‘Ethics’ Category Archives

19
Feb

SOUTH AUSTRALIAN ADOPTION LAWS GET MORE “PROGRESSIVE”: progressing backwards?

by Arnold Jago in Australia, Common Sense, Ethics, Family, Happiness

In South Australia, adoption by same-sex couples became legal last week.
One such couple told reporters, “We’re exactly the same as every other family; the boys are safe, they’re loved, they have very good, strong female characters in their lives. The boys are happy and that’s all that matters.”
Think back.
Young hopeful, after nine months recognising biological mum’s voice, sharing her body fluids, knowing nothing about the world except though her, looking forward to her breast milk….
Bingo! Suddenly at delivery-time mum vanishes without trace, and here are these two blokes….
What a nightmare!
Someone might be happy, but the child isn’t.
Anyone saying out loud that no child deserves such a fate risks state-sponsored persecution in some kind of tribunal.

Share This
11
Feb

CORY BERNARDI AND CRITICS: basic beliefs are getting important.

by Arnold Jago in Abortion, Australia, Beauty, Celebrities, Ethics, Faith, Family, Modern Church, Politics

Most Australia’s top politicians seem to be Catholics.
Or lapsed Catholics…attending Catholic school, then giving it up.
Prime Minister Turnbull, born non-Catholic, became a Catholic in 2002 — yet don’t his “progressive” views on abortion, same-sex marriage etc. contradict Catholic teaching?
Bill Shorten, who attended Catholic primary school then Xavier College — now likewise supports anti-Catholic policies.
Even Greens leader, Richard di Natale, attended Melbourne’s Parade Catholic College….
Perhaps one reason why Cory Bernardi gets bad media coverage is his cheerfulness about being Catholic — and trying to live accordingly.
In his book, “The Conservative Revolution”, Bernardi identifies “Faith” as number one of the “Four pillars” on which a better Australia must be founded.
He seeks a society based on “that uniquely Christian doctrine that man was ‘created in the image of God’, a principle on which the western concept of human dignity depends….”
The unkind label of “rat” has been thrown at him.
He is perhaps too well brought up to brand his critics as chameleons.

29
Jan

HATRED, “HATE-SPEECH” ETC. important words which we throw around too carelessly

by Arnold Jago in Australia, Ethics, Justice, Media

The other day, 3,500-plus people took part in an “anti-Trump” march in Melbourne.
According to one organiser, “We’re not marching as an anti-Trump movement per se, we’re marching to protest the hate speech, the hateful rhetoric….”
Meanwhile, Ibrahim Abu Mohammed, Australia’s Grand Mufti, wants section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act expanded to prohibit what he calls “hate speech” concerning his religion. In other words, he wants Australia to have a Pakistan-style blasphemy law.
No. No. The fact is, there’s nothing wrong with expressing hatred.
Some things we have got to hate.
Not people, but certain actions.
Think about childhood sexual abuse. Yes, punish the offenders — but don’t hate even them as persons.
God himself loves morally evil people — insofar as they are not completely evil.
He hates sin. He loves sinners.
We must try to do the same.

11
Jan

EUTHANASIA AND THE “CONSCIENCE VOTE”: by the way, what does “conscience” mean?

by Arnold Jago in Australia, Death, Ethics, Health, Justice, Suffering, Truth

Victorian state MPs may soon participate in a “conscience vote” about legalising euthanasia by doctor-assisted suicide.
What do these people think “conscience” means?
For most it seems to mean “what I feel comfortable with”.
Being comfortable is a feeling — not the same as using one’s intelligence or willing good to another person.
If you’re uncomfortable witnessing somebody in a weakened or undignified state or having to bear incompletely-controlled pain, there’s a simple, only-too-obvious solution — kill that person or help him/her suicide.
Less convenient is the alternative — the attention to detail of good nursing and medication-dosage plus one-to-one spiritual support in facing the lonely truth of the situation.
Traditionally “conscience” means putting into practice what is one’s best understanding of Moral Truth — seeking the best possible fulfilment of the person of the sufferer, given the present situation.
Why? Because we love that person.
By contrast, killing is a cop-out.

9
Jan

DR RODNEY SYME AND THE VICTORIAN GOVERNMENT: doing the wrong thing by terminal patients.

by Arnold Jago in crime, Death, Ethics, Health, Justice, Politics, Suffering

In early 2016, a Victorian man with advanced tongue cancer was offered Nembutal (illegal lethal tablets) by euthanasia-promoting doctor, Dr Rodney Syme.
The patient’s GP complained and the Medical Board of Victoria put a ban on Dr Syme from practising end-of-life patient care – describing him as a “serious risk”.
Dr Syme appealed to the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) which has reversed the ban.
Why?
Assisting a patient to commit suicide is against the law in Victoria and carries a 5-year prison sentence.
That is an excellent law, designed to protect vulnerable people from falling into the hands of the euthanasia types — while, hopefully, accessing care from proper palliative care doctors.
The Victorian government plans to reverse that law — a bad move which would endanger the frail, the despairing, the weak and the elderly.

6
Jan

VICTORIAN GOVERNMENT PUSHES “MERCY-KILLING”: can they be stopped? do enough people care?

by Arnold Jago in Australia, crime, Death, Ethics, Politics

The Victorian government — determined to introduce legalised euthanasia — assure us there will be strict “safeguards”.
Do they really believe those safeguards will be adhered to long-term?
Anyway, safeguards aren’t the point.
The problem with mercy-killing is that it is killing.
It isn’t “letting the patient die”. Or “letting the patient refuse treatment”. Those things are legal already.
Any act or omission which intentionally causes death in order to eliminate suffering constitutes a murder.
On the other hand, discontinuing medical procedures that are burdensome or disproportionate to the expected outcome can be legitimate.
Using painkillers to alleviate sufferings, even at the risk of shortening their days, can be acceptable if death is not the intention, but is only foreseen and tolerated.