresenting and distorting cherry-picked data to push their religious agenda — which they pretend isn't religious.

The real situation in respect of AD is the exact opposite of their claims as I show in a proper, robust analysis of legitimate data, demonstrating that:

  • A massive 78.9% of Victorians support AD, with only a tiny 8.1% opposed. Strong supporters outnumber strong opponents by more than ten to one.
  • Significantly more supporters of AD believe that law reform is personally important, than opponents believe the status quo (no law) is personally important.
  • At a general election, far more Victorian voters will punish Members who oppose the AD Bill than will punish Members who support it (3.5 to 1 overall, 2.4 to 1 for the Liberal/National Coalition and 6.6 to 1 for Labor).
  • The co-sponsors of Victoria’s 2008 AD Bill were returned with greatly increased majorities (including relative to their party’s overall performance) despite campaigns against them by anti-AD crusaders.

 

You can read the full analysis here.

So that Victorian politicians are not misled, I have forwarded my report to the Victorian Government's Cabinet and other selected members of Parliament.

The only way in which this campaign could be called 'gloves-off' is that opponents, lurking around with their shadowy misinformation, don't want to get bullshit on their mittens. Hands seem to be much easier to wash. And hide.


Share This Post:
0
Those actively opposing assisted dying laws are Australia's most religious. Photo: Donaldytong

A claim was recently made on ABC’s QandA that at least 70% of Catholics and Anglicans support assisted dying. The claim was challenged and a FactCheck prepared and vetted by scholars. They concluded that some but not all polls supported the statement. I show unambiguously that relevant polls do. I show further, as I have in the past, that opposition is largely associated with Australia's most religious.

Get the full, detailed report here.

Known polls

In 2007, a Newspoll survey found that 74% of Catholics and 81% of Anglicans support assisted dying. The 2016 Australian Election Study (AES), run by scholars at Australian National University, found almost identical rates: 74% of Catholics and 79% of Anglicans. Although a majority of all religious denomination groups support assisted dying, opposition is highest among minor Christian denominations (Figure 1).

adattitudesreligdenomination.gifFigure 1: Attitudes toward assisted dying by major religious denominations
Source: AES 2016. Note: Chr. = Christian

A significant majority of support for assisted dying was also found across all age groups, education levels, income levels, states, and major political party affiliations and religious denominations, with support amongst Australians overall at 77%.

Casting doubt

However, another poll cited in the FactCheck found far less support: the 2011 National Church Life Survey (NCLS). It found just 28% of Catholics and 25% of Anglicans supported assisted dying.

The problem with the NCLS poll is that it didn’t take a valid sample of Australian Catholics and Anglicans. It sampled mostly or only those who frequently attend religious services.

Views vary widely by attendance frequency

Figure 2 shows the level of support amongst the Australian public, by frequency of attending religious services. While just 2.4% of those who never attend religious services oppose assisted dying, 46.1% of those attending at least once a week oppose it.

adattitudesreligiosity.gifFigure 2: Attitudes toward assisted dying by frequency of attending religious services
Source: AES 2016

NCLS poll cannot answer the question

The NCLS results were even more negative than the AES ‘at least once a week’ results. That’s explained by the NCLS methodology. Firstly, occasional attenders were underrepresented, and non-attenders were excluded altogether. Secondly, more church employees (the most deeply committed and aligned with church policies) than others would have participated. Thirdly, responders may have felt pressured to toe the church line because the survey forms were collected by the churches themselves. And fourthly, those who disagreed with the church line would be less likely to participate.

ABC QandA question answered

So we can discount the NCLS poll because it was not suited to answer the question about all Australian Catholics and Anglicans.

On that basis, it is not only reasonable to say that “up to 70% of Catholics and Anglicans support assisted dying,” but to say that “at least 70% of Catholics and Anglicans support assisted dying.”

Religious connections of opposers

But, back to the opposition of assisted dying. AES data shows that 92% of those opposing and 94% of those strongly opposing assisted dying have a religious affiliation (self-identify with a religious denomination) or attend religious services. So, while a tiny minority of opposers had no religious affiliation nor attended religious services, almost all those opposing have a religious connection.

Frequent service attendance entrenches opposition

If we focus in on those who identify with a religious denomination and who disagree with assisted dying, we find that there’s a massive difference in opposition to assisted dying between the ‘at least once a week’ attenders and everyone else (Figure 3).

adattitudesreligiosityopposers.gifFigure 3: Frequency of attending religious services amongst those with a religious affiliation and who disagree with assisted dying
Source: AES 2016

Not only are the majority of opposers weekly religious service attenders, but weekly attenders are more likely to be strongly opposed. This highlights the strong alignment with and commitment to religious teachings, which (with rare exceptions) oppose assisted dying.

If we define the most religious Australians as those who attend religious services monthly or more often and who self-identify with a religious denomination (“Regulars” in Figure 4), and who make up just 15.7% of the population, their attitudes are remarkably more opposed to assisted dying than all other Australians — by a factor of more than eleven to one.

adattitudesregularssum.gifFigure 4: Attitudes by religious service attendance plus denomination affiliation (“Regulars”)
Source: AES 2016

Amongst the 84.3% of Australians who are not “Regulars”, almost all of them (85.7%) agree with assisted dying, and almost none of them (3.6%) disagree.

Demographic differences explained by religiosity

The variation in attitudes toward assisted dying by general demographics is largely explained by religiosity — defined here as ‘the frequency of attending religious services’.

For example, the increased opposition amongst older Australians is explained by their increased religiosity. The same applies to religious denomination affiliation (e.g. Catholics attend services more often than Anglicans), education, urban versus rural residence, and political party first preference.

Religiosity was the only variable that independently explained variations in opposition to assisted dying.

The double whammy — affiliation and attendance

Also informative is the comparison of those with or without a religious affiliation versus those who do and don’t attend religious services. (Australians fall into all four categories.)

Amongst those with no religious affiliation, people who do attend religious services are only slightly less likely (than those who don’t attend) to support assisted dying (-7%), and their difference in attitude is mostly to neutrality.

However, of those with a religious affiliation, people who do attend religious services are significantly less likely to support assisted dying (-27%), and the majority of their difference in attitude is opposition rather than neutrality.

Thus, those more deeply aligned with their religious denomination through service attendance are significantly more likely to oppose assisted dying.

Moderated by personal experience

The 2007 Newspoll study asked respondents if they had personal experience of someone close who was hopelessly ill and had wanted voluntary euthanasia.

Amongst those with no religious affiliation, this personal experience increased support for assisted dying by just 3.7%, because support was already very high: from 90.9% to 94.6%.

However, amongst those with a religious affiliation, personal experience increased support for assisted dying markedly by 15.2%: from 72.4% to 87.6%.

Thus, those attending religious services, yet with close, personal experience of hopeless illness with a desire for assisted dying, were significantly less likely to align with opposed religious doctrine.

The most religious are a small minority

With so much opposition amongst Australia’s most religious, why is overall support for assisted dying so high? It’s because Australia’s most religious are a small minority of the population.

Nearly half (48%) of Australians never attend religious services, two thirds (65%) attend less than once a year or never, and three quarters (75%) attend once a year or less, including never.

Those who attend religious services frequently (weekly or more often) comprise just 12% of the population, while those who attend regularly (monthly or more often which includes the weeklies) comprise 16%.

Religion in Australia has been declining for decades, and the fall is likely to continue (see Appendix A of the full report, here), meaning that support for assisted dying is likely to increase in the future.

Conclusions

I’ve previously demonstrated how all the signatories to a major anti-assisted dying advertisement were deeply connected with religion. The AES and other studies further our understanding of wider public attitudes toward assisted dying in Australia. They show that while a substantial majority of Australians support assisted dying, almost all the opposition to it is connected with religion, particularly amongst the most religious who are a small minority of the population.

Despite the religious connection of those opposed, there is ample, robust evidence that a great majority of Catholic and Anglican Australians support assisted dying, backing the claim made on national television.

Clergy opposing assisted dying are not representing the broader views of their flocks. Perhaps they may not see that as their role, and perhaps this misalignment of attitudes and beliefs is an example of why religion in Australia is declining.

However, reflecting the views of the great majority of the constituency is the role of politicians, who would do well to take note of this robust evidence of a significant majority of support for assisted dying.

Get the full, detailed report here.

Share This Post:
0
The IAHPC website home page.

In response to my previous post about the religious basis of organised opposition to assisted dying, Dr Katherine Pettus, Advocacy and Human Rights Officer at the International Association for Hospice and Palliative Care (IAHPC), tweeted:

Twitter “#Catholic church @Pontifex believes all life is sacred&supports #PalliativeCare and use of strong #pain medicines” — Dr Katherine Pettus

Her just-published IAHPC ‘Concept Note’ railing against assisted dying,1 and summarised on the European Association of Palliative Care’s (EAPC) website,2confirms and amplifies precisely the point I made.

Now you’d think that an organisation with a name like ‘International Association for Hospice and Palliative Care’ would be a neutral organisation representing the world profession irrespective of the faith or personal spiritual beliefs of its members.

But you’d be quite wrong.

Nothing but Catholic doctrine

The IAHPC's musings extensively cite several Popes as the authorities on the subject of — and exclusively against — assisted dying. They expressly use the term "Table of authorities," which includes Popes. And who else?

Precisely nobody: no other faith, and no impartial scientific research, is cited. Just Popes.

She also writes:

IAHPC wishes to encourage our partners to express clear support for faith based teachings on palliative care.”

It is important to clarify this misinformation [about ‘stealth euthanasia’] with the authoritative teachings of the Church.”

Hospice has always been faith based.” [As if ‘the way it’s always been’ is a sound argument for ‘the way it always should be.’ Perhaps we shouldn’t have moved from serfdom to democracy?]

The Catholic Church began the medieval hospice movement, and can lead the modern palliative care movement.” [They curiously neglect to mention that the palliative care (not hospice) movement rose from Anglican roots in the UK, helpfully confirming that this broadcast is primarily about promoting Catholic religion, not palliative care.]
 

Shameless self-promotion

But Dr Pettus and the IAHPC’s Concept Note don’t stop there.

The Word [sic] Day of the Sick (WDS) is a good opportunity to support faith based healthcare organizations.”

Contact your parish to see if you can hold a small event…”

Contact your local Catholic health care provider director to find out about…”

Make an announcement at your local church…”

Gosh, I must have been mistaken. I thought World Day of the Sick was about… the sick!?

But Dr Pettus and the IAHPC commandeer it to shamelessly further the Catholic religious agenda amongst palliative care service providers.

An unexamined conflict of interest

It's deeply disturbing that someone holding the position of “Advocacy and Human Rights Officer” considers the beliefs and values only of the service provider (who she represents) in promoting the world day about sick people (who her organisation serves).

Palliative care organisations repeatedly state that they aim to deliver patient-centred care. But the world palliative care peak body's self-adoration exposes the worst of them: taking the opportunity of a day supposedly for the values and needs of sick patients, and using it to glorify their own particular (Catholic) religious tenets which are to be lauded over those of the patients they serve.

Most of the world is not Catholic, and in Australia at least, most Catholics disagree with Vatican doctrine on assisted dying.

How astonishing then to dictate that Catholic doctrine must prevail over everyone, including Protestants, Hindus, Buddhists, Jews, Muslims, agnostics, atheists and others. Dr Pettus and the IAHPC comprehensively fail to demonstrate any awareness or reflection of potential conflicts of interest in serving people of different faiths and beliefs.

Incomprehensible arrogance

There is little issue with the Catholic Church directing its own willing adherents as to how they might end their days.

But for one religious institution to seek to impose its views on everyone worldwide is incomprehensibly arrogant. I guess it's no surprise then that a Catholic Bishop recently admitted — at a Royal Commission inquiry into the extensive, ongoing and horrific abuse of children under the Church's pastoral care — that the Catholic Church is a "law unto itself".

It would be helpful if the Holy See reflected on the principle: is it legitimate for another faith to force its own views on the Vatican or on Catholic patients?

It would also be helpful if the International Association of Hopsice and Palliative Care reflected on respecting and serving the wider community rather than behaving like a subsidiary of the Holy See.

Conclusion

The IAHPC has provided its own unequivocal proof that it is religious conservatism behind organised opposition to assisted dying, with the Catholic Church at the front of the pack.

You’ll understand why I tweeted in response to Dr Pettus:

Twitter.@kpettus @EAPCOnlus Thanks for confirming @Pontifex arrogance. Not once did you mention PATIENT’S PoV. All about YOU.” — Neil Francis

 

- - -

And furthermore

Parading ignorance

The IAHPC refers repeatedly to the treatment of ‘pain’ in its stand against assisted dying law reform. But pain is not amongst the leading reasons for assisted dying (it is a much less common reason). Key reasons are the inability to participate in any of life’s enjoyable activities, loss of independence and loss of dignity.

I guess the curious focus on ‘pain’ is understandable though, because the Vatican is very fond of the doctrine of double effect (DDE) — which the IAHPC specifically notes in Catholic Catechism 2279 although not by its DDE name, but rather bizarrely as “a special form of disinterested charity.”

The DDE posits that it’s OK for a doctor to administer high doses of analgesics to treat pain, even if an unintended consequence is to hasten the patient’s death. The Catholic Church treats this doctrine as uncontroversial, even though it remains controversial amongst other ethicists and philosophers: the principle says “it’s quite OK for a doctor to kill her patient, as long as she doesn’t really mean to.”

I would commend Dr Pettus and the IAHPC to do some proper research and understand the subject area more competently before pontificating (yes, intended meaning) further.

The smokescreen argument

The IAHPC also states that:

No country or state should consider the legalization of euthanasia or PAS until it ensures universal access to palliative care services.”

That’s purely a smokescreen argument for two reasons. Firstly, the Concept Note also argues that assisted dying:

both violate[s] the bond of trust within the profession of medicine, and undermine[s] the integrity of the profession and the dedication to safeguard human life.”

Setting aside the empirical falsehood of the statement, it furnishes the IAHPC a 'get-out-of-jail-free' card if and when palliative care becomes ‘universally’ available: it’s utterly irrelevant if that goal is reached because there’s a more fundamental objection behind it.

Secondly, it's an established fact that palliative care can’t always help, even when the best services are available. ‘Universal’ access won’t fix all the problems.

All these faux arguments are typical and common from religious opponents of assisted dying.

 

References

  1. International Association for Hospice & Palliative Care 2017, Concept note: Palliative care organisations support World Day of the Sick (WDS), IAHPC, viewed 11 Feb 2017, https://hospicecare.com/uploads/2017/1/concept-note-world-day-of-the-sick-2017.docx.
  2. Pettus, K 2017, Palliative care: A special form of disinterested charity, EAPC, viewed 11 Feb 2017, https://eapcnet.wordpress.com/2017/02/10/palliative-care-a-special-form-of-disinterested-charity/.

 


Share This Post:
0

antiassisteddyingadtheageheraldsun14jun08.gif

You only have to look to understand who is campaigning against your right to choose an assisted death in the face of intolerable and unrelievable suffering.

A case in point is a massive advertisement published in both of Melbourne’s daily newspapers: News Corp’s The Herald Sun (right-wing) and Fairfax Media’s The Age (left-wing). The ad was published in 2008 when Victorian MLC Colleen Hartland introduced the Medical Treatment (Physician Assisted Dying) Bill into the State legislature.

The Catholic Archbishop of Melbourne, Denis Hart, also sent the advertisement as a letter to all members of the Victorian Parliament.1

So, who are the advertisement’s signatories? I’ve listed them all in Table 1.
 

