The Other Cheek often notes how slippery the term “religious leaders” can be when applied to a political statement – usually used to imply widespread support or opposition among Christian or other faiths. Sometimes it is just a bunch of local church pastors, rather than network leaders, who speak for many.
But the list of religious leaders appended to an Australian Christian Lobby release: “27 Faith Leaders Unite to Defend Religious Freedom in NSW Assisted Suicide Debate,” is truly impressive.
• Kojo Akomeah Director of Public Affairs and Religious Liberty Seventh-day Adventist Church
• Rev Dr Steve Bartlett Director of Ministries NSW & ACT Baptist Churches
• Rev Bruce Bennett National Director Fellowship of Independent Evangelical Churches
• Prof Megan Best Director Ethicentre
• Rev Mark Edwards OAM Religious Freedom Representative Australian Christian Churches
• Most Rev Mark Edwards OMI Catholic Bishop Catholic Diocese of Wagga Wagga
• Most Rev Anthony Fisher OP Catholic Archbishop Catholic Archdiocese of Sydney
• Most Rev Gregory Homeming OCD Catholic Bishop Catholic Diocese of Lismore
• Ps Gary Hourigan National Director International Network of Churches
• Most Rev Michael. Kennedy Catholic Bishop Catholic Diocese of Maitland-Newcastle
• John Macaulay President Right to Life NSW
• Most Rev Columba Macbeth-Green Catholic Bishop Catholic Diocese of Wilcannia-Forbes
• Ps Paul McCarthy President Church of the Foursquare Gospel Australia
• Most Rev Michael McKenna Catholic Bishop Catholic Diocese of Bathurst
• Most Rev Daniel Meagher Auxiliary Bishop Catholic Archdiocese of Sydney
• Most Rev Peter Murphy Catholic Bishop Catholic Diocese of Armidale
• Most Rev Anthony Randazzo Catholic Bishop Catholic Diocese of Broken Bay
• Joshua Rowe NSW/ACT Director Australian Christian Lobby
• Ps Justine Simms National Leader Full Gospel Australia
• Mike Southon Executive Director Freedom for Faith
• Rt Rev Dr Michael Stead Bishop Anglican Church, Sydney Diocese
• Fr Joshua Tadros Papal Legate Coptic Orthodox Diocese of Sydney
• Most Rev Antoine-Charbel Tarabay OLM Maronite Bishop Maronite Eparchy of Australia, New Zealand and Oceania
• Eamonn Mathieson National Chair Australian Catholic Medical Association (CMAA)
• Brian Mascord Bishop Coptic Bishop of Wollongong
• Tony Percy Auxiliary Bishop Auxiliary Bishop of Sydney
• Christopher Prowse Catholic Archbishop Catholic Archbishop of Canberra- Goulburn
Apart from a few activists, this is a list of peak leaders.
The leaders are supporting the Voluntary Assisted Dying Amendment (Residential Facilities) Bill 2025, moved by NSW Liberal MLC, Susan Carter, that would allow religious aged care facilities to refuse to have Voluntary Assisted Dying on their premises.
“The intent of this Bill is to achieve a respectful balance: recognising the choice of those who wish to end their life through VAD, while upholding the dignity and ethos of communities who cannot, in good conscience, facilitate or be associated with the intentional hastening of death, ” the leaders state.
“Offering true choice and valuing diversity in NSW includes allowing space for people who do not wish to live their final days in a place where VAD is provided and giving options to families who prioritise authentic faith-based care for their loved ones. We should seek a community that welcomes faith; one that values inclusion, freedom, and respect for all.”
The Other Cheek has run an opinion piece, “Sending people away to die”, on whether forcing people to leave their homes is the best approach.
The division of opinion is reflected in two legal opinions:
Senior layers Arthur Moses SC and Dr Patrick Keyzer wrote Constitutional Validity of the Voluntary Assisted Dying Amendment (Residential Facilities) Bill 2025 (NSW), arguing “The Bill, if enacted, would be inconsistent with Commonwealth law and invalid to the extent of that inconsistency, pursuant to s 109 of the Constitution.” The opinion points to the statement of Rights for people in aged care facilities that includes “A right to make choices and decisions about funded aged care services, support to make those decisions, including taking personal risks in pursuit of quality of life.”
• Christian lawyer Associate Professor Neil Foster fired back with Aged Care, VAD, Religious Freedom and s 109responding “in each case, despite the fact that the [Commonwealth aged care] legislation refers to individual choice in aged care, and to the importance of understanding and respecting people’s preferences, at no point is there a clear legal right for someone in aged care to have their preferences always met.”
Facilitating transfers
The bill, while removing any “right” of an aged care resident to have VAD in their home if the institution decides to refuse to allow on-site euthanasia, requires the facility to “take reasonable steps to facilitate the transfer of the person to and from a place” where the various stages of VAD, from assessment onwards, can take place.
The Other Cheek asked the Australian Christian Lobby: “The Voluntary Assisted Dying Amendment (Residential Facilities) Bill 2025 has several clauses that apply when an aged care facility chooses not to allow a doctor to attend for the various stages of VAD. Instead, the facility must “take reasonable steps to facilitate the transfer of the person to and from 20 a place” where they can make a request to a doctor for VAD or to a place where they can make a written request and for the procedure to take place.
What would you regard as those reasonable steps?
Would, for example, arranging a taxi or directing a driver to a pick-up point cause some staff to think they are facilitating VAD?
And why does the bill remove a definition of what those reasonable steps might be?
Joshua Rowe, the Australian christian Lobby’s NSW/ACT Director, responded.
The steps taken would be the same as when an aged-care provider arranges a transfer for a specialist appointment off-site. The facility would have a process for assessing resident needs, transportation, accompaniment and due consideration for accessibility and return.
I believe, for some caregivers who have built a relationship with a resident, this process in the provision of transfer for assisted suicide would be a painful and emotional process. I think for many it would be against their conscience, and subject to facility guidelines, usually respect would be provided for their individual conscience and desire to object to being a part of the process.
The bill we’re looking at here is not seeking to address this reality. Currently, the resident has a legal ‘right’ to access assisted suicide directly at the age-care premises. Meaning, in the example above, the carer would potentially need to prepare the room, store the position, and wheel the resident down the hall into the place of death.
We are seeking through this bill to stop a culture of death being forced into the four walls of the faith-based facility.
Rather than allow a VAD team to enter the premises and handle all the processes involved, from setting up the room if required to being present at the death, the bill, if required, would, as Rowe states, involve some local staff in the transfer.
Perhaps there is no way for Christians to avoid being involved even in a slight way in Voluntary Assisted Dying once it exists in our society. This bill privileges institutions and fails to insulate staff. Board members, but not the staff, can feel at peace. Is this trading off one for the other?
Image Credit: Nick Youngson / Pix4free