Australia Seeks Legislation on Surrogacy

A government report has backed calls for an international treaty on surrogacy and for uniform legislation within Australia banning commercial surrogacy.

A Senate committee tabled its conclusions this week. In a nutshell, it backs altruistic surrogacy, but not commercial surrogacy. In a society where marriage and the family are changing rapidly, with many children lacking genetic connections with parents, surrogacy can be a solution for infertile couples, it contends.

However, the report left a number of issues in the too-hard basket. They include changing birth certificates to include all people who could qualify as parents – genetic, gestational and intended and making use of commercial surrogates overseas illegal.

Research shows that about 250 children from commercial surrogacy arrangements are brought back to Australia every year. Australia is powerless to stop this, argues the committee. The best the government can do is to give advice about the dangers of offshore arrangements and the possibility of abusing the human rights of the women involved.

Everyone agrees that fundamental principle of surrogacy must be the “best interests of the child”. However, there is a stark division on what those are. Some people told the committee that surrogacy in any form could never be in the best interests of the child because it creates confusion about his or her identity and is inconsistent with the United Nations Convention of the Rights of the Child. Others declared that it could be consistent. The committee sat on the fence.

Another issue is reimbursement for “reasonable expenses” for altruistic surrogates. The committee backed “appropriate reimbursement”.

From here.

Commercial surrogacy is a complicated and controversial topic. Ethical concerns arise on many grounds: the cost of adoption, the welfare of the infant; and the potential for exploitation of poor women.

In India the commercial surrogacy grosses over $1 billion each year. In October 2015, the Indian government announced pending legislation that would ban foreigners from exploiting poor Indian women or traveling to India on what the government called "reproductive tourism."  Read more here: How Commercial Surrogacy Became a Massive International Business

Related reading:  Eggsploitation; Poverty Spurs Surrogacy in India; Surrogate Twins Denied French Citizenship; Surrogacy Option

Australia: High Court on Same Sex Marriage

Australia's High Court found the same sex marriage ACT to be inconsistent with the Federal Marriage Act and therefore unconstitutional.

Read the ruling here.

1961. The Court held that the federal Parliament has power under the Australian Constitution to legislate with respect to same sex marriage, and thatunder the Constitution and federal law as it now stands, whether same sex marriage should be provided for by law is a matter for the federal Parliament.The Court held that "marriage" in s 51(xxi) of the Constitution refers to a consensual union formed between natural persons in accordance with legally prescribed requirements which is not only aunion the law recognises as intended to endure and be terminable only in accordance with law

butalso

a union

to which the law accords a status affecting and defining mutual rights and obligations."Marriage" in s 51(xxi) includes a marriage between persons of the same sex.The
Marriage Act
does not now provide for the formation or recognition of marriage between samesex couples. The
Marriage Act


provides that a marriage can be solemnised in Australia only between a man and a woman and that a union solemnised in a foreign country between a same sexcouple must not be recognised as a marriage in Australia. That Act is a comprehensive andexhaustive statement of the law of marriage.The Court held that the object of the ACT Act is to provide for marriage equality for same sexcouples and not for some form of legally recognised relationship which is relevantly different fromthe relationship of marriage which federal law provides for and recognises. Accordingly, the ACTAct cannot operate concurrently with the federal Act













http://anglicanink.com/article/high-court-strikes-down-act-gay-marriage-law

Palliative Care Undermined by Euthanasia

Palliative care is undermined by euthanasia and assisted suicide, according to many palliative care organisations. In Australia, where end-of-life issues are hotly debated, the peak palliative care body has joined the chorus of opposition.

The Australia and New Zealand Society for Palliative Medicine (ANZSPM) has released a new position statement on the practices, arguing that they are not a solution to patient suffering, and that legalising the procedures would take attention away from the real issue - a lack of access to palliative care.

In the document the ANZSPM emphasises, "There is a clear distinction between good care for the dying and active interventions instituted in order to deliberately end the life of a patient." Instead of providing VE or PAS, doctors should try to alleviate symptoms: "When requests for euthanasia or assisted suicide arise, particular attention should be given to gaining good symptom control, especially of those symptoms that research has highlighted may commonly be associated with a serious and sustained 'desire for death' (e.g. depressive disorders and poorly controlled pain)."

Out of a the ten point policy statement, three points stressed "the significant deficits in the provision of palliative care in Australia and New Zealand". ANZSPM called for new government "health reform programs", as well as increased carer support for respite care, so as "decrease the sense of burden for many patients at the end of life."

Source: BioEdge

Marriage More Than a Lifestyle

Tristan McLindon

Marriage is, I believe, a supreme calling from God which will require our humbly saying “Yes!” to our particular vocation and to repeat that “yes” each and every day of our lives to make sure we are living it out as completely and truthfully as possible.

Pop culture tells us love is easy. The lyrics of McFly’s latest song show this so clearly: If this is love then love is easy. It's the easiest thing to do. I’d have to wonder whether he’s singing about true love there.

Love is amazing. It’s invigorating, uplifting and euphoric; it makes you want to conquer the world… But -- it takes commitment. It’s a decision, a conscious decision whose consequences have to be lived in difficult as well as easy times. And because it has to endure pain as well as joy, love is far from easy. So then, is it just “lovey” love that makes us want to get married?

I don’t think so. If only the romantic element of love was involved, it wouldn’t take long for the relationship to cool down. It’s impossible to sustain the level of euphoria often depicted in Hollywood films. But rather than being a disappointment this should be celebrated, because in the case of sincere love this indicates that romantic love is not the full story.

Marriage has been described as the ultimate friendship. This friendship should be founded upon a true and authentic love that wants, more than anything else, the good of the other. First and foremost it’s a team, a partnership, a union of two best friends.

I can say the eight months of our engagement have been the best and most exciting times of our lives, and I look forward to sharing the years and exhilarating road ahead with my fiancé, my best friend.

The last scene of the movie Into The Wild comes to mind. Chris McCandless spends his youth travelling across America searching for the meaning of happiness. Moments before this lonely search brings him to his last breath he scribbles down that ‘happiness is shared’.

I’m glad that my fiancé and I are so blessed as to be able to make this decision so early in our lives. We know we will only be able to fulfill this by God’s grace; but the excitement of the shared journey ahead definitely surpasses any fears of which, surprise, surprise, there are some.

(This is an excerpt. Read it all here.)

Tristan McLindon worked in the Queensland Parliament for three years before completing a Diploma in Acting and Film in New York and Los Angeles in 2012. He has recently moved to Melbourne in preparation for his marriage in July.

Related reading:  "The Case for Getting Married Young", The Atlantic magazine

Australia's Child Abuse Commission and the Stench of Hypocrisy

Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard has just announced the formation of a royal commission into “institutional responses to instances and allegations of child sexual abuse”.

The media spotlight has been on child abuse claims in the Catholic Church. But the Prime Minister is wise enough to realise that sex abuse is so widespread that it is not just a problem in one denomination. This inquiry extends beyond the highly-publicised failings of the Church to state-run institutions, government schools, non-profits like the Scouts and sporting groups, child service agencies and even the police.

It promises to be a deeply emotional affair which could last as long as five years. Two other inquiries into child sexual abuse, mostly targeting the Catholic Church, are already under way in the states of New South Wales and Victoria.

The senior Catholic prelate in Australia, Sydney’s Cardinal George Pell, has agreed to cooperate fully with the royal commission. He says that it will clear the air. "We are not interested in denying the extent of misdoing in the Catholic Church. We object to it being exaggerated," says Cardinal Pell. "We object to being described as the only cab on the rank. We acknowledge, with shame, the extent of the problem and I want to assure you that we have been serious in attempting to eradicate it and deal with it... This commission will enable those claims to be validated or found to be a significant exaggeration."

But the purpose of the royal commission is not merely to purge the collective psyche and bring hidden injustices into the light of day, but to strike at the root of the perversion.

“Child sexual abuse is a vile thing, it’s an evil thing, it’s done by evil people, but what we’ve seen too I think in recent revelations, it’s not just the evil of the people who do it,” said Ms Gillard. “There has been a systemic failure to respond to it and to better protect children and I particularly want to get the insights about what would stop that kind of systemic failure happening again.”

Unhappily, nailing and jailing sexual predators is the easy part. This is not a law and order crisis; it is a cultural crisis. Ensuring that it won’t happen again – in the Catholic Church and elsewhere -- could be all but impossible in a society which is awash with incitements to sexual activity.

Fortunately, the most frequent reason advanced for pessimism about change is no reason at all: that celibacy will remain mandatory for Catholic priests. Critics inside and outside the Church have claimed that celibacy is the cause of psychological disorders. This is complete nonsense. Married rabbis, scout masters, teachers and Protestant ministers have all been convicted of child sexual abuse. The causes of paedophilia are obscure, but many paedophiles are married men. Abolishing celibacy seems about as sensible as forcing bachelors to marry.

The second reason is institutional. Critics of the Church have accused it of secrecy, of turning a blind eye to abuse, and of deliberately evading the civil authorities by transferring priests to keep their crimes a secret. This has happened in the past, although protocols are in place now to ensure that offenders are brought to justice in a court, not shielded by other priests.

The recent turmoil at the BBC in Britain suggests that it takes great moral strength to resist the pressure to protect colleagues. It has emerged that Jimmy Savile, a vulgar entertainer whom the BBC lionised for decades, was a serial sexual abuser. A year after his death, at least 300 men and women have come forward to accuse him of molesting or even raping them. Incredibly, Savile used his status as a celebrity visitor to hospitals and orphanages to molest girls. This went on for decades. Some of the incidents may even have happened on BBC premises.

Did anyone know about this? Yes, they did. Or at least they had their suspicions. Did anyone at the BBC do anything about this? No, they didn’t. Instead, after his death, the BBC broadcast tributes to Savile’s memory.

