Choosing compassion

Compassion is perhaps one of the most powerful values we have in a human service organisation. I write often about the incredible compassion people within the organisation I work for show daily in the difficult work of supporting both life and death.

When confronted with life and death issues, compassion is always the answer. Yet in the current debate on physician-assisted death, both advocates and opponents claim a monopoly on compassion. For that reason alone it is important to understand both viewpoints.

A discussion paper on the proposed Voluntary Assisted Dying Bill was released recently by the Victorian Health Minister. The paper seeks input from key stakeholders, including health and community care providers, on how to manage the many moral and practical issues a legal framework for assisted death would raise.

I work within a Catholic organisation whose stance on assisted dying is clear. Yet within this fundamental respect for the sacredness of life, and the continuing advocacy for effective and accessible palliative care for all Australians, lie complex questions that still need to be answered. I fear such questions may be missed and answers not found if we move too swiftly towards physician-assisted death.

There is a great risk that decisions about death may be made in fear and in the absence of palliative care. However, the proposed bill will be decided this year, and all health, aged and community care providers need to be prepared for the impact of either its success or failure to pass into law.

For me, our organisation will not provide assisted dying services, however the implications of the proposed bill does mean it could happen in or around our services and our people. This raises the question of how we might deal with the inadvertent implications for all people in care settings – patients, family, pastoral carers, clinicians. We are in every way relational beings and must always remember that no person can act without affecting others.

If this bill passes it may, in effect, transfer some pain from the dying to those ministering to them. While that would be a legally and morally binding act, it would require a complete reshaping of the healthcare environment. We are not yet being asked to lay those foundations, but we are being asked to consider the emotional landscape in which practical changes would need to be designed. These two factors are inseparable.

For now, my greatest focus must remain on creating a future in which good palliative care ensures fear of unnecessary suffering does not dictate a person’s final hours, nor the memories their loved ones will carry throughout their own lives.