Paul Russell

Euthanasia is now ‘assisted dying'?

Paul Russell
By Paul Russell

SYDNEY, November 16, 2012, (National Right to Life News) - Discussion about end-of-life issues simmers away in Australia. Reluctant as most of us naturally are to do so, it is nevertheless worthwhile to discuss with friends and family, and in public forums, ideas about health care, advance directives and our choices in such circumstances.

Likewise, there is nothing wrong with a discussion about euthanasia and assisted suicide. However, the discussion will be fruitless if, following the advice of Sydney academic Lyn Carson, we begin to change its terms. In a recent contribution to the Sydney Morning Herald Carson made a case for euthanasia by defining it as “assisted dying”. But holding to recognised terms and definitions is incredibly important to such discussions. If we don’t really know what it is we are asking for we are more likely to be dissatisfied with the outcome. As with decisions of a medical character, informed consent is paramount.

Substitute phrases like “assisted dying” and “death with dignity” might be great marketing slogans to soften the hard edges of this debate (used almost exclusively by those who support legal change), but they will not help us or any parliament debating the matter to make sound judgements.

Recycling a favourite argument of Dr. Phillip Nitschke, Carson attempts to draw us to the conclusion that the law is an ass [Mr. Bumble’s observation in Oliver Twist]: suicide is not illegal–but helping someone to suicide is. Ergo: we should change the law in favour of assisting suicide.

(Click “like” if you want to end abortion! )

Suicide is not illegal, true; but assisting in a suicide remains in our criminal code precisely because once a third party becomes involved there is a risk of coercion and abuse. One need only reflect on the growing community concern over abuse of elderly people in Western countries, including Australia, to conclude that assisted suicide is a recipe for elder abuse. And, while suicide may not be a crime, none of us has a right-to-die; there is no right to kill ourselves.

Carson is correct in her observation that there is something of a “mismatch” between the results of parliamentary debates over many years and public opinion on the issue. She points out that that there have been a dozen attempts “to make laws allowing people to control their own deaths” (euthanasia) but the only one that succeeded was overturned within a year. It is worth reflecting upon the fact that, in respect to such debates, politicians are well aware of the gravity of the situation and in my experience do not take their roles lightly. So why the disparity?

It is in our parliamentary debating chambers that MPs, tasked with informing themselves of exactly what is happening in places such as the Netherlands, Belgium, and Oregon, that a thorough stocktaking of all the arguments pro and con is most likely. They are not simply saying yes or no to a phone poll. Indeed, it is when they get past the clever slogans and begin to weigh up the data that the majority see how our most basic responsibility — that of protecting vulnerable citizens — is compromised by allowing euthanasia and assisted suicide. That is why they have repeatedly decided to exercise appropriate caution and support the status quo. It is an informed decision.

The effect of legislating for euthanasia and/or assisted suicide is much broader than the limited models that we are being asked to accept. When we legislate for euthanasia and/or assisted suicide, we are really saying that these solutions are acceptable for everyone – not just the terminally ill with less than six months to live (or however else we want to define it). In law we will be creating a quasi-human right to be killed. The limitations we place (safeguards so-called) are essentially there to salve our consciences and to make us feel a little less queasy about supporting state-sanctioned killing.

My grounds for saying this? Firstly, the move to support assisted suicide rather than euthanasia by the pro-euthanasia groups in the past few weeks is really more about divining what our MPs might tolerate; as one MP admitted a few years ago, it’s seen as a good start. I would be skeptical of any claim to a moral epiphany here.

Secondly, if at some later time one of these groups builds public momentum towards an expansion of who qualifies for termination, would we then be debating whether or not we wanted to allow euthanasia as well as assisted suicide? No, we will already have made this decision. All we would be discussing at this juncture is the relative merits of expanding who qualifies. If by this time Australians are thinking like the Dutch — who see such legislation as a sort of human right – how could we then discriminate against anyone seeking to die?

As the British House of Lords Committee on Medical Ethics concluded, it is impossible to set secure limits “to create an exception to the general prohibition of intentional killing would inevitably open the way to its further erosion whether by design, by inadvertence, or by the human tendency to test the limits of any regulation.”

We must continue to protect all people equally. Risks to vulnerable people cannot be eliminated by weasel-worded legislation premised on a “right to die”. By all means, let’s discuss end-of-life issues openly and forge the way for better care and real choices, but let’s make informed decisions cognisant of our human nature and mindful of the risk to others.

Reprinted from National Right to Life News.

Help us expose Planned Parenthood

$5 helps us reach 1,000 more people with the truth!


Advertisement
Featured Image
John-Henry Westen John-Henry Westen Follow John-Henry

,

Pope Francis eases forgiveness of abortion for Jubilee Year of Mercy

John-Henry Westen John-Henry Westen Follow John-Henry
By John-Henry Westen

ROME, September 1, 2015 (LifeSiteNews) -- In an announcement today, Pope Francis said that he is enacting an Extraordinary Jubilee of Mercy from December 8, 2015 through November 2016. As part of the Jubilee, the pope has allowed priests to forgive the sin of abortion, which St. John Paul II taught in Evangelium Vitae (paragraph 58) is “murder.”