Now articles are appearing which allege that a culture of abuse had existed for years at the BBC. Joan Bakewell, once called “the thinking man’s crumpet”, a well-known TV presenter who aggressively promoted liberal views on sexual taboos and was rewarded with a peerage, reminisced recently about Jimmy Savile and other ghastly figures from the 60s in the London Review of Books. Incredibly, she excused it:

“You can’t re-create the mood of an era. You just can’t get into the culture of what it was like, transfer our sensibilities backwards from today. It would be like asking Victorian factory owners to explain why they sent children up chimneys. It’s the same with the BBC that I first entered. It had habits and values that we just can’t understand from the point of view of where we are now. What we now find unacceptable was just accepted back then by many people.”

And what happened when the BBC higher-ups were confronted with Savile’s alleged crimes and evidence of cover-ups and wilful ignorance? They denied all knowledge of it. Mark Thompson, the former director-general of the BBC, and now president and CEO of the New York Times Company, is under a cloud. A columnist at the Times, Joe Nocera, was scathing: “Thompson winds up appearing willfully ignorant, and it makes you wonder what kind of an organization the BBC was when Thompson was running it — and what kind of leader he was." BBC journalists would have destroyed a bishop like that.

Institutions protect their own. They obstruct inquiries. They bluster. It takes a deep sense of justice to resist the temptation to be defensive and to accept responsibility for the failings of subordinates. If bishops are evasive, they deserve to be sanctioned, but let’s not think that the Catholic Church is the only club with dark secrets.

The third reason for pessimism is cultural. Most of the abuse which features in the headlines – even Jimmy Savile’s – is decades old. By all means bring the predators to justice, but the most urgent matter is to keep young people from becoming abusers.

In this regard, the stench of hypocrisy is unbearable. Everywhere young people are being encouraged to abuse their peers. They aren’t being told where to draw the line. In fact, they are being told that there are no lines. At the same time as Australian politicians are making indignant speeches about sexual abuse of children, the New South Wales teachers’ union is distributing sex information kits which teaches students to experiment creatively with their sexuality to see whether they are gay, straight, bisexual, lesbian, pansexual or omnisexual.

Encouraging adolescents to have casual sex has become so commonplace that it barely registers in the media – from popular sex columnists like Dan Savage to United Nations resolutions about reproductive health to Lena Dunham's suggestive commercial for President Obama's election campaign. Today we live in a sauna of sexuality. Does anyone really think that more experimentation will stop a new generation of sexual predators?

“We must do everything we can to make sure that what has happened in the past is never allowed to happen again.” Well said, Prime Minister. But until children and adolescents are taught that sex is a sacred power which should be reserved for a loving relationship within marriage, the cycle of abuse will happen again. And again. And again.

Michael Cook is editor of MercatorNet. 

Humor Alert: AU Greens Are Bigots

Bill Muehlenberg 

Shame on those intolerant and discriminatory Australian Greens. How dare they exclude so many people from their basic right to love and marry? They are determined to prevent loving and committed polyamorists from marrying. Unbelievable! In this day and age!

This is 2012 for heaven’s sake. When will this fundamentalist and fossilised political party get with the times? How dare they prevent those in love from exercising their rights? This is an horrific case of irrational discrimination and despicable bigotry. As the press reported the other day:

“The Greens have declared they have a clear policy against support for polyamorous marriage as they pursue their case for same-sex marriage. Greens marriage equality spokeswoman Senator Sarah Hanson-Young has declared the Greens have a clear policy against support for polyamorous marriage. ‘Our bill clearly states marriage “between TWO consenting adults” and that is the Greens' position. No, we don't support polyamorous marriage - the only person who seems to want to talk about this is Senator Cash.’

“It comes after Senator Michaelia Cash, Liberal Senator for WA, today challenged the Australian Greens to state their position on polyamorous marriage. This follows the disclosure that polyamorists have made submissions to the Greens' Senate Inquiry on Marriage Equality. ‘Sarah Hanson-Young must explain whether she does support "marriage for all", as advocated by the Greens, who wish to "legislate to allow marriage regardless of sexuality or gender identity",’ Senator Cash said. ‘Using these benchmarks it would really be a case of “anything goes”’.”

If you think that polyamorists are imaginary, think again. They are gaining momentum every day. Strengthened by homosexual militancy, they are demanding their “rights” -- with the same arguments.

An interesting piece in a recent issue of The Australian offers an example:

“The power couple of Australia's increasingly open polyamorous community, Rebecca and James Dominguez, have made Senate submissions urging the legalisation of same-sex marriage, as they promote greater acceptance of multiple-partner relationships. The couple have led the way in publicly outlining their own journey from monogamous marriage to one in which each has another lover as well.

“In her blog, Ms Dominguez, who is an administrator with IBM in Melbourne, writes: ‘My life rocks… I am incredibly happy and have almost everything I could possibly want… I've built a house with my husband and my husband's boyfriend so there are four of us living together in nice harmony. (The fourth household member is Rebecca's boyfriend.)

“‘James outed himself to me as bisexual a year after we got married. Remarkably, this didn't really phase me. He talked to a nice female friend of ours that was interested in him, informed her about my boundaries and they agreed to have a sexual relationship. I felt more secure in my relationship with James… I knew that James wasn't going to leave me, that he could have sex with and love another woman and still love me and want to be married to me.’