Table 1: Signatories to the 2008 Victorian anti-assisted-dying advertisement

Rt Rev. Graham Bradbeer
Moderator, Presbyterian Church of Victoria

The Rev. Fr Graeme A. Michell, FSSM
Parish Priest, Anglican Catholic Parish of St Mary the Virgin, Melbourne

Rev. Ross Carter
Uniting Church in Australia

Pastor Graham Nelson
Senior Pastor, Life Ministry Centre

Rev. Dr Max Champion
National Chair of the Assembly of Confessing Congregations within the Uniting Church in Australia

Rev. David Palmer
Convenor Church and Nation Committee, Presbyterian Church of Victoria

Pastor Mark Conner
Senior Minister of CityLife Church

Rev. Greg Pietsch
President, Victorian District, Lutheran Church of Australia

Dr Denise Cooper-Clarke
Adjunct Lecturer, Ridley Melbourne Mission and Ministry College

Marlene Pietsch
[Director of the Lutheran School of Theology]
Lutheran Church of Australia

Rabbi Dr Shimon Cowen
Director Institute for Judaism and Civilization

Very Rev. Dr Michael Protopopov
Dean - Russian Orthodox Church in Australia

Rev. Megan Curlis-Gibson
St Hilary’s Anglican Church, Kew

Marcia Riordan
Respect Life Office, Catholic Archdiocese of Melbourne

Archbishop Dr Philip Freier
Anglican Church of Melbourne

Metropolitan Archbishop Paul Saliba
Primate of Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of Australia, New Zealand & the Philippines

Imam Riad Galil
West Heidelburg Mosque
Member of the Victorian Board of Imams

Bishop Peter Stasiuk CSSR DD
Eparchy of Saints Peter and Paul of Melbourne, for Ukrainian Catholics in Australia and New Zealand

Rev. Father James Grant SSC
Chaplains Without Borders,
Melbourne Anglican Diocese

Dale Stephenson
Senior Pastor Crossway Baptist Church

Assoc. Professor Afif Hadj MB BS (Melb) FRACS
Director of Surgery, Director of Medical Training, Maroondah Hospital (A Monash University Teaching Hospital)

Pastor Peter Stevens
Victorian State Officer
Festival of Light Australia

Archbishop Denis Hart
Catholic Archdiocese of Melbourne

Dr Nicholas Tonti-Filippini
Associate Dean, JPII Institute for Marriage and Family Melbourne

Rev. Fr Geoff Harvey
Priest of the Good Shepherd Antiochian Orthodox Mission Parish, based at Monash University

Rob Ward
Victorian State Director Australian Christian Lobby

Assoc. Professor Rosalie Hudson
Aged Care & Palliative Care consultant/educator

Jim Zubic
President of Orthodox Chaplaincy Association

Peter McHugh
Senior Pastor Christian City Church, Whitehorse

Persons in blue: Career is religion

 

Almost all of them are religious by career

To save you a lot of time assessing who these people are, I’ve coloured in blue all the folks whose job it is to espouse religion — at least, their own hierarchy’s view of it.

That’s 27 of the 29 signatories who by career are intensely immersed in their own religious perspective of the world; established and promoted through institutional doctrine.

But what about the other two?

What about the other two signatories, Assoc. Prof. Afif Hadi and Assoc. Prof. Rosalie Hudson (in yellow)?

Notice that Prof. Afif Hadi’s entry lists only his surgery profession. Highly relevant, but not mentioned, is that he was President (previously Vice Chairman) of the Australian and New Zealand Board of Trustees, Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of Australia and New Zealand. As head of the Board of the Archdiocese, his religious signature is intimately entwined with another: Metropolitan Archbishop Paul Saliba, the Primate of the Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese.

Assoc. Prof. Rosalie Hudson’s listing too, mentions only seemingly secular links. What is omitted is that she is or was Chair of the University of Divinity (a multi-faith religious institution) Human Research Ethics Committee, Secretary of the Uniting Church’s committee on bioethics, a member of the Interfaith Committee, and an Academic Associate at Charles Sturt University’s School of Theology.

Thus, both Prof. Hadi and Assoc. Prof. Hudson are also deeply rooted in religious faith. The point is not to make any criticism of their faith or practice, but merely to observe the deeply religious connections to opposing assisted dying law reform. It’s worth mentioning that both Hadi and Hudson do valuable charity work.

So, all of them are deeply religious

A pertinent question to ask is: ‘What proportion of the signatories are neutral, scholarly researchers who have studied the empirical evidence from jurisdictions where assisted dying is already lawful?’ Answer: None of them. Enough said.

And what proportion of the signatories to this anti-assisted dying advertisement are very deeply invested in organised religion? The simple answer is as usual: 100%, all of them.

Disconnected from their flocks

Critically, these career-religious fail to reflect the views of their own flocks. We know from repeated polls, for example, that three out of four Australian Catholics, more than three out of four Uniting Church members, and four out of five Anglicans (Church of England) support assisted dying law reform.

How have the religious hierarchy become so out of touch? Perhaps Mr Ian Wood, co-founder of Christians Supporting Choice for Voluntary Euthanasia might be able to offer his own insights.

This kind of clerical disconnect from the contemporary will of the people is one of the key reasons Australians are deserting religion in droves, as successive censuses show.

Conclusion

The evidence is irrefutable. Those who are actively organised to oppose your right to choose an assisted death are deeply religious, even when they use seemingly secular arguments (more on those later).

They are entitled to their opinions for themselves. But what right do they have to deny the vast majority of Australians, who do not agree with their views, the right to choose?

To phrase it in the personal, why does the Catholic Archbishop of Melbourrne, Denis Hart, think it appropriate to demand that Mr Geoff Drummond, a Buddhist, should have suffered against his will at the end of life for the Archbishop's version of faith, rather than Mr Drummond's own spiritual beliefs? Why does Rabbi Shimon Cowen think it appropriate to demand that Mr Alan Rosendorff, a fellow Jew, should have suffered against his will at the end of life for the Rabbi's version of faith, rather than Mr Rosendorff's own carefully-considered and deeply-held views? And why does Imam Riad Galil think it appropriate to demand that Mr Peter Short, not a Muslim, should have suffered against his will at the end of life for the Imam's beliefs, rather than his own?

Perhaps hubris remains alive and well amongst religious conservatives?

-----

Declaration: In fairness to those mentioned in this article, I openly declare that I am agnostic.

 

References

  1. Bradbeer, G, Rt Rev., Carter, R, Rev., Champion, M, Rev. Dr, Conner, M, Pastor, Cooper-Clarke, D, Dr, Cowen, S, Rabbi Dr, Curlis-Gibson, M, Rev., Freier, P, Archbishop Dr, Galil, R, Imam, Grant SSC, J, Rev. Fr, Hadj, A, Assoc. Prof., Hart, D, Archbishop, Harvey, G, Rev. Fr, Hudson, R, Assoc. Prof., McHugh, P, Michell, GA, Rev. Fr, Nelson, G, Pastor, Palmer, D, Rev., Pietsch, G, Rev., Pietsch, M, Protopopov, M, Very Rev. Dr, Riordan, M, Saliba, P, Metropolitan Archbishop, Stasiuk, P, Bishop, Stephenson, D, Stevens, P, Pastor, Tonti-Filippini, N, Dr, Ward, R & Zubic, J 2008, Reject physician assisted dying - An open letter to Victorian MPs, Catholic Archdiocese of Melbourne, viewed 13 Jun 2008, http://www.cam.org.au/Euthanasia.aspx.

Share This Post:
0
Notre Dame University welcomes Professor Margaret Somerville via its website.

In two opinion pieces recently published in the ABC’s conservative Religion & Ethics blog,1,2 Margaret Somerville, Professor of Bioethics at Notre Dame University, railed against marriage equality law reform using reasoning that I contend fails not only appropriate standards of ethics argument but indeed her own stated standards. Here’s why.