The statement marks the most extensive remarks on abortion that Pope Francis has made during his pontificate. Rather than downplaying the seriousness of abortion, as some media contend, in the statement the pope encourages the millions of women who have aborted their children to go to confession and seek God’s forgiveness.

In the Catechism, the Church calls abortion a “criminal” practice, and imposes the penalty of excommunication on those who do it -- essentially, removing those who commit abortions from the Church. In the past, typically re-entry into the Church for those who have separated themselves from it by excommunication can only be undertaken by a bishop. However in much of North America priests have already been given standing permission by their bishops to forgive abortion.

Philadelphia Archbishop Charles Chaput explained in an email sent to LifeSiteNews today, “For many years now, parish priests have been given permission to absolve the sin of abortion here in the Archdiocese of Philadelphia.” The Philadelphia archbishop, who will play host to Pope Francis during the pontiff’s visit later this month added, “But the practice has not been common in various other regions of the world.”

“This action in no way diminishes the moral gravity of abortion,” concluded Chaput. “What it does do is make access to sacramental forgiveness easier for anyone who seeks it with a truly penitent heart.”

The pope declared that all priests may forgive the sin of abortion for “those who have procured it and who with contrite heart, seek forgiveness for it.'"

The pope says in his letter that abortion is a “tragedy” wherein “extreme harm” takes place, and calls it “profoundly unjust.”  He admits however, as does the pro-life movement, that it is an “agonizing and painful decision” and many women “believe that they have no other option.”

In order to be forgiven by God of such a serious offence, the pope says the one who has procured the abortion must be made aware of the “gravity of the sin committed” and be truly repentant. They must come, says Francis, with a “contrite heart, seek forgiveness for” the abortion and hoping for “reconciliation with the Father.”

The full statement from the Pope on the matter of abortion follows:

One of the serious problems of our time is clearly the changed relationship with respect to life. A widespread and insensitive mentality has led to the loss of the proper personal and social sensitivity to welcome new life. The tragedy of abortion is experienced by some with a superficial awareness, as if not realizing the extreme harm that such an act entails. Many others, on the other hand, although experiencing this moment as a defeat, believe they they have no other option. I think in particular of all the women who have resorted to abortion. I am well aware of the pressure that has led them to this decision. I know that it is an existential and moral ordeal. I have met so many women who bear in their heart the scar of this agonizing and painful decision. What has happened is profoundly unjust; yet only understanding the truth of it can enable one not to lose hope. The forgiveness of God cannot be denied to one who has repented, especially when that person approaches the Sacrament of Confession with a sincere heart in order to obtain reconciliation with the Father. For this reason too, I have decided, notwithstanding anything to the contrary, to concede to all priests for the Jubilee Year the discretion to absolve of the sin of abortion those who have procured itand who, with contrite heart, seek forgiveness for it. May priests fulfil this great task by expressing words of genuine welcome combined with a reflection that explains the gravity of the sin committed, besides indicating a path of authentic conversion by which to obtain the true and generous forgiveness of the Father who renews all with his presence.

Share this article

Advertisement
Featured Image
TLC stars Kody Brown and his four "wives"
Fr. Mark Hodges

, ,

Surprise, surprise: New suit says gay ‘marriage’ ruling laid ground for legal polygamy

Fr. Mark Hodges
By Fr. Mark Hodges

SALT LAKE CITY, UT, September 1, 2015 (LifeSiteNews) – When "The Pill" was made available to the public in 1964, Christians warned it could lead to promiscuity and disassociation of sex with marriage and children.  They were ridiculed as religious fanatics.

When abortion was made legal throughout all nine months of pregnancy in 1973, Christians warned that it would not save women's lives, but would instead lead to devaluing all human life, especially children's lives. They were dismissed as moral-legislating hate-mongers.

When euthanasia was legalized in Oregon and other states, Christians warned that the non-terminally ill and eventually the mentally handicapped, or simply the unwanted, would be killed in the name of mercy. They were mocked as right-wing crazies.

When sodomy laws in Texas and elsewhere were stricken from the books in 2003, Christians warned that societal approval of that harmful practice would lead to an increase in disease and further perversion. They were ignored and vilified.

When DADT (Don't Ask Don't Tell) rules for the military were reversed, Christians warned that the epidemic of rapes in the armed services would increase, not decrease, and that combat readiness would continue to diminish. They were called bigots, their words "hate speech."

And so on. Recent history is rife with examples of conservatives warning against societal degradation being vilified as "slippery slope" straw man creators, who want only to legislate morality.

Click "like" if you want to defend true marriage.