“For many years Ms Dominguez was president of PolyVic, which promoted the ‘practice of honest, open, ethical multiple relationships’. More recently the couple have taken up leading positions in Bisexual Alliance Victoria. The two organisations are closely connected and hold picnics which, the website says, are family-friendly with ‘food and drinks to share, picnic rugs or chairs, outdoor games, kids, dogs, kayaks’.

“As president of the alliance, Mr Dominguez, an IT specialist in the Victorian public service, wrote to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee in support of the Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2010. ‘The legal definition of marriage itself has changed over history, such as the removal on restrictions of inter-racial marriage and the provision for divorce,’ Mr Dominguez wrote in the submission.

“Ms Dominguez wrote in her own submission to the Senate committee: ‘Just as we have allowed changes in the past to things considered “traditional” (equality of women, humanity of non-white people), we can change “traditional” understandings of things now’.”

Do these “arguments” sound familiar? Oh yeah, they are the exact same “arguments” being used to support same-sex marriage. Absolutely identical.

Once you throw out the core criteria of marriage (proper gender, proper number, etc) then anything does go. And yet homosexual activists have the gall to mock those who warn of a slippery slope to group marriage.

Even the Greens discriminate. Every aspiring member must sign this declaration:

“I am not a member of another political party and will not join another political party while I am a member of The Greens. I agree to abide by the Charter and Constitution of the Australian Greens, and the Constitution of my state/territory party. I acknowledge that my membership is subject to approval by The Greens party in the state/territory where I reside.”

Hey, wait a minute. Isn’t this discrimination and intolerance? Why am I discriminated against simply because I don’t agree with this charter? Why am I being denied my human rights to join in fellowship with the Greens?

Of course the Greens will argue that to so bend the rules in this manner would undermine and destroy their party organisation. Allowing anyone in redefines the group out of existence. Obviously the Greens cannot alter their own rules and criteria to accommodate those who are bent on destroying it.

I can see common sense and logic in this policy. It is discrimination, obviously, but a vital, necessary and healthy one if the Greens are to survive.

                                                          

Er, wait a minute. Have I not heard this argument before? Yes, countless times -- about why heterosexual marriage discriminates against same-sex marriages and group marriages.

             

Discrimination, you see, is not a dirty word. It is a basic element of logic. If only the Greens could see that.

Bill Muehlenberg is a lecturer in ethics and philosophy at several Melbourne theological colleges and a PhD candidate at Deakin University.  From here.

Aussie Scams Nigerian Scammers

A Brisbane woman fleeced Nigerian scam artists by stealing more than $30,000 from their internet car sales racket, a court has been told.

Sarah Jane Cochrane-Ramsey, 23, was employed by the Nigerians as an "agent" in March 2010 but was unaware they were scam artists, the Brisbane District Court heard today.

Her job was to provide an Australian bank account through which they could funnel any payments they received through their dodgy account on a popular car sales website.

Cochrane-Ramsey was to keep eight per cent of all money paid into her account and forward the rest to the Nigerian scammers.

However, the court heard she kept the two payments she received - totalling $33,350 - and spent most of it on herself.

The car buyers who were ripped off reported the matter to police, who traced the account to Cochrane-Ramsey.

Police inquiries found her employers were based in Nigeria but had been using a web server in New York to run their dodgy car sales listings.

Read it all here.

Marriage Attacked in Australia

A Mortal Threat to Marriage

Saturday, December 3, was a landmark day for Australia’s gays and lesbians. The nation moved a big step closer to the legalisation of same sex marriage. Delegates to the Australian Labor Party’s annual conference voted resoundingly to make gay marriage a plank in the party platform.

Prime Minister Julia Gillard, who had publicly opposed this, was politically humiliated, but managed to salvage some of her authority by allowing a conscience vote when it comes before Federal Parliament early next year. Although the ALP is the governing party, with the support of the Greens, the passage of a bill to “amend the Marriage Act to ensure equal access to marriage under statute for all adult couples irrespective of sex who have a mutual commitment to a shared life” is far from certain. But the vote will be close.

Marriage law is a Federal matter in Australia. The best that the states can do is to legalise civil unions. But the homosexual lobby will not settle for anything less than “full equality”. It craves the social recognition that marriage confers. As Peter Tatchell, a Melbourne-born UK gay rights advocate, says on the Marriage Equality website:

“Marriage is the internationally recognised system of relationship recognition. It is the global language of love. When we were young, most of us dreamed of one day getting married. We didn’t dream about having a civil partnership.”

“The global language of love.” That could have been a song from the 60s. In fact, what sympathetic politicians have in mind when they link the word “gay” to “marriage” is the syrupy hit by the Dixie Cups, “Going to the Chapel”:

Goin' to the chapel and we're
Gonna get married
Goin' to the chapel and we're
Gonna get married
Gee, I really love you and we're
Gonna get married
Goin' to the chapel of love

Bells will ring
The sun will shine
(whoa-whoa-whoa)
I'll be his and
He'll be mine
We'll love until
The end of time
And we'll never be lonely anymore.