Railing against careful and reasoned language

In two ABC opinion pieces, Margo (as she refers to herself) railed extensively against the term ‘marriage equality,’ arguing that it ought to be referred to instead as ‘same-sex marriage.’ She volunteers that the real motive for her preferred term is that in her opinion fewer people will support ‘same-sex’ marriage than will support ‘equality’ of marriage.

Margo quite overlooks the fact that some folks deliberatively eschew gender identity or are asexual, yet may wish to honour a loving, life-long relationship through marriage. There’s also the issue of a change of gender identity within marriage, not just when entering into marriage.

The goal of Australian marriage law reform is a single, revised Act which articulates a uniform, equal set of provisions for marriage regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity: not a separate Act which permits a different version of marriage only for same-sex-attracted people.

Therefore, ‘marriage equality’ is indeed an appropriate expression for revised legislation while ‘same-sex marriage’ is less so.

“But what about the children!?”

Margo also railed extensively against marriage equality because, she claims, marriage is primarily about the rights of children, not the married couple.

However, the Marriage Act3 makes no assumptions about the marriage being for the purpose of producing children. Indeed, this would be foolish as it would preclude infertile couples from marrying. Here’s the entire definition of marriage under the Act:

“Marriage means the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life.” — Marriage Act 1961 (as amended)

Sure, the Act does have a couple of things to say about children, but in relation to the status of a legally adopted child, and child ‘legitimacy’ (which confers rights to use the family name and inherit titles, for example).

While the Act provides largesse for religious marriage celebrants to include any wording they deem appropriate (and which might cover the subject of procreation) in a marriage service, the minimum required civil celebrant wording is:

“I call upon the persons here present to witness that I, (first and last name), take thee, (first and last name), to be my lawful wedded wife/husband.” — Marriage Act 1961, S45(2) [or words like it]

No mention of children there, either. Section 1A.3 of the Marriage Regulations4 requires a marriage celebrant (religious and civil alike) to recognise “the importance of strong and respectful family relationships.” Notice again the absence of the presumption of producing children.

No necessary connection between children and marriage

Separate State and Territory Acts provide for the recognition of de facto relationships, over which the Commonwealth has no special jurisdiction. While recognised by the state these relationships are legally distinct from marriage.

In terms of unions that Australians willingly establish, Australian Bureau of Statistics data shows that:5

  • Around three quarters of marriages are now conducted by a civil celebrant rather than a religious one; and
  • Around one third of all Australian births are now to non-married partners.

 
It’s obvious that many marriages are now non-religious, that they can be childless, and, conversely, that many children are born in the absence of marriage. There is no necessary relationship in either direction between marriage and children that underpins Margo’s contentions.

No necessary link to assisted reproduction, either

Margo then goes on to rail against assisted human reproduction (surrogacy, gamete donation and IVF), complaining that non-hetero married couples would have to ask for such help to produce children. But, like the child argument itself, this is not unique in any way to marriage. De facto couples and even single women can ask for reproductive assistance, as can infertile hetero couples within marriage. As with children, assisted reproduction and marriage are not uniquely entwined as Margo wrongly argues: they are separate in law and practice even if the link is critical to some couples.

Why the confected 'necessity'?

So why then, does Margo go to such lengths to instil ‘children’ as central to the purpose of marriage? A potential explanation is that her expressed views, while reflecting neither law nor practice, are consistent with her Catholic faith. Catholic tradition is very deeply steeped in the notion that marriage is primarily for the purpose of procreation.

In her 2015 Bird on an Ethics Wire book, Margo invokes the 'would-if-they-could' defence for opposite-sex couples who want to marry but are intfertile (while remaining mute about married couples who expressly don't want children). She fails to articulate any sound reason as to why this is a different 'would-if-they-could' argument from same-gendered or non-gendered partners, except to argue, offensively, that same-sex partners are socially infertile for “lack of an opposite-sex partner.” In her ABC opinion pieces she simply says the hetero version is “symbolic.” Curiously for an ethicist, she fails to reflect on who gets to decide which are valid symbols and whether any symbolism ought to be mandatory for everyone.

Margo asserts that marriage between opposite-sex partners is ‘traditional.’ I say, good on her for personally sticking to a tradition she thinks important: but ‘tradition’ is a poor foundation for continuing to impose historical views on Australians who are not Catholic nor any longer support those views… which is the great majority of us.

The bogeyman argument

Margo then makes vague claims that marriage equality ‘takes away children’s rights’ and causes ‘harms.’ The ‘harm’ she does articulate is the “right to know one’s biological parents.” She speaks of anonymous gamete donation, but fails to note that it occurs equally both inside and outside of — and therefore isn’t conditioned by nor conditions — marriage. Therefore, any “right to know one’s biological parents” is, like children themselves and assisted reproduction in general, entirely independent of the marital status of the parents and is of no special force or relevance in marriage equality debates.

The not-as-good-as-heteros argument

Margo then promotes the importance of the “complementarity in parenting between a mother and father,” with the innuendo that same-sex parents are at least a much lesser standard for raising children, if not unsuitable altogether. Let’s examine this hoary old chestnut, particularly in relation to ‘expert’ evidence Margo proffered in a USA Court case.

Court assessment of Margo’s ‘evidence’

Historically, Iowa’s statute §595.2 restricted marriage to between only a man and a woman. A series of Iowa Court cases overturned that limitation in 2006–9. Margo and two of her colleagues from McGill University’s School of Religious Studies were advanced to the court as ‘expert witnesses’ against the reform, in relation to the ‘perils’ of marriage equality including the ‘harms’ to children. Here’s what the Iowa District Court concluded:6

“Though they may have expertise in certain areas, such expertise is insufficient to qualify Ms Somerville [and her two colleagues from the School of Religious Studies] to answer the particular questions that they are asked. Though these experts desire to make statements regarding gender, results of same-sex marriage on children and the universal definition of marriage, they do not appear to possess expertise in relevant fields such as sociology, child development, psychology or psychiatry. Ms Somerville specifically eschews empirical research and methods of logical reasoning in favour of ‘moral intuition.’ She has no training in empirical research and admits having no knowledge of existing social science research relevant to this case. She concedes that her views do not reflect the mainstream views of other ethicists.”

and

“The views espoused by these individuals appear to be largely personal and not based on observation supported by scientific methodology or based on empirical research in any sense.”

and

“…the Court concludes that these individuals are not qualified to testify as experts regarding the issues in this matter.”

The Court then expressly identified substantive harms that accrue to non-heterosexual partners through denial of marriage.

The case then went to Iowa’s Supreme Court. In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court upheld the District Court’s determination, noting that:7

“The research appears to strongly support the conclusion that same-sex couples foster the same wholesome environment as opposite-sex couples and suggests that the traditional notion that children need a mother and a father to be raised into healthy, well-adjusted adults is based more on stereotype than anything else.”

and

“Many leading organizations, including the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, the National Association of Social Workers, and the Child Welfare League of America, weighed the available research and supported the conclusion that gay and lesbian parents are as effective as heterosexual parents in raising children.”

and

“For example, the official policy of the American Psychological Association declares, ‘There is no scientific evidence that parenting effectiveness is related to parental sexual orientation: Lesbian and gay parents are as likely as heterosexual parents to provide supportive and healthy environments for children.’”

So much for Margo’s ‘authority’ on the subject of marriage equality.

Those interested in a thorough rebuttal of Margo’s arguments against marriage equality might be interested to read papers by Scoff F. Woodcock of the University of Victoria (BC), an Associate Professor specialising in normative and applied ethics,8 and Timothy F. Murphy of the University of Illinois, Professor of Philosophy in the Biomedical Sciences specialising in professional ethics, assisted reproductive technologies, medicine and sexuality.9 Both these Professors hold earned doctorates in philosophy; whereas Margo, according to her own biography, holds earned academic qualifications in pharmacy and law, but none in philosophy or ethics.

The importance of relevant and persuasive facts

In an important recognition, a highly-published ethicist once wrote that:

“We sometimes overlook the importance of having good facts in dealing with ethical issues. This is a serious mistake. Good facts (including, if necessary, research to establish them) are essential to good ethics, which, in turn, is essential to good law.” and “Good ethical and legal ‘facts’ start with primary sources that are up to date and accurate.” [Italics are original]

That ethicist was… Margo Somerville.10 My view is that Margo has failed to live up to her own standards by getting some fundamental facts expressly wrong and misrepresenting others with innuendo whilst failing to mention readily-available and widely-agreed facts that contradict her thesis.

Also surprising is that she continues to opine against marriage equality law reform in Australia using the same opinions that were publicly and expressly rejected by a USA court; the same opinions that have been insightfully dissembled and rebutted by appropriately-qualified academics via analyses published in professional peer-reviewed journals.

Conclusion

An Iowa Court has determined that Margo Somerville’s views on marriage equality are largely personal and eschew empirical research and methods of logical reasoning in favour of ‘moral intuition.’ (More on ‘moral intuition’ in another blog.) Further, they are at odds with readily available research evidence. Her opinions then are not founded on scholarly verification and fail to reflect the highest standards of thought and deduction.

I firmly believe that Margo is entitled to her opinions. However, it is my view that appeals for her marriage equality opinions to be acclaimed on the basis of the authority bias — as “Professor of Ethics at Notre Dame University” and “a preeminent public intellectual in Bioethics” — are unjustifiable.

And if the ABC chooses to publish any more of Margo’s nonsense about ‘the perils of marriage equality to children,’ I might just ask for a refund of my twelve cents a day.*

-----

Up next: Who is Margo Somerville? Up later: Why is she so comprehensively wrong on assisted dying law reform?

* The ABC (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) is the nation’s public broadcaster and advertises that it provides its services for a mere twelve cents a day from each of the country’ residents.

 

Footnote: yet another fundamental (and simple) fact wrong

You’d think that being an accomplished Commonwealth legal scholar that Margo would understand the fundamental structure of Commonwealth legislatures.

But in her ABC missives against marriage equality, she concluded by remarking that same-sex couples often lament the lack of marriage equality “…such as we saw in the anguish Senator Tim Wilson manifested in his maiden speech in the Senate.” Here’s a photo of Tim Wilson delivering that speech:

Tim Wilson delivers his maiden speech in ParliamentTim Wilson delivers his maiden speech in Parliament. Video still: ABC News

In Commonwealth countries, the upper house (Australia, federal: Senate) is fitted out in red (the colour of royalty and cardinals), while the lower house (Australia, federal: House of Representatives) is green (the colour of ‘common’ fields).

Immediately evident from glancing at his maiden speech for a mere millisecond is that Mr Wilson is not a Senator: all the livery is green. He is MHR for the Victorian Division of Goldstein, not a Senator for the State of Victoria.

Canadian Parliament housesThe Canadian federal Parliament’s green House of Commons and red Senate (Margo has recently returned to Australia from decades in Canada) Photo: Mightydrake

It’s bewildering then that when Margo saw Mr Wilson’s maiden speech she utterly failed to establish which house he was in, nor took the trouble to examine or test her assumptions before publishing her ‘expert’ opinion about it online.

 

References

  1. Somerville, M 2016, 'Marriage equality' or 'same-sex marriage'? Why words matter, ABC Religion & Ethics, viewed 28 Oct 2016, http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2016/10/14/4556874.htm.
  2. Somerville, M 2016, Same-sex marriage: It's about children's rights, not sexual orientation, ABC Religion & Ethics, viewed 28 Oct 2016, http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2016/10/07/4552500.htm.
  3. 1961, Marriage Act (Cth), Australia, pp. 120.
  4. 1963, Marriage Regulations 1963 (Cth), Australia, pp. 85.
  5. Australian Bureau of Statistics 2015, 3310.0 - Marriages and Divorces, Australia, 2014, viewed 28 Oct 2016, https://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Latestproducts/3310.0Main%20Features112014?opendocument&tabname=Summary&prodno=3310.0&issue=2014&num=&view=.
  6. Iowa District Court for Polk County 2007, Katherine Varnum et al. v. Timothy J. Brien, CV5965, pp. 63.
  7. Supreme Court of Iowa 2009, Katherine Varnum et al. v. Timothy J. Brien (Polk County), SCC No. 07-1499, Des Moines, pp. 69.
  8. Woodcock, S 2009, 'Five reasons why Margaret Somerville is wrong about same-sex marriage and the rights of children', Dialogue-Canadian Philosophical Review, 48(4), pp. 867-887.
  9. Murphy, TF 2011, 'Same-sex marriage: Not a threat to marriage or children', Journal of Social Philosophy, 42(3), pp. 288-304.
  10. Somerville, MA 2014, Death talk: The case against euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide (2nd Ed.), 2nd Ed. edn, McGill-Queen's University Press, Montreal.

Share This Post:
0
BMA House in Tavistock Square, London, home to the British Medical Association since 1925.

The British Medical Association (BMA), in the latest incarnation of its policy on assisted dying (AD), insists that AD must not be legalised in the UK. I argue that its indefensible stance reveals ignorance, incoherence and hubris. It fails to respect the true range of views amongst UK doctors. I expose the comprehensive rot.

The BMA categorically states in its July 2016 policy update on assisted dying:

“The BMA policy … insists that voluntary euthanasia [and] physician-assisted suicide should not be made legal in the UK.” — British Medical Association1

BMA comprehensively out of touch

The BMA claims to represent UK doctors—though fewer than half are members. What is the empirical evidence for UK doctor attitudes toward assisted dying?

In a 2009 survey,2 35% said that AD should definitely or probably be legalised. The same study also found that 35% of UK doctors said AD should definitely not be lawful even in cases of terminal illness. That is, the stance of just 35% of UK doctors was identical to the BMA’s—insisting that it not be lawful, while an equal proportion thought AD could be legalised. “Greater religiosity” was the strongest correlative factor with opposition to lawful AD.

Indeed, numerous studies have found a substantial minority of UK doctors in favour of lawful AD, including results approaching equality with opponents.3 Even a survey commissioned by the UK Catholic Medical Association in 2003 found around 25% of UK doctors in favour of AD and who would practice it if legalised.4

UK doctor support for AD, then, is substantial and hardly restricted to a mere handful of fringe-dwelling medical crackpots.

Ignorant and disrespectful BMA stance

It is untenable that the BMA unilaterally ‘respects’ the views of 35% of UK doctors at the same time as expressly disrespecting the views of another significant cohort. Perhaps as in general politics, its power base is more heavily populated with religious souls: those who have a deeper interest in shaping what options others do and don’t have?

Appalling and trivialised ‘rationale’

Let’s take a look at the five moribund reasons the BMA offers in defense of its institutional opposition to AD and see how they use flapdoodle, fudge, fiction, fear-mongering, flip-flop and hubris to ‘advance’ their position.

“Current BMA policy firmly opposes assisted dying for the following [five] key reasons:”

1. Permitting assisted dying for some could put vulnerable people at risk of harm.

Flapdoodle. Firstly, as I have explained before, the “vulnerable at risk” argument is a rhetorical sham. People ‘at risk’ are by definition ‘vulnerable,’ and would still be so if we wore yellow socks on Wednesdays or outlawed pizza. It has nothing to do with AD being legalised or not.

Fudge. Secondly, the BMA ignores repeated reviews published in the professional literature indicating that supposed harms have not eventuated in jurisdictions with lawful assisted dying. Indeed, the quality of medical practice has improved.

Flip-flop. And thirdly, if ‘risk of harm’ was a sufficient condition to deny patients a particular option, we must equally ban the right to refuse life-saving medical treatment (no matter how unwanted or burdensome) because greedy relatives eyeing off the estate might convince the dying patient to refuse. It’s incoherent to oppose assisted dying, but to support refusal of treatment (as the BMA does), in the face of this identical possibility.

2. Such a change would be contrary to the ethics of clinical practice, as the principal purpose of medicine is to improve patients’ quality of life, not to foreshorten it.

