July 14, 1998. 2:45 am. In the dead of winter; in the dead of the night, a baby girl was born.
She died 80 minutes later. Alone, unwanted, unloved. Her name was Jessica.
In early July 1998, an expectant mother met with Dr Henry Cho of Darwin Private Hospital and requested an abortion. Dr Cho became concerned about the “great psychological trouble” the woman would face if she continued with her pregnancy and although nearly half way through the pregnancy - at 19 weeks - booked her in for a second trimester abortion.
On July 13, Dr Cho admitted the mother into Darwin Private Hospital and prescribed Misoprostol, a drug which is used to induce labour. Misoprostol is the drug used to trigger labour for a stillbirth and is generally acknowledged to be safe for a live baby. Dr Cho’s intention in this case was that the baby would die during delivery, as a result of the trauma of birth at such a premature age.
In the early hours of July 14, after labouring for some time, the mother delivered her little girl, and the child was promptly placed in a kidney dish by the attending registered mid-wife, Nurse Carrie Williams. It wasn’t until Nurse Williams took the baby from the room that she realized little Jessica was alive. Jessica was breathing, moving, crying.
Nurse Williams noted in the Coronial Inquest that the child looked to be between 22 and 24 weeks gestation, and not the recorded 19 weeks. Dr Cho later agreed that the pregnancy had progressed to 22 weeks.
Nurse Williams wrapped the child in a blanket, covered her and left her alone, checking back every 15 minutes until little Jessica died at 4:05 am.
During Jessica’s short life, Nurse Williams continued to care for her mother. She phoned Dr Cho for some assistance in dealing with the child who had survived an attempted abortion, and was told that “nothing need be done”. Dr Cho had reportedly informed the woman that there was the possibility her baby may be born alive, but Nurse Williams was not aware of this.
During the coronial inquest, Nurse Williams stated that there was nothing further she could have done for the child. She said that the baby’s vital signs were good and that she “desperately wanted to do more” but she felt her hands were tied.
It is estimated that 1 in every 30 babies aborted between the age of 17 and 24 weeks is born alive and lives for between 1 and 4 hours before dying. Jessica’s story is not rare.
© Eva Whiteley 2009
Saturday, February 14, 2009
Thursday, February 5, 2009
Euthanasia Debated
On February 3, I had the dubious privilege of attending a public debate hosted by IQ2, an Australian forum for live debate. The proposition: we should legalize euthanasia.
Speakers for the proposition were Philip Nitschke, founder and director of the euthanasia advocacy organization Exit Australia, openly gay Greens Senator Bob Brown, and Professor Peter Baume, former NSW senator and patron of the Voluntary Euthanasia Society of NSW.
Speakers against the proposition were Dr Maria Cigolini, a GP and teacher of General Practice at the University of Sydney who has worked in palliative care for 20 years, former Federal Health Minister and current Shadow Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, Tony Abbott, and Jesuit professor of law at ACU, Father Frank Brennan.
The debate began with an emotional and passionate tirade from Philip Nitschke. His 9 minutes seemed to me to be rather wasted on summarizing the current situation, berating Kevin Andrews for overturning the 1996 euthanasia laws in the Northern Territory, and assuring the audience that it is religion that forces politicians to rally against euthanasia.
Dr Cigolini followed with a detailed, factual summary of present palliative care options. In her speech, she said that legalizing euthanasia would take attention away from care issues and towards the far easier and ultimately cheaper option of lethal injection. She said that in the euthanasia debate, death is often viewed as an alternative to ongoing palliative care.
Dr Cigolini pointed out that many proponents of euthanasia have no training in psychological or palliative care and assume far too quickly that illnesses like depression should be treated with a fatal drug or a lethal injection rather than with compassion, medical assistance and ongoing support.
Dr Cigolini’s speech was followed by a quiet and pleading address from Senator Bob Brown, who quoted the Hippocratic Oath and told us that it was not right to impose one’s own ethical position on another. Most significantly, Senator Brown spoke about eliminating the “burden of suffering”. Relieving suffering isn’t sufficient for Senator Brown and although he often speaks publicly about his belief in a loving and compassionate God, the Christian concept of suffering seems to entirely escape him.
Following Senator Brown’s sedate oration it was Tony Abbott’s turn to bait the audience. His speech was passionate, political and at times very sarcastic. Mr Abbott spoke of his 99 year old grandmother and said he would be horrified to think that she would ever feel so unloved and unwanted as to consider suicide. He pointed out the hypocrisy of treating young and Indigenous suicide as a tragedy but of encouraging and assisting the elderly in the direction of euthanasia.
Professor Peter Baume followed Mr Abbott. His speech was the most articulate and intelligently researched of the 3 proponents. However, he played word games with the audience, proposing that we use the term “end of life decisions” rather than euthanasia. He assured us that nurses and doctors who object to euthanasia, would not be forced to do anything they considered objectionable. Sounds eerily like the status of abortion before it was decriminalized in Victoria last year.
Fr Frank Brennan took the part of peace-maker, sitting on the fence and offering no real moral authority as a guide. He said: “It’s not a matter of which side is more compassionate, it’s more about which side can put an argument about what the law might be.” He suggested that until such time as such an argument could be put forward, we should stick with “do no harm”. He even noted, at the suggestion from a member of the audience, that we should leave moral absolutes out of the argument because there is no unanimity about truth today. I was expecting something far more persuasive from a priest of the Jesuit order.
A sell-out audience of 1200 indicates that euthanasia remains a hot topic and pro-lifers cannot afford to relax. New euthanasia bills are introduced in the senate on practically an annual basis, usually by Senator Brown. It is a strange irony that at a time when we have the capacity to relieve pain more than ever before, some people in society are seeking to end fragile lives.
As ever, the Catholic Church remains strong in its opposition to the concept and practice of euthanasia, the Pope stating earlier this month that "euthanasia is a false response to the drama of suffering, a solution unworthy of man… the real response cannot be to give death, no matter how gentle, but to testify to love to help confront pain and agony."
© Eva Whiteley 2009
Speakers for the proposition were Philip Nitschke, founder and director of the euthanasia advocacy organization Exit Australia, openly gay Greens Senator Bob Brown, and Professor Peter Baume, former NSW senator and patron of the Voluntary Euthanasia Society of NSW.
Speakers against the proposition were Dr Maria Cigolini, a GP and teacher of General Practice at the University of Sydney who has worked in palliative care for 20 years, former Federal Health Minister and current Shadow Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, Tony Abbott, and Jesuit professor of law at ACU, Father Frank Brennan.
The debate began with an emotional and passionate tirade from Philip Nitschke. His 9 minutes seemed to me to be rather wasted on summarizing the current situation, berating Kevin Andrews for overturning the 1996 euthanasia laws in the Northern Territory, and assuring the audience that it is religion that forces politicians to rally against euthanasia.
Dr Cigolini followed with a detailed, factual summary of present palliative care options. In her speech, she said that legalizing euthanasia would take attention away from care issues and towards the far easier and ultimately cheaper option of lethal injection. She said that in the euthanasia debate, death is often viewed as an alternative to ongoing palliative care.
Dr Cigolini pointed out that many proponents of euthanasia have no training in psychological or palliative care and assume far too quickly that illnesses like depression should be treated with a fatal drug or a lethal injection rather than with compassion, medical assistance and ongoing support.
Dr Cigolini’s speech was followed by a quiet and pleading address from Senator Bob Brown, who quoted the Hippocratic Oath and told us that it was not right to impose one’s own ethical position on another. Most significantly, Senator Brown spoke about eliminating the “burden of suffering”. Relieving suffering isn’t sufficient for Senator Brown and although he often speaks publicly about his belief in a loving and compassionate God, the Christian concept of suffering seems to entirely escape him.
Following Senator Brown’s sedate oration it was Tony Abbott’s turn to bait the audience. His speech was passionate, political and at times very sarcastic. Mr Abbott spoke of his 99 year old grandmother and said he would be horrified to think that she would ever feel so unloved and unwanted as to consider suicide. He pointed out the hypocrisy of treating young and Indigenous suicide as a tragedy but of encouraging and assisting the elderly in the direction of euthanasia.
Professor Peter Baume followed Mr Abbott. His speech was the most articulate and intelligently researched of the 3 proponents. However, he played word games with the audience, proposing that we use the term “end of life decisions” rather than euthanasia. He assured us that nurses and doctors who object to euthanasia, would not be forced to do anything they considered objectionable. Sounds eerily like the status of abortion before it was decriminalized in Victoria last year.
Fr Frank Brennan took the part of peace-maker, sitting on the fence and offering no real moral authority as a guide. He said: “It’s not a matter of which side is more compassionate, it’s more about which side can put an argument about what the law might be.” He suggested that until such time as such an argument could be put forward, we should stick with “do no harm”. He even noted, at the suggestion from a member of the audience, that we should leave moral absolutes out of the argument because there is no unanimity about truth today. I was expecting something far more persuasive from a priest of the Jesuit order.
A sell-out audience of 1200 indicates that euthanasia remains a hot topic and pro-lifers cannot afford to relax. New euthanasia bills are introduced in the senate on practically an annual basis, usually by Senator Brown. It is a strange irony that at a time when we have the capacity to relieve pain more than ever before, some people in society are seeking to end fragile lives.
As ever, the Catholic Church remains strong in its opposition to the concept and practice of euthanasia, the Pope stating earlier this month that "euthanasia is a false response to the drama of suffering, a solution unworthy of man… the real response cannot be to give death, no matter how gentle, but to testify to love to help confront pain and agony."
© Eva Whiteley 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