“We’ll never be lonely anymore” – if only. Top of the pops are seldom good relationships handbooks.

What sort of recognition are gays and lesbians seeking to acquire through marriage? Let’s start with the amended 1961 Marriage Act: “the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life.” Thus marriage is a legally recognised, monogamous and heterosexual, and permanent union. No purpose is mentioned, but the common understanding (until fairly recently) was that that marriage is intrinsically connected with procreation.

The rewards of marriage flow from fulfilling these defining features. In an admirable marriage the partners are faithful to each other for their whole life. In an admirable marriage the commitment is permanent for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health. In an admirable marriage new life comes into the world through the mutual love of the spouses. The virtues which give traditional marriage its well-deserved prestige are fidelity, fortitude and fruitfulness.

But legalised same sex marriage in a legal system where adultery is a crime and divorce is banned is inconceivable. In fact, the reason why same-sex marriage has become conceivable is that the prestige of heterosexual marriage has sunk so low that anyone can take it on. As Amanda Vanstone, a former minister in the Liberal (conservative) Howard government put it, “It is not convincing. It is a triumph of hope over reality. Marriage long ago stopped being to the exclusion of all others and for life. If we don't care about those two elements being disregarded by so many, why should we care about the ‘between a man and a woman’ part?”

In other words, the currency has become so debased that paupers can pretend they are millionaires. It’s all just make-believe.

What gays and lesbians want is marriage lite, not real marriage. This confers the right to do karaoke versions of “Going to the Chapel of Love” in public, but little more. Divorce is an ever-present possibility, fidelity is unnecessary and children are optional. Big deal.

What compelling reason is there for the state to support such an impoverished institution? Traditional marriages nurture children, who are the future of society and deserve protection. But why should the state get in the business of supporting what is little more than friendship with benefits?

Marriage is in a terrible state in our society. More and more couples are cohabiting; nearly half of all marriages end in divorce; children are treated as optional extras; extra-marital affairs are common; pornography is a scourge.

The absurdity is that gays and lesbians don’t regard this as a disaster at all. In their eyes these are precisely the conditions which make same-sex marriage an attractive option.

The whole thing has an alarming similarity to the Euro crisis. Basket cases like Greece joined the Eurozone in the hope of modernising their economies. Instead they are sucking strong economies dry and have brought the Euro to the brink of collapse. Same-sex marriage threatens to do the same thing to the global language of love.

Michael Cook is editor of MercatorNet.

Utilitarian Euthanasia and the Question of Dignity

Facebook can be useful. Browsing through its weekly birthday update, I learned that Nick Tonti-Filippini, a bioethicist who serves on various Australian government committees and teaches at a Catholic institute in Melbourne, turns 55 today. Some of those years must have gone slowly for him, as he is chronically ill. Fortunately, he has the training to analyse his difficulties with critical detachment. So his reflections on euthanasia, whose publication in the local media today coincides with the celebration, are worth passing on.

He begins with a description of his condition:

I am chronically ill with a progressive rheumatoid auto-immune disease that destroyed my kidneys and causes inflammation around the lungs, inner chest walls and heart, ischaemic heart disease and peripheral neuropathy. I have been dependent on dialysis for 20 years and I have undergone 15 angioplasties and the placement of eight stents to recover some blood flow after the failure of coronary bypass surgery.

Nonetheless, he says, euthanasia and assisted suicide are not the answer to his illness. In support of his contention he offers three arguments. First, Nick says, fear of being dependent can be a powerful motivation to seek euthanasia:

The fear of being a burden is a major risk to the survival of those who are chronically ill. If euthanasia were lawful, that sense of burden would be greatly increased, for there would be even greater moral pressure to relinquish one's hold on a burdensome life.

Second, the existence of a euthanasia option would undermine the development of better palliative care facilities. This notion is supported by many disability activists. They say that it spreads subtle and widespread expectation that death must be better than disability. "If the legalization of assisted suicide continues, I believe the rank and file will some day see nothing wrong with hastening the deaths of many people," writes disability expert Dr Carol J. Gill. "They will stand by and do nothing to stop it and will endorse the policies and institutions that advance it – not because they are evil people but because it will no longer be evil in our culture to do so. It will be compassionate, respectful, routine."

Third, Nick argues that no legislation will ever ensure that there can be no abuse. “Legislation that permits euthanasia could never be made safe for those of us who have serious chronic illnesses, because the essence of such legislation is to make respect for our lives contingent upon the strength of our will to survive.” The fact that euthanasia has been rejected in six countries over the past year (by my count), supports this. Committee after committee, in the UK, the UK, France and Australia has found that it is impossible to reconcile legalised euthanasia with the government’s responsibility to defend the disabled, aged and disadvantaged. Since Oregon legalized assisted suicide in 1994, other American states have it debated it again and again. Between January 1994 and March 2011, there had been 122 legislative proposals in 25 states. All bills that are not currently pending were either defeated or languish in committees.

Three solid arguments from a well-informed academic with personal experience. You’d think that his insights would be treated with respect.

They weren’t. Comments on his article were running about 5 to 1 in favour of legalised euthanasia, and nearly all of them were passionately, gut-wrenchingly, venomous.

Coming to grips with his arguments was not on his readers’ agenda. They just wanted to make their own choice. As "Dreamer" put it,

“I don't see it as anyone’s business but mine if I chose euthanasia. Religious ratbags and goodie-two-shoes included. Mind your own bloody business and keep your noses out of my affairs.”

Although Nick’s arguments were entirely secular, he was repeatedly slammed for being a Christian. In one all-too-typical comment, "Susan" noted:

“What a nerve to commit people to absolute agony in the name of your religion. And the slur against good people who want to end their terminal suffering is abhorrent. Why should the terminally ill be put up on your cross and made to suffer your torment? You have no right to choose the death or torture for others. If you want a death on a cross, well climb up yourself, but by God do not put others on it, especially the dying.”

The underlying philosophy was a rough-and-ready utilitarianism – that the value of life is the sum of its pleasures. As "Claudius" put it,

“Quality of life is more important than quantity of life, and euthanasia is a superior outcome to ineffective palliative care.”

And on and on and on.

No one expects internet comments to be balanced and thoughtful, but the vituperation in today’s comments was unsettling. They reveal four things about euthanasia and assisted suicide. First, that support for euthanasia is so visceral that it defies reasoned discussion. Second, that it is so me-centred that every argument about its community impact will hit a brick wall. Third, from a utilitarian point of view, Christianity is a abominable force for evil. Fourth, that the notion of meaningful suffering is incomprehensible.

All this suggests that clashes between traditional human dignity and the debased utilitarianism which characterises public debate in Australia are all but insoluble. Ultimately the problem is that the side which sees meaning in suffering is willing to reason it out. The other side isn’t.

Solving conundrums like this is why people like Nick Tonti-Filippini are needed in public life. Happy birthday, Nick. Many more of 'em.


Michael Cook is editor of MercatorNet.

Brain Dead Australian Woman Wakes up!

"Hopeless" and "brain dead" are expressions which have to be used with great caution, it seems, judging from the experience of an Australian woman.

Gloria Cruz, 56, had a stroke in her sleep and was operated on at a Darwin hospital. Doctors told her husband, Tani, that her case was "hopeless" and that she would probably die in 48 hours. They wanted to turn the ventilator off, but Mr Cruz asked for a 48-hour reprieve. "I'm a Catholic - I believe in miracles," he pleaded.

Later a doctor, social worker and patient advocate all rang him and once again insisted that the ventilator should be turned off.

After two weeks it was turned off. And three days later Mrs Cruz awoke, to the astonishment of the hospital staff. Now she is alert and in a wheelchair at the hospital. Her husband told the Northern Territory News: "She's well on the way to recovery." ~ Northern Territory News, May 11

Drowned Toddler a Case of Euthanasia?

Is the tragic drowning of a disabled toddler in Sydney an indirect consequence of publicity given to the merits of legalised euthanasia?

Three years ago, two-year-old Maia Comas drowned in an inflatable pool. Despite a lengthy investigation which ended this week, a coroner was still unable to decide whether her death in the beachside suburb of Curl Curl had been an accident. But he did say that the circumstances suggested "great irresponsibility" on the part of her parents.

Two months before her death, Maia was diagnosed with Rett syndrome, a disorder that often leaves sufferers with severe physical and intellectual disabilities. Her parents, 36-year-old Pablo Comas and 31-year-old Samantha Razniak were shaken by the news.

Their ramshackle home was in the beachside suburb of Curl Curl -- "two hippies living in a house playing guitar," in Mr Comas's words. They felt utterly unprepared for the burden of caring for their daughter.

After the tentative diagnosis, they probed Maia's pediatrician about the legal and medical position of euthanasia for children with incurable but non-terminal conditions. The doctor - who had never heard such a request -- responded "this is not an option under Australian Law and any action causing harm in any way is a criminal act. Any action causing death actively or passively would be considered murder."

But Ms Razniak was at her wits' end. She rattled government social workers by telling them: "Do you understand that she will grow into a young woman and have the mind of a 2 to 10 year old. The head, hands and feet all stop growing. I don't want to see my daughter become a monster, to become ugly... I'd rather her die now than die slowly."

When she was reassured by social workers that she could get government support, she responded, that the only support she was interested in was euthanasia. "I want to get on with my life and not see all this ugliness - clinics, home disabled people, doctors."

Mr Comas felt much the same. He once asked a social worker: "Why do they keep children with these disabilities alive? It doesn't seem fair on the children."

The social workers were alarmed by the parents' attitude, but the case seems to have fallen between the cracks. On December 3, 2007, Maia's visiting grandmother discovered her floating in a unfenced wading pool. Her mother, who was a trained swimming instructor who was working at a childcare centre, was too "freaked out" to revive her. Maia was pronounced dead at a nearby hospital.~ The Australian, Jan 15

Circumcision Wars in Australia

Circumcision wars have broken out in Sydney, with a leading professional body endorsing a policy which discourages it and a group of doctors disputing this in the Medical Journal of Australia. Routine infant circumcision in Australia has been discouraged for years and the Royal Australasian College of Physicians wants it to stay that way.