Fudge. Medicine has a number of primary purposes. Relief of suffering is one.5 That may come into conflict with another purpose, “the avoidance of premature death and the pursuit of a peaceful death” (which itself has internal conflicts). A dying individual may herself believe that an AD would not be premature, and whose peaceful nature is vastly preferable to continued intolerable and unrelievable suffering.

3. Legalising assisted dying could weaken society's prohibition on killing and undermine the safeguards against non-voluntary euthanasia. Society could embark on a 'slippery slope' with undesirable consequences.

Fear-mongering. Non-voluntary euthanasia (NVE) is currently illegal. It remains illegal even when AD is legalised. The BMA therefore incoherently conjectures that NVE doesn’t occur while it’s illegal (before AD legalisation), but might occur while it is still illegal (after AD legalisation).

Fiction. There are no current ‘safeguards’ against NVE as the BMA statement implies. It is practiced in secret. There are no statutory requirements or reporting standards as there are for AD (where legal). Research clearly demonstrates that NVE occurs everywhere, including the UK. Further, the rate of NVE has significantly decreased in the Netherlands and Belgium since their AD statutes came into effect.

4. For most patients, effective and high quality palliative care can effectively alleviate distressing symptoms associated with the dying process and allay patients' fears.

Flapdoodle. The BMA says “effective … palliative care can effectively alleviate…”: another circular, self-‘proving’ argument.

Hubris. The BMA acknowledges here—as unarguably established in the professional literature—that palliative care can’t help everyone. And that’s precisely what assisted dying law reform is about: for people that palliative care can’t help. But the BMA brushes them under the carpet.

5. Only a minority of people want to end their lives. The rules for the majority should not be changed to accommodate a small group.

Flip-flop. In ‘reasons’ 1 and 3 above, the BMA speculates that too many people will die if AD is legalised. Here is it arguing that too few will. Which is it? Too many or too few? The argument also ignores the international evidence that dying individuals (and their loved ones) experience profound relief merely from knowing that AD is available, even if they don’t pursue it. That itself is good palliative care.

Hubris. And if “not changing the majority's rules to accommodate a small group” were a gold standard as the BMA argues, then there would be no leglisation to (a) ensure facilities access to people with a disability, (b) outlaw discrimination on the basis of race or religion, or (c) allow same-sex marriage: all enshrined in law in the UK.

Hubris argues for ignoring the BMA itself

If, as the BMA argues, we should override the wishes of a group on the basis of its small size, it’s pertinent to consider the size of the UK doctor population: around 0.4% of the total. By comparison, in jurisdictions where AD is legal, around 0.3% (Oregon) to 3.8% (Netherlands) ultimately choose an assisted death.

If we are to ignore 0.3%–3.8% of the population because it’s ‘too small,’ we must equally ignore 0.4% of it. This, by the BMA’s own argument, would be reason to force it to support AD because that’s what the majority (UK population) favour. After all, “the rules for the majority should not be changed to accommodate a small group [of doctors].”

Of course most of us recognise, unlike the BMA, that this is not a ‘popularity contest.’ A stance of neutrality would demonstrate respect for deeply-held views across the spectrum.

Conclusion

The British Medical Association demonstrates profound ignorance about the available evidence, and about UK doctor attitudes. It resorts to fear-mongering speculation, fudge, fiction, flapdoodle, flip-flop and hubris to maintain its indefensible opposition to assisted dying.

The BMA’s stance does a great disservice to the British people. It’s an embarrassment to professional doctors regardless of their stance on assisted dying. The policy deserves to be entirely scrapped, and one of neutrality adopted in its place.

 

References

  1. British Medical Association 2016, Physician-assisted dying: BMA policy, viewed 26 Sep 2016, https://www.bma.org.uk/advice-and-support/ethics/end-of-life/the-bmas-position-on-physician-assisted-dying.
  2. Seale, C 2009, 'Legalisation of euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide: survey of doctors' attitudes', Palliative Medicine, 23(3), Apr, pp. 205-212.
  3. McCormack, R, Clifford, M & Conroy, M 2011, 'Attitudes of UK doctors towards euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide: a systematic literature review', Palliative Medicine, 26(1), pp. 23-33.
  4. Catholic Medical Quarterly 2003, 'Euthanasia and assisted suicide: Results of survey of doctors attitudes', Catholic Medical Quarterly, May, pp. 1-3.
  5. Hastings Center Report 1996, 'The goals of medicine. Setting new priorities', The Hastings Center Report, 26(6), pp. S1-27.
Share This Post:
0
St Patrick's Cathedral, Melbourne, Australia. Photo: Donaldytong

Against current moves to legalise assisted dying, Australian Catholic Father John George invokes Nazi Germany, resorts to ad hominem attacks to dismiss those who disagree with him, and demands that the Pope’s edicts are binding on everyone regardless of their own faith or world view.

On 24th September 2016, Journalists Greg Brown and Rick Morton published an article in The Australian, Victorian coroner credited with turning tide on euthanasia, summarising recent Australian moves to legalise assisted dying choice.

Catholic Father John George commented on the article online, quoting four sections of the Catholic Church’s catechism that prohibit assisted dying (sections 2276–9).

Pushback

Other readers of The Australian remarked that they respected his view for himself but they had no interest in the Pope’s views given the readers were not Catholic. In fact, repeated polls in Australia have shown that even the great majority of Catholics (three out of four) do not agree with the Vatican on the matter of assisted dying, a matter which Fr George dismisses merely as ‘fickle votes and polls.’

I would remind Fr George that these are not fickle: Australian public opinion in favour of assisted dying choice has been consistently in the majority for now more than four decades.

Fr George further quoted Catholic sources, for example the LJ Goody Bioethics Centre in Perth, Australia, which he failed to mention is, literally, an agency of the Catholic Archdiocese of Perth. He also selectively quoted Palliative Care Australia, failing to mention that they have acknowledged that not all pain and suffering can be eliminated at the end of life, even with the best palliative care.

Ad hominem attack

In response to a rising tide of objections to his musings, including from Mr Ian Wood, a fellow Christian and co-founder of Christians for Voluntary Euthanasia Choice, Fr George resorted to the ad hominem attack: to attack the person (or persons) rather than the arguments. He said:

“The pro euthanasia claque here make professional Nazi propaganda expert Goebbels look like a 5th rate amateur.” — Father John George.

For anyone in the dark, a claque is a group of sycophants hired to applaud a performer or public speaker. How rude. Fr George seems to have neglected to reflect that it is he who is hired to promote the performance of the Vatican. I applaud his right to do so, and I do not compare him to a treacherous propagandist in a murderous wartime regime in order to dismiss his arguments: I address the arguments themselves.

Nazi Germany

Fr George makes repeated mentions of Nazi Germany as a core reason to deny assisted dying choice.

In contrast, several years ago I was chatting at a conference with the pleasant and engaging Peter McArdle, then Research Director of the Australian Catholic Bishop’s Conference. He volunteered that he very much disliked the “Nazi Germany” argument so often used in religious circles, and wished it would stop because in so doing it meant they’d already lost the debate.

I agree. It’s a lazy and indefensible argument: that rational people in a functioning democracy must be denied choice for themselves on the basis of what some murderous regime did against others at the point of a gun.

Indeed, to rely on such a standard would be to equally argue against the right to religious practice, because the Catholic Church, through its inquisition practices (medieval C12th, papal C13th, Spanish C15th, Roman and Portuguese C16th) relied on torture and resulted in confiscation of property and at least tens (if not hundreds) of thousands of executions for witchcraft and heresy.

Ultimate hubris

But the real crux is that Fr George then unequivocally demands that:

“Principles elaborated by the pope are universally applicable.” — Father John George.

This ultimate hubris reveals a profound lack of self-reflection, both personally and organisationally. Even entertaining for a moment the premise that one individual (or even organisation) can tell everyone on the planet how they must live their lives, how would we choose that person or organisation? Why is it less valid for the head of any other branch of Christianity, of Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism (or any other religion) or an agnostic (which I am) or an atheist, to set such rules for everyone, overriding other deeply-held beliefs and values?

