Faith-based residential aged care organisations in NSW are backing a bill to remove Voluntary Assisted Dying (VAD) from their facilities. At present, eligible residents in aged care facilities can have a doctor attend their home and assist them to die, and the facility is required to provide access. VAD is restricted to people diagnosed with at least one medical condition that is advanced, progressive and will cause death within 6-12 months and is causing suffering that cannot be relieved in a manner the person finds tolerable.
Faith-based retirement villages and residential aged care must allow Voluntary Assisted Dying on their premises, and this includes organisations that consider VAD against their core beliefs and mission. Doctors and staff can conscientiously object to taking part in VAD. This means that faith-based staff as individuals do not have to take part – it is up to the resident to use their own doctor.
Christian legal think tank Freedom for Faith (FFF) is backing a bill by MLC Susan Carter in the NSW Legislative Council that would give conscience protections to faith-based residential facilities. “This important amendment would ensure these communities can continue to operate consistently with their beliefs, while still respecting individual rights,” Mike Southon, Executive Director of FFF, has told supporters, urging them to email MPs. It is a conscience vote issue.
Most Churches in Australia oppose euthanasia. The most recent Anglican General Synod motion included this clause, The Synod Strongly opposes all existing or proposed legislation that imposes on faith-based organisations opposing euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide, a legal obligation to facilitate, support or permit euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide, as an assault on religious freedom.”
One of the most convincing arguments against euthanasia is that vulnerable people can be pressured into it. As the father of a person with a disability, this argument resonates with me.
But it might be possible to separate two closely related issues – one’s personal or organisational opposition to VAD and the dignity of those who choose to take part in euthanasia.
The proposed bill will require people to leave home if they reside in a place run by a faith-based organisation that objects to euthanasia to take part in VAD. This might only apply to some people as those with extreme pain are likely to be in hospital. But there will be some in residential aged care or hospice that will be affected. Presumably, an ambulance or other transport will arrive, and the person seeking VAD will be taken somewhere to die.
No matter where VAD occurs it is a tragic event. But arguably made worse by being told to leave home.
At present, the staff of a faith-based organisation are not required to take part in VAD, and residents generally will have their own doctor. It is the right of any person or organisation to maintain a principled objection to VAD. But do we need to kick them out of home at the time of death?
The NSW euthanasia law reserves the procedure for those within 12 months of death on the balance of probabilities. The Act specifies, “A person is not eligible for access to voluntary assisted dying merely because the person has—
(a) a disability, or
(b) dementia, or
(c) a mental health impairment.”
A reminder of another residential aged care campaign
This latest campaign is reminiscent of a controversy in 2012-13 when some aged care providers argued they should have the right to ban LGBTQIA persons from their facilities. A Senate inquiry was held as the Human Rights and Anti-Discrimination Bill was brought to parliament.
Anglicare Sydney opposed anti-discrimination provisions being extended to aged care. Their submission included. “Unlike other forms of service provision, which may simply involve transactions between clients and service providers, aged care residential facilities involve new residents becoming part of an existing community of residents, with various rights and responsibilities. An integral part of this community will be the culture and ethos of the nursing home provider, which will be evident to a greater or lesser degree depending upon the provider. Once a person or couple are accepted into such a community, there is the potential for conflict where the person or couple are in fundamental disagreement with the religious ethos of the service provider or where the service provider has objections to the lifestyle or behaviours of the new resident(s). It is naive to assume that all of this will be resolved upon admission to a facility.”
Hammondcare also argued against removing a religious exemption to aged care.
Naive or not, the 2013 law provided that there was no religious exemption from the anti-discrimination rules for aged care. It was clear from then on that same sex couples should not be discriminated against.
The balance of the rights of religious organisations and the ability of LGBTQIA persons to find aged care places was cast towards open access.
The same principle is likely to prevail in the case of Voluntary Assisted Dying.
Image Credit: Nick Youngson / Pix4free