However, a group of Sydney specialists has described the practice as "sound health policy" which could reduce the chance of transmitting HIV later in life. Sydney physician Alex Wodak argues encouraging parents to have their baby boys circumcised is "common sense", given that the proportion of new HIV cases in Australia associated with heterosexual sex was increasing. “We should be trying nationally to get back to where we were in the 1950s and 60s where the majority of infant males were circumcised," he said.

However, Dr Gervase Chaney, of the College, feels that experience in other countries is not relevant. “We don't agree with it. We believe that the evidence currently would not support that in Australia, that it might be supported in other countries particularly obviously in Africa where there are much higher rates of HIV transmitted heterosexually but that at this stage that that is not something that we would support.” ~ ABC, Sept 20; Courier-Mail, Sept 20

To read more on circumcision, go here:
http://college-ethics.blogspot.com/2010/08/circumcision-highlights-global.html
http://college-ethics.blogspot.com/2009/03/female-circumcision-in-context.html
http://college-ethics.blogspot.com/2010/05/female-circumcision-or-genital.html

Australia's Anti-Family, Pro-Euthanasia Govt.

Expectations of stable majority government in Australia have been scuppered by a remarkable “Greenslide” in Saturday’s national election. Neither the Labor government nor the conservative coalition won a clear majority, so it is not clear who will be leading the country – the incumbent Labor Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, or the Liberal leader Tony Abbott. A week of intense horse-trading with a handful of independent MPs lies ahead. It will be Australia’s first minority government in 70 years.

It was a dispiriting result for Labor, but the Greens are ecstatic. They won one seat in the House of Representatives and four in the Senate. Because of an eccentric provision in the Australian constitution, the new Senators do not take their seats until July next year. But then the Greens will have nine senators and the balance of power. “There is a new light on the hill and it's powered by renewable energy,” says one of the new parliamentarians.

What will this mean for Australia?

Interpreting the stunning Green gains in this election is difficult, but it is more than a protest vote. The Greens’ leader, Senator Bob Brown, a dour, lanky Tasmanian, told the media that it was a new birth in Australian politics – like the whale calf which had just been born in the waters lapping suburban Hobart, Tasmania’s capital.

The Greens have steadily gained ground over the past 20 years, first capitalising on concern for the Tasmanian wilderness and then on disillusionment with the left-leaning Labor party. And as it grew, policies which nothing to do with saving virgin forests or protecting endangered species stuck to the Green snowball.

In an address to the National Press Club last week Senator Brown highlighted three policies which his party would pursue. The first two were environmental boilerplate: a hefty tax on the mining industry and the introduction of an emissions trading scheme. But the third was the legalisation of same-sex marriage. Senator Brown is gay himself and to underscore his commitment, he brought his partner along for some carefully scripted photos.

What does gay marriage have to do with saving whales? Not much, but the Australian Greens have wandered far from their conservationist roots. Their opposition to capitalism attracted radicals who were left without a cause after the fall of the Berlin Wall. Their stand on moral issues pandered to pampered Chardonnay socialists of the inner city. Championing of causes like a free Tibet and asylum-seekers enthused idealistic young voters.

If there is an intellectual inspiration for the movement, it is the Australian philosopher Peter Singer, a theorist for the animal rights movement and a radical utilitarian who supports voluntary euthanasia and infanticide for disabled infants. Singer was one of the founding members of the national Greens and in 1996 he even ran unsuccessfully for the Senate as a Green candidate. He co-authored a book on the Green movement with Bob Brown.

Unfortunately, it’s likely that many voters are unaware of the “socially progressive” side of Green policies. Of all the other parties, only the odious Australian Sex Party, which represents the pornography industry, may have more destructive policies on social values. The combative Catholic Cardinal George Pell scathingly describes them as watermelons, green outside and red inside. He claims that their policies are “thoroughly anti-Christian”.
In his regular column in one of Sydney’s newspapers Pell wrote: “Naturally the Greens are hostile to the notion of the family, man, woman and children, which they see as only one among a set of alternatives. They would allow marriage regardless of sexuality or gender identity. We all accept the necessity of a healthy environment, but Green policies are impractical and expensive, which will not help the poor. For those who value our present way of life, the Greens are sweet camouflaged poison.”

Read here.

Geoffrey Robinson: Try the Pope in Court

A prominent Australian-British human rights lawyer and United Nations jurist has suggested that the Pope be put on trial for crimes against humanity. I think that this is a brilliant idea.

Geoffrey Robertson outlined his scheme in The Guardian and a number of Australian newspapers. Although he feels strongly that the Vatican is fraudulently representing itself as an independent country, the Pope should be brought to account for systematic abuse of human rights during his pontificate. Since 2002, he points out, heads of state are no longer immune from prosecution before the International Criminal Court. For instance, a warrant has been issued for the arrest of the president of the Sudan, Omar al-Bashir, for crimes against humanity and war crimes.

In Pope Benedict’s case, Robertson argues that this includes sexual abuse of minors:

The ICC Statute definition of a crime against humanity includes rape and sexual slavery and other similarly inhumane acts causing harm to mental or physical health, committed against civilians on a widespread or systematic scale, if condoned by a government or a de facto authority. It has been held to cover the recruitment of children as soldiers or sex slaves. If acts of sexual abuse by priests are not isolated or sporadic, but part of a wide practice both known to and unpunished by their de facto authority then they fall within the temporal jurisdiction of the ICC – if that practice continued after July 2002, when the court was established.

But why stop at the Pope? Surely equity demands that others should stand in the dock along with Benedict if sex abuse happened on their watch and they failed to act energetically to stop it.

Read it all here.
 
But why stop at the Pope? Surely equity demands that others should stand in the dock along with Benedict if sex abuse happened on their watch and they failed to act energetically to stop it.
 
I agree.  Go for the hierarchs of the Episcopal Church who condon sexual deviants and even ordain them!

WMD Fears: Australia Blocks Pakistan Shipment

SYDNEY, April 6: Australia has blocked a shipment of scientific equipment to Pakistan over fears it could be used to help build weapons of mass destruction, a spokesman for Defence Minister John Faulkner said on Tuesday.

The government used the 1995 Weapons of Mass Destruction (Prevention of Proliferation) Act to stop an Australian company exporting instruments and accessories to a Pakistani firm, he said.

“The minister forms the view, based on advice from the Department of Defence supported by other agencies, that there are unacceptable risks associated with the provision of these goods,” the spokesman told AFP.

It is the fourth time the minister has used the little-known act to block a shipment going overseas. On previous occasions, the goods had been destined for Iran or countries deemed at risk of passing them on to Iran.

The government refused to name either the Australian or Pakistani companies involved in the transaction, but The Australian newspaper said the domestic firm was GBC Scientific Equipment.

It said GBC wanted to sell two atomic absorption spectrophotometers, which analysed liquid samples, to a Pakistani engineering firm but had been unable to convince Canberra they could not be used to analyse metals used for centrifuges and missiles.

“They’re destroying my company and, more to the point, they’ve basically moved my thoughts to forget about Australia,” the company’s managing director Ron Grey told the paper.

“Basically, you’ve got a whole lot of overpaid public servants and their job is to screw up one of Australia’s few export industries,” he said.

Faulkner said while he was aware of the commercial impact his decision would have on the company, the firm had been consulted throughout the process.

“I want to make clear, there is no suggestion of wrongdoing by the Australian company,” the minister told the newspaper.

Australia normally blocks the sale of dangerous goods or items to suspect nations via the Customs Act, but the Weapons of Mass Destruction Act is used as a catch-all when this legislation does not apply.—AFP

Australians Prepare to Defend Their Country

For most of the Cold War, America's allies did surprisingly little to defend themselves, preferring to rely on the U.S. That dependent mentality continues, especially among the populous and prosperous countries of Europe. The election of President Barack Obama notwithstanding, the Europeans have proved no more willing than before to offer additional combat support in Afghanistan.

However, Australia is breaking the mold, preparing to do much more to protect itself and its region. Washington should encourage its other friends to follow suit.

Canberra issued its previous defense white paper a decade ago. Observed Defense Minister Joel Fitzgibbon: "the biggest changes to our outlook over the period have been the rise of China, the emergence of India and the beginning of the end of the so-called unipolar moment; the almost two-decade-long period in which the pre-eminence of our principal ally, the United States, was without question."

Australia now discerns a future in which "there will be a number of other powers floating about, China and India, for example, the re-emergence of Russia," he added. Particularly important will be the People's Republic of China, which said Fitzgibbon, "will be the strongest Asian military power, by a considerable margin." Although the U.S. isn't going away anytime soon, its relative domination will shrink and its willingness to make war for its allies will diminish. Different circumstances require different policies. Explained Fitzgibbon: "We need to be able to defend our country without necessarily relying on the assistance of other nation states."

Read it all here.

Australia Bushfire Deaths Rising

At least 173 people are dead and 24 blazes remain out of control as Victoria's bushfire crisis enters its fourth day and police hunt the arsonists responsible.

Police are hunting down a serial arsonist believed to have been responsible for lighting the worst of the Victoria fires.

Police have confirmed that they believe the man who lit the devastating Delburn Complex of fires around nearby Boolarra last month, destroying 29 houses and more than 6000ha, is the same person responsible for the Churchill blaze. The Churchill-Jeeralang fire in Gippsland, was threatening the township of Won Wron and remains out of control. So far, 21 people have been killed by the blaze.

It's expected police will release an image today of a man sought for questioning over the fires. "We'll soon be in a position to provide face images of people we believe responsible," Morwell Detective Sergeant Brett Kahan said.

Fire criminologist Dr Damon Muller said more than one arsonist would have been responsible for the Victorian fires. He said the number of fires burning in the state - up to 400 over the weekend - pointed to multiple arsonists. "It would be surprising if some of them were not deliberately lit, just by virtue of the significant number," Dr Muller said.

Profiling an arsonist is as difficult as controlling the fires they start, according to psychologists. But in general they are likely to be male, a loner, live outside the community but love to watch their handiwork.

For more coverage, go here.