A keener example of ‘blinded by faith’ would be hard to find.

Conclusion

I argue that Fr John George displays some of the gravest hubris of some members of the Catholic church. I respect and applaud his world views for himself and those who wish to subscribe. But using canonincal arguments (that is, religious arguments demanded as universally true by virtue of the supposed authority that dispensed them) is probably a major contributor to the current flight of people away from organised religion.

More happily, such an attitude is also contributing to accelerating the legalisation of assisted dying choice because folks can see these arguments for what they are. For that I doff my hat to Fr George.


Share This Post:
0
Mr Steve Jalsevac of the Catholic LifeSiteNews blog who made a shocking and vile attack.

I recently exposed (another) piece of misinformation published by LifeSiteNews, and wrote courteously to them to request withdrawal of the offending article. While I wasn’t hopeful the request would be accepted, I wasn’t prepared for the shocking and vile response I received.

Exposing bull about assisted dying is a key purpose of DyingForChoice.com and it will continue to do so as long as bull is published or publicly spoken, and especially when it makes claims or generates innuendo that is at odds with the readily-available facts, as a smokescreen for fundamentally religious objections.

The specific request to withdraw

In a recent article I factually rebutted the allegation by Mr Brad Mattes that there is suicide contagion (from assisted dying to general suicide) in Belgium, in addition to other statements that were wrong in fact in his opinion piece published by LifeSiteNews. I wrote a courteous letter to the editor of LifeSiteNews to point out the errors and to seek withdrawal of the article. 

My full email to LifeSiteNews

Dear LifeSiteNews,

Clearly we are on different sides of the assisted dying conversation. I’m sure that we can mutually appreciate that different people bring different perspectives and apply some largesse in terms of world views.

However, one must draw the line (as your primary Principle does and upon which I think we agree) at the publication of information, however accidental, on your website that is in places fundamentally misleading and elsewhere quite false.

In this regard may I request that you withdraw the article by Mr Brad Mattes, Assisted suicide no longer just for the terminally ill, that contains multiple errors of evidential fact as well as fundamentally misleading statements, as I point out in this post?

Kind regards
Neil Francis

 

The shocking response

A firm believer in courteous debate even when one disagrees profoundly on important matters, I thought the most likely outcome would be a polite letter declining my request. But I received instead this response from LifeSiteNews Managing Director, Mr Steve Jalsevac.

Full response by Mr Steve Jalsevac of LifeSiteNews

Dear Neil,

I find it somewhat amusing that an advocate for legislation to allow people to kill themselves is demanding that we withdraw an article for supposedly publishing "misleading" or "false" information.

After many years of covering organizations such as yours which, typically cruelly manipulate vulnerable persons, violate or liberally interpret laws, understate their longer term objectives, have an extremely unhealthy and dangerous satisfaction in personally seeing people die before their eyes before their natural time, devastate family members whose loved ones had, unknown to them, been guided to kill themselves, and who have such perverse and wrong views on Christian beliefs and much more, I find it despicable that you would be so concerned about supposed accuracy. You, sir, are a hypocrite of the very worst kind. 

It is our view that you should be behind bars for what you advocate and for your dangerous manipulation of vulnerable persons.

I realize that you will not agree with anything that I write given how blinded your conscience and intellect have become by your death preoccupation. So, I just conclude that your claims, views and interpretations are all rejected because no one should trust anything that you say or do on this subject.

Steve Jalsevac
LifeSite

 

Who is LifeSiteNews, anyway?

LifeSiteNews is an online blog established by the conservative Christian Campaign for Life Coalition. It promotes that it “emphasizes the social worth of traditional Judeo-Christian principles.” Its principles are all very courteously worded and sound “respectful” (its principles expressly use that word several times) whilst indicating that it is a pro-life blog.

I’ve read its articles on assisted dying for several years and have not found a single one that is at odds with the position of the Vatican. That’s hardly surprising.

LifeSiteNews publishes a significant proportion of articles about the Catholic Church, as is its right. It is also the sole publisher of Faithful Insight, in its own words “hard-hitting,” “100% faithful” and “fearless Catholic news coverage from the Vatican and beyond.” I argue strongly for the right to publish material of faith. That is not a source of complaint. (Fair disclosure—I’m agnostic.)

faithfulinsightads.jpg
LifeSiteNews' hard-hitting and 100% Catholic-faithful publication.

And, Mr Jalsevac gives a clear indication that he’s at the 'Old School' end of the Catholic spectrum. He admires in multiple blogs the writings of conservative African Catholic Bishop Robert Sarah, noting John Paul II’s teachings as “definitive” and expressing disappointment in the current Pope. And that's entirely his right I again affirm.

Mr Jalsevac’s editor-in-chief, Mr John-Henry Westen has also published a number of articles critical of Pope Francis, also referring to previous Popes as more authoritative.

What do they claim to stand for?

LifeSiteNews’ first principle, in full, is this:

1. Accuracy in content is given high priority. News and information tips from readers are encouraged and validated. Valid corrections are always welcome. Writing and research is of a professional calibre.”—LifeSiteNews.com

Mr Jalsevac's response highlights these claimed principles in stark relief by comprehensively breaching them.

Additionally, not only have I pointed out multiple falsehoods and inaccuracies in Mattes’ article, but I’ve reported LifeSiteNews previously for implying in a splashy headline that the Council of Europe had determined that “euthanasia must always be prohibited” (it most certainly did not), and publishing false information in multiple articles claiming that as many as 650 babies are or could be euthanized in the Netherlands (no they aren’t).

The ad hominem attack

The statements Mr Jalsevac makes about me are vile. And false. While I’m calling out his blogs’ misinformation for what it is, he’s calling for me personally to be thrown in jail for sins he falsely thinks I’ve committed. That’s squarely known as the ad hominem attack: attacking the person rather than the argument. It conveniently provides him with the excuse to totally ignore solid evidence that contradicts his beliefs.

Interestingly, an article by LifeSiteNews Editor Mr Westen quotes Pope Francis as saying,

We Catholics have some — and not some, many — who believe in the absolute truth and go ahead dirtying the other with calumny, with disinformation…”—Pope Francis.

Quite.

Conclusion

LifeSiteNews is an 'Old School' Catholic blog, and, I argue, has every right to be.

However, it has demonstrated by publishing multiple articles containing serious errors of fact as well as highly misleading statements, and by a gratuitous ad hominem attack on someone pointing this out, that it is not interested in evidence, reason or even civility as it claims. In my view it has unambiguously demonstrated itself to be a biased and unreliable Catholic source on matters of assisted dying.

I will continue to call out misinformation in LifeSiteNews when I see it.


Share This Post:
0

Yesterday in a prominent opinion piece in The Age newspaper,1 palliative care specialists argued that palliative care is imperfect and in need of an injection of funds. I agree on both counts.

Nurse Peter Hudson, and doctors Mark Boughey and Jennifer Philip of the Centre for Palliative Care argued that instead of assisted dying as recommended by the recent Victorian Parliament committee report, increased funding of palliative care is ‘the answer.’

Key arguments

Here are the highlights of their opinion piece:
  1. They refer to assisted dying, a neutral expression now in common use amongst both lay commentators and scholars, as a euphemism. Instead they laboriously refer to assisted suicide (suicide is universally seen as a pejorative term with all its baggage about mental illness and substance abuse), and euthanasia (consistently omitting the qualifier ‘voluntary’).
  2. Dying at home should not be the gold standard (despite the great majority preferring it); instead, dying in hospital can be ‘preferred.’
  3. In a profound lack of self-reflection or consistent logic, they say that assisted dying ought to remain outlawed because its outcomes are uncertain. Even assuming the premise of the statement, this would be an identical argument to ban palliative care, whose outcomes are at least equally if not considerably more uncertain.
  4. They falsely imply that users of assisted dying not infrequently experience “very unfavourable” reactions to the drugs. This is simply untrue and I challenge them to provide the empirical evidence that they state is so very important.
  5. Tellingly, they describe a peaceful assisted death as “sanitised,” signalling their intrinsic disapproval of other’s choices.
  6. They say that focus should remain on increased resourcing of palliative care, failing to mention that the Parliamentary committee’s report indeed recommended increases in palliative care funding and improvement of evidence-based practice. Overseas evidence also reveals improvements in palliative care in jurisdictions with assisted dying legislation. There’s no false dichotomy between palliative care and assisted dying as the authors try to insinuate.
  7. They assume that medical interventionism (what they have to offer) is the correct and normative response, ignoring the fact that some people simply don’t want more interventions.
 

The filibuster

In a journal article recently published by two of the opinion piece authors,2 and repeated in principle in the Centre’s submission to and appearance before the Parliamentary inquiry,3,4 they say that:

“Increased resources and effort must be directed toward training, research, community engagement, and ensuring adequate resourcing for palliative care to benefit many before further consideration is given to allocating resources into legalising EAS to respond to the requests of a few.”

Notice two things about their recommendation—the filibuster.

Maximising what cannot be done

Firstly, they say we must not just ban assisted dying, but that it is dangerous even to talk about it: palliative care must be improved even “before further consideration is given.” The specific purpose of this part of the filibuster is to maximise what cannot be done: to position even mere conversation, let alone actual reform, as ‘unsafe.’

Maximising the delay

Secondly, nowhere in their argument do they provide a single quantitative metric (and which they strongly argue is necessary for the legalisation of assisted dying) by which the palliative care reforms they advocate might be judged: not a single dollar amount nor a single performance benchmark amongst their many recommendations.

How much will reforms cost, how long will they take, and what performance measure improvements would need to be achieved for the expenditure to be judged effective? What performance measures would need to be reached before it was then ‘safe’ to even consider assisted dying? The authors are entirely mute on these critical matters, while making precisely these evidential demands of assisted dying.

So, the opinionists’ argument allows them to indefinitely say that “more improvements are needed in palliative care before we even talk about assisted dying,” because further ‘improvements’ are always possible.

But all that was a ruse anyhow

In any case, the authors say in their submission to the Parliamentary inquiry that there are numerous problems (spurious, I argue) with legalising assisted dying; that they doubt they could be overcome; and then finally “it should not be construed that we would support the legalisation of EAS if efforts were made to address [the problems].”4, page 6 (Curiously, they omit the third, critical statement from their more public opinion piece.)

This truly exposes the classic filibuster… an open-ended call with no metrics, which therefore can be deemed never to have been met. How convenient. But, even if they were met, the authors still wouldn’t support reform. This begs the question:

If the authors are as so firmly evidence-based—as they take pains to emphasise—why would they not support a reform if the evidence endorsed it?

There must be something other than evidence that drives their entrenched opposition to assisted dying: something so important that it renders all their previous arguments null and void. What might that be?

Who are these people, anyway?

It’s informative to answer the question of who these three from the Centre for Palliative Care are. The Centre sounds like a neutral government body. It isn’t. Don’t get me wrong. I have no doubt that these three are skilled and compassionate practitioners and that the Centre delivers good services.

In reality the Center is a section of Melbourne’s St Vincent’s Hospital. That’s an organisation that proudly states “as a Catholic healthcare service we bring God’s love to those in need through the healing ministry of Jesus.”

I believe St V’s to be a high-quality healthcare institution, but too bad if the patient just wants evidence-based medical care and not the ‘healing ministry’ of a religious figure they may not subscribe to.

The reason this is important is this: what the three authors say about assisted dying is entirely consistent with the Vatican’s stance. I have no idea if any of the authors are Catholic, but what would be entirely surprising is if they published anything at odds with the views of the Vatican given their Centre is deeply embedded within the largest Catholic health and aged care service provider in the country.

For clarity and fairness, I once again place on the public record that I am agnostic.

The ‘Catholic card’

Before Messers Paul Russell, Alex Schadenberg and others leap onto their campaigning steeds to megaphone that I’m ‘playing the Catholic card’ (just wait for it!), let me be clear that I specifically am doing precisely that. For sure, The Catholic Church is not the only religious body resolutely opposed to anyone having the choice of assisted dying, but it’s the premier one.

And, Messers Russell et al would be absolutely right to point out that the authors didn’t raise a single religious argument, so let me save them the bother.

Religious opposition dressed up in secular garb

And that’s the point. It’s abundantly clear from multiple sources that religious opponents have actively decided that they will absolutely avoid using religious arguments because they know it will lose them the debate.

Media identity Andrew Denton’s Better Off Dead podcast series makes this avoidance abundantly clear from the Australian perspective. His insights, having attended a global anti-euthanasia conference in Adelaide, are important and revealing. 

From the North American perspective, a study just published by Associate Professor Ari Gandsman of the University of Ottawa in Death Studies5 reports uncanny North American similarities. Assisted dying opponents have actively decided to cease using religious arguments. Instead, their objective is to create an atmosphere of FUD: fear, uncertainty and doubt. It is only this now, they agree amongst themselves, that will keep assisted dying off the statute books. As Gandsman explains (and I paraphrase), religious opponents have moved from ‘it’s a sin’ to ‘but think about all the perceived risks!’

Again, I reiterate that the three opinion piece authors are likely to be fine nurses and doctors (I have never met any of them), but I do say that their incoherent and self-contradictory arguments against assisted dying, remaining opposed even ‘if’ the evidence for it stacks up, is neither their finest work, nor varies one iota from the religious anchor that the Vatican provides to their Centre’s services.

The importance of mutual respect

If a person says to me “I believe assisted dying is wrong,” I respect that view and admire their resolution. For themselves. Including if it is underpinned by religious belief. If you believe that assisted dying, or surrogacy, or other contentious issue is wrong, don’t participate in it. 

But don’t expect that your own view of your own God trumps everyone else’s God—or lack thereof. In Australia for example, the majority of citizens are not Catholic. And most of those who are—three out of four—disagree with the Vatican’s opposition to assisted dying. The Vatican’s view then is not particularly relevant to anyone but its most ardent adherents.

Respect in both directions is warranted but is rather lacking from the more religious end. My argument is not against Catholicism itself. There are very fine Catholics on both sides of the debate, doing their best to live a deliberatively ‘good’ life.

Conclusion

We can do without the incoherent and indefensible nonsense advanced in secular garb by the religiously opposed.

Be clear folks: the FUD campaign is on its last legs. I will be further exposing rubbish arguments posed by those with religious connections but couched in non-religious language.

In the meantime you can see the clumsy, failed attempt at a filibuster by these three opinionists for what it is.

 

References

  1. Hudson, P., Boughey, M. & Philip, J., 2016, Victoria's proposed euthanasia laws are flawed, Melbourne: Fairfax Media, Accessed 21 Jun 2016, http://www.theage.com.au/comment/victorias-proposed-euthanasia-laws-are-flawed-20160620-gpn9p2.html
  2. Hudson, P., Hudson, R., Philip, J., Boughey, M., Kelly, B. & Hertogh, C., 2015, Legalizing physician-assisted suicide and/or euthanasia: Pragmatic implications for palliative care, Palliative and Supportive Care, 13(5), 1399-1409.
  3. Hudson, P., 2015, Inquiry into end of life choices: Submission 905 to the Parliament of Victoria, Centre for Palliative Care, St Vincent’s Hospital, Melbourne.
  4. Hudson, P., Boughey, M. and Philip, J., 2016, Witness Appearance Transcript: Inquiry into end-of-life choices - Centre for Palliative Care, Parliament of Victoria, Melbourne, 24 Feb.
  5. Gandsman, A., 2016,“A recipe for elder abuse:” From sin to risk in anti-euthanasia activism. Death Studies, In press.
Share This Post:

Pages

Subscribe to RSS - Faith