Rejecting the Sanctity of Life

“The first shall be the last”. This well-known phrase from the Bible is apposite to describe the legislative journey in Australia of euthanasia legislation, also known as voluntary assisted dying (VAD) legislation. The Australian Capital Territory (ACT) became the most recent jurisdiction to adopt a VAD law, scheduled to come into effect in November 2025. As journalist Celene Ignacio, reported, the law’s architects have incorporated what are described as “safeguards that ensure well-informed consent and protection of vulnerable individuals”.[1] VAD legislation had previously been adopted and implemented in Victoria in June 2019, in Western Australia two years later, in Tasmania in October 2022, Queensland and South Australia in early 2023, and in New South Wales as of November the same year.

The only jurisdiction in Australia without euthanasia legislation is the Northern Territory (NT). This is ironic because the NT was the first jurisdiction to adopt, in 1995, a pioneering VAD law in Australia and in the world. However, two years later, the federal government quashed this legislation, relying on section 122 of the Constitution according to which “The Parliament may make laws for the government of any territory … and may allow the representation of such territory in either House of the Parliament to the extent and on the terms which it thinks fit.”

In the context of the VAD legislative journey in Australia, the phrase “the first shall be the last” thus refers to the NT as the first jurisdiction that modified the ‘sanctity of life’ principle to enhance the scope of end-of-life rights that people are deemed to possess to facilitate their dying with dignity. VAD is an alternative to palliative care but, unlike palliative care, it is not compatible with the ‘sanctity of life’ principle.

According to Vote Compass data – an ABC sponsored poll – almost 90 per cent of voters now support VAD for terminally ill patients. Academic Andrea Carson, commenting on the poll results, opined that “We’ve had more conversations about it, the sky hasn’t fallen in, a lot of concerns about the pendulum tipping too far the other way have not been realised at this time.”[2] Regardless, Carson’s reference to the ‘tipping’ pendulum contains an ominous warning about the unexpected, and often unintentional, ways in which VAD legislation could erode the sanctity of life principle. Indeed, over time, the scope of voluntary assisted dying legislation might well be expanded, and made available to groups that, initially, were not chosen as the beneficiaries of VAD legislation. These groups may include, but are not limited to, the mentally infirm, people living with dementia, those who are tired of life, and children.

For example, in Belgium and the Netherlands, trailblazers of this type of legislation, the law has gradually been extended to allow children now even as young as nine years of age, to avail themselves of VAD to end their lives, and to make decisions about how and when to die. In this context, Matthew Ogilvie notes that “Normally one would caution against ‘slippery slope’ arguments because they rely on predictions that may or may not come true. But in the case of euthanasia, the slippery slope is a reality.”[3] Similarly, Quadrant’s Peter Smith, in a challenging article in which he speculates about the world entering a period of regressive evolution, says that “A common symptom” of regressive evolution “is supporting grand schemes without investigating any downstream consequences.”[4] In effect, VAD has come to be seen as a human right that should be extended to the greatest number of potential beneficiaries.

More importantly, regardless of how one feels about VAD legislation, it has contributed to the belief that our Western civilisation celebrates a culture of death, not a culture of life.

More importantly, regardless of how one feels about VAD legislation, it has contributed to the belief that our Western civilisation celebrates a culture of death, not a culture of life. In addition to end-of-life legislation, the existence of this culture of death is evidenced by the widespread availability of abortion services, ‘gay conversion’ bans, promotion of transgender ideology, and the ubiquitous use of the Acute Resuscitation Plan (ARP) which encourages patients to refuse resuscitation in the event of an acute deterioration or critical medical episode. As a result, the Hippocratic Oath, according to which medical practitioners shall not “administer a poison to anybody when asked to do so”, and shall not “suggest such a course”, has become an obsolete moral rule.

This journey of VAD legislation in Australian jurisdictions is thus an eye-opening account of the slipping medical standards of Western civilisation. Noting the discernible deterioration of these standards, Brendan O’Neill, in a revealing article, characterises this deterioration as a “moral disarmament” of the West. Specifically, O’Neill argues that moral disarmament is the process in which people are “stripping away the values and virtues that once defined who we are as a society.”[5] O’Neill, supporting his claim, painstakingly and carefully pieces together the many developments that resulted in this moral disarmament. He excoriates the role of government and private institutions, the decisions and policies of which have accelerated the process of moral disintegration. For him, there is no doubt we are engaged in a cultural war, in which conservatives are accused of seeking moral absolutes, including, of course, the sanctity of life. But, ironically, the relativists equally seek to entrench moral absolutes in our culture, including the allegedly undisputed validity and application of the principle of relativity and self-indulgent gratification. Could it be said that VAD is an example of this development?

It is certain that the Northern Territory, when it eventually adopts a VAD law, will be the last jurisdiction in Australia to conclude this journey involving the erosion of the sanctity of life principle. It falls to be seen how this will hasten the disintegration of western civilisation, but hasten it there is no doubt.

[1] Celene Ignacio, ‘ACT Legalises Euthanasia, to Come Into Effect in 2025’, The Epoch Times, 9 June 2024, at https://www.theepochtimes.com/world/act-to-legalise-voluntary-assisted-dying-in-2025-post-5663774.

[2] Catherine Hanrahan, ‘Euthanasia support strengthens to nearly 90pc, Vote Compass data shows’, ABC, 8 May 2019, at https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-05-08/vote-compass-social-issues-euthanasia-transgender-republic-drugs/11087008.

[3] Matthew Ogilvie,’ Are We a Culture That Celebrates Life or Death?’, The Epoch Times, 26 May 2024, at https://www.theepochtimes.com/opinion/are-we-a-culture-that-celebrates-life-or-death-5657070.

[4] Peter Smith, ‘To whom much is gibbon …’, Quadrant, 16 June 2024, at https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/society/2024/06/to-whom-much-is-gibbon-much-is-undesired/.

[5] Nina Nguyen, ‘‘The Undoing of Civilisation’: What’s Driving the West’s Decline, British Pundit Discusses’, The Epoch Times, 27 April 2024, at https://www.theepochtimes.com/world/the-undoing-of-civilisation-whats-driving-the-wests-decline-british-pundit-discusses-5638102.