That's how those who warned that the Supreme Court's same-sex "marriage" decision would lead to legalization of any and all kinds of "marriage," such as a man and several wives or vice versa.

And, as in every case cited above, what Christian conservatives warned is exactly what has now happened.

In a U.S. 10th Circuit court filing, reality TV polygamist Kody Brown and his wives point to the U.S. Supreme Court's historic ruling on same-sex marriage to buttress their pro-polygamy case.

Peter LaBarbera, president of Americans for Truth, summarized to LifeSiteNews, "The left's chaotic cultural agenda knows no boundaries. Once 'marriage' could be redefined to accommodate sexual perversion, it would be impossible to stop other perversions from being recognized." 

The American Family Association's Ed Vitagliano told LifeSiteNews, "It has been clear for decades that sexual radicals in America have been targeting the God-ordained institution of marriage for destruction. Toss in a handful of U.S. Supreme Court rulings, beginning in 2003 (Lawrence v. Texas), and ending with this summer's debacle (Obergefell v. Hodges), and we are on the verge of seeing the secularists succeed." 

The AFA executive vice president concluded to LifeSiteNews, "We have no doubt that the polygamists will be next to step into the federal courts."

Indeed. Brown and his four wives, Meri, Janelle, Christine, and Robyn, have asked the court to uphold a judge's ruling striking down part of Utah's law against polygamy. To prove their case, they cite precedents involving same-sex marriage (United States v. Windsor and Obergefell v. Hodges), and a case that struck down a ban on sodomy (Lawrence v. Texas).

"From the rejection of morality legislation in Lawrence, to the expansion of the protections of liberty interests in Obergefell, it is clear that states can no longer use criminal codes to ... punish those who choose to live in consensual but unpopular unions," Brown's filing states. "This case is about the criminalization of consensual relations."

LaBarbera told LifeSiteNews that the move to legalize polygamy is no surprise. "Once the argument for homosexual so-called 'marriage' became 'Love Is Love,' it was only a matter of time before multiple-partner activists would start defending the 'right' to have THEIR [perversion of] 'love' legitimized by state-recognized 'marriage.'"

The Browns, who appear on the television show "Sister Wives," sued the state of Utah over its ban on polygamy, which Brown calls "plural relationships." They argue that the law violates their right to freely practice their religion and their right to equal protection under the law.

Specifically, Brown is challenging the state's assertion that polygamy is harmful to societies that condone it.

Brown argues that the state should not have "the right to impose criminal morality codes on citizens, compelling them to live their lives in accordance with the religious or social values of the majority of citizens."

LaBarbera concluded, "Social conservatives and Christians must work to overturn Obergefell, just like homosexual activists worked to overturn the Supreme Court's Bowers v. Hardwick decision in 1986 that allowed anti-sodomy laws. Otherwise, we are guaranteed to lose more and more freedoms as 'gay' power grows, using legalized 'marriage' as leverage."

Arguments in the Brown polygamy case could take place before the 10th Circuit Court in Denver before the end of the year.

Advertisement
Featured Image
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-KY, speaks at the Conservative Political Action Conference in National Harbor, MD, on March 6, 2014. Christopher Halloran / Shutterstock.com
Dustin Siggins Dustin Siggins Follow Dustin

,

Sen. McConnell: GOP won’t push Obama on Planned Parenthood defunding

Dustin Siggins Dustin Siggins Follow Dustin
By Dustin Siggins

WASHINGTON, D.C., September 1, 2015 (LifeSiteNews) -- Planned Parenthood won't lose its funding for at least 18 months, says America's top senator.

Speaking on WYMT TV, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-KY, said, "The president’s made it very clear he’s not going to sign any bill that includes defunding of Planned Parenthood, so that’s another issue that awaits a new president, hopefully with a different point of view about Planned Parenthood."

“We just don’t have the votes to get the outcome that we’d like,” he said. “Again, the president has the pen to sign it. If he doesn’t sign it, it doesn’t happen. But, yeah, we voted on that already in the Senate, we’ll vote on it again, but I would remind all of your viewers the way you make a law in this country, the Congress has to pass it and the president has to sign it.”

McConnell's comments came despite pressure from Senators and Representatives alike, as well as pro-life groups, who want Republicans to make defunding a priority.

"If the president of the United States and Harry Reid think it's more important that Planned Parenthood get your tax dollars than to pay our troops, then they are shutting down the government,” Freedom Caucus leader Jim Jordan, R-OH, told CNN last week.

Jordan and others have pushed GOP leaders to attach defunding efforts to must-pass pieces of legislation, such as a highway bill earlier this summer and the upcoming Continuing Resolution to keep the federal government running. GOP leaders have generally opposed this strategy, which has created a schism within the party.

Conversely, Democrats have been largely united. Leaders and rank-and-file members in both parties have generally supported taxpayer funding of the abortion giant, despite the possibility of illegal abortions being done to illegally harvest fetal organs and other body parts.

Advertisement

Customize your experience.

Login with Facebook