SAINT MARY OF THE CROSS
Victoria’s Health Minister, Jill Hennessy, has released a discussion paper on “developing and implementing a legislative framework for voluntary assisted dying”.
We, the public, are allowed to submit feedback (closing date, April 10).
But only certain kinds of feedback.
Her department warns:
“Please note that feedback that expresses an opinion for or against assisted dying will not be considered by the panel.”
So, we’re not permitted to discuss whether it’s right to intentionally make patients dead — only how to intentionally make patients dead.
Aren’t there non-homicidal alternatives — good nursing, fine-tuning of drug dosages, one-to-one spiritual support in facing the lonely truth of the situation?
What a pity not to address them seriously.
Spiritual support comes at a cost.
Money and time costs aren’t the issue — millions of Australian adults can afford, on average, 4 hours a day looking at screens (television, internet etc.)
The issue is whether we care enough.
Are we willing to expend the necessary long-term effort required to provide that spiritual support?
Last week, Australian Senators voted on a motion for senators to receive no pay increases until a budget surplus is achieved.
It was moved by independent (ex-Liberal) Senator Cory Bernardi.
Sad to say, only 6 of our 75 senators voted for it.
The Coalition, Labor and the Greens senators all voted against.
Anyone moving a motion that’s rejected by all three of the above-mentioned parties is probably doing something right.
Senator Bernardi is a conscience politician.
We’ll be hearing a lot more from him.
Hopefully his movement will continue to propose common-sense policies which level-headed people will happily support.
On March 20, Herald Sun columnist Rita Panahi wrote that “as an atheist”:
“I don’t want the government to censor free speech (or) to dictate who can marry….”
She goes on about how good the joy that same-sex marriage may bring some couples….and how bad is mis-labelling some people as homophobes and bigots….
If she’s an atheist, the question of good and bad can’t arise — the difference between them being absolute only if there is an Absolute Being who judges between them.
Don’t forget, God is the only Absolute — the living difference between good and evil.
God exists because it’s his nature to exist.
We exist because he gives us our existence.
It’s not very complicated.
Rita has some thoughtful ethical instincts – but seemingly only by accident and by being inconsistent.
Is she a closet believer who may benefit by coming out as such?
New ACTU secretary, Sally McManus, says, “I believe in the rule of law.… But when it’s unjust I don’t think there’s a problem with breaking it.”
OK, so who decides whether it’s just?
Apparently not the voting public or their elected law-makers.
Perhaps Sally herself wants to be the decider. She’ll need assistants, skilled in standover tactics, to make it happen.
However unsatisfactory democracy is at times, it’s never as unsatisfactory as that.
In my youth, I was a doctor.
I made it clear that if any patient requested a referral for an abortion, I could not/would not supply it.
Under Victorian law, that’s a punishable offence. As it happens, I was never arrested.
Anyway, to justifiably break a law, one must be sure it relates to an absolute, utterly black-and-white moral issue.
You can’t think in terms of absolutes unless you believe in THE absolute — namely God.
Coopers Breweries are currently in panic mode – terrified of being boycotted by the homosexual lobby.
They’re busily disclaiming any support for a televised polite discussion between two politicians about same-sex-marriage (SSM) — which happened to advertise their product.
What might be the attitude of ordinary NON-homosexual beer-drinkers to SSM? It’s on them that Coopers depend most of all to make money.
Nobody knows for sure.
However, their attitude to spineless inhibiting of free speech by big-moneyed corporations — I think we can guess that.
The debate itself was wishy-washy and missed the main point.
Isn’t the worst thing about SSM that such couples will use their being “married” to reinforce their claimed “right” to adopt children – thus unnecessarily depriving children of a mother-father-based family unit to belong to?
That aspect didn’t get a mention.
In Australia it’s illegal to say, write or draw anything that offends anybody regarding their background.
We have bureaucrats paid to decide whether the offended-ness is justified — or if the expression of opinion was legitimate.
The bureaucratic decisions seem usually biased (towards the complainers).
Instead should we have panels of reasonable, typical, un-biased citizens — not bureaucrats — to decide?
Bondi tram passengers? Pub patrons?
But are not many pub-dwellers regular alcohol-drinkers? A possible worry, brain function-wise?
Tram-travellers could be a more reasonable cross-section.
Am I allowed to mention that people younger than 30 shouldn’t be eligible?
It’s well known that brain development is incomplete until at least one’s late twenties.
We could argue all day.
But it’s really not so complicated.
Best simply scrap Section 18C and deal with intimidation etc. under other already-existing legislation.