An Australian should be Australia's head of state
By David Swanton
Posted Wednesday, 3 May 2017 in in ON LINE opinion - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate
Perhaps every parent’s most fervent wish for their children is that they are healthy and well educated so that they can have every opportunity to realise their dreams. If a child aspires to be an executive of a new national high-tech company, captain a national sporting team, be an academic or pursue an interesting career, they should have the opportunity to do so.
In many countries, including Australia, a child’s aspirations are unfortunately limited. If an Australian child aspires to reach what many would consider to be the pinnacle, in a national sense, of being the country’s head of state, she or he is unable to do so. Sadly, and embarrassingly, it is not possible for an Australian to be Australia’s head of state.
According to the Australian Government, Australia is a representative democracy and a constitutional monarchy with Australia's head of state being the Queen of Australia. Her official title is Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God Queen of Australia and Her other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth. She is also the Queen of the United Kingdom and other realms.
As the Queen is not Australian, there is a perceived, and probably a real, conflict of interest in performing her duties, even if they are mostly ceremonial. It cannot be said with any conviction that the Queen is unequivocally and fully committed to Australia. Such a commitment is surely a desirable if not necessary quality for a country’s head of state.
Australia can do better than continuing with the British monarchy. The monarchy is, in reality, a class-based system of institutionalised nepotism that discriminates on the basis of religion, gender, age and family (descent). Invidious discrimination of this nature must be rejected. The logical alternative would be that an Australian should become the Australian head of state, appointed or selected on merit.
Religious bias was highlighted in the Queen’s most recent Christmas Broadcast, itself an anachronistic reference to a time when the majority of her subjects may have fallen under her Church of England, of which she is supreme governor. She concluded her speech with a reference to the Christian Christmas story. She was of course speaking, although not proselytising, as a head of a religion that has fewer numbers in Australia than Catholics and those who do not have a religion.
Religion, or lack of it, is a personal decision for each individual. So why would Australians want their head of state to discuss her beliefs? To those who think that this should occur, they should ask themselves whether they would want that if the head of state was not of their religion, or if atheism, Catholicism, Buddhism or Islam instead dominated in Australia.
This religious link to our head of state has historical origins that are reflected in the Australian Constitution. The Constitution’s current preamble, notes that the people, ‘humbly relying on the blessing of Almighty God’, agreed to unite ‘under the Crown of the United Kingdom…’. It is embarrassing and humiliating that any country should humbly rely on anything. It is galling that this thing is an imaginary ‘Almighty God’ (from a scientific perspective, there is no evidence), the existence of which is only believed by those who have been indoctrinated or acculturated in that belief system. Indeed, it is divisive and ridiculous to include a reference to any religious figures in what is essentially a legal document.
Notably, the Queen’s Christmas Broadcast made no mention of Australia or Australians. If she was making that speech in her other capacities, and we can suspect she was, then perhaps Australia needs a head of state who better promotes and supports Australia. Of what relevance was her speech, coming from a non-Australian who does not live in Australia, to Australians? A head of state should be to an independent sovereign nation what a spouse is to a partner: fully committed, supportive and favoured over all others.
The religious bias is further highlighted by the fact that while the British head of state can now marry a Catholic, a Catholic cannot be head of state. The Queen’s role, and that of her heirs, disenfranchises those who are not members of her church. It is unlikely that a future monarch would not be a member of the Church of England, given the high levels of early childhood religious indoctrination that would be expected to occur in the royal household, and that generally occurs throughout the world. Interestingly, one can only imagine the constitutional anxieties that would arise if the British monarch chose to convert to Islam, and then to atheism, change their gender or even to marry a gay black person. While there would be consequences for changing religion, the latter is currently permitted.
The Queen acceded to the throne because she had no brothers and was the eldest child of the previous monarch. It is now rightfully the case that male-preference primogeniture does not apply after the date of effect of the Perth Agreement. However, the sexist nature of the British monarchy still remains, as the Perth Agreement has not properly rectified the line of succession, and the husband of a Queen regnant is generally titled differently to the wife of a King. This sexism is unacceptable in a modern, egalitarian world, and does nought to promote equality of the sexes.
Absolute primogeniture, the determination of an heir as the eldest sibling in the one familial line, is also unacceptable. There is no merit in one family’s descendants having a monopoly on a significant national position, just as there is no merit in age, gender or sexual identity determining the most appropriate head of state. And what if the eldest sibling were to have a criminal record or intellectual impairment?
The arguments above do not cast aspersions on the character of the current Queen, or former or future monarchs. The Queen has, by all accounts, been an excellent diplomat. She has fulfilled her official and ceremonial duties admirably over many years, particularly given the scrutiny and pressure placed on those involved in royal activities. However, she is British. She is not a Canadian, Jamaican, New Zealander or an Australian. These and other countries could do well to reconsider how a head of state could best perform the duties, official and ceremonial, that are required of their head of state. A commitment to one country above all others must take primacy.
An independent Australia does not need a head of state who promotes Britain overseas, or a non-Australian’s picture on its currency, or future heads of state cheering for British rather than Australian teams in sporting contests. The British monarchy, as an institution, does not show an absolute commitment to Australia. Australians should not be surprised by this fact.
The Queen’s Australian functions are exercisable by the Australian Governor General, but the Queen is required to appoint the Governor General, on the advice of the Prime Minister, and she can also disallow an Act of Parliament, which is possible, but extremely unlikely to occur. This latter point is, nonetheless, disturbing. We would no more accept a statement in the Constitution to the effect of ‘The Queen may disallow a Catholic, atheist or Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander from becoming a member of Parliament’ on the basis that it would be unlikely to be used, so why should Australians accept a provision that ‘The Queen may disallow a law…’ in the Constitution on that same basis.
Although Australia has a poor record of constitutional reform, efforts should be made to remedy obsolete provisions, remove religious references, recognise Australia’s indigenous heritage and modernise the Constitution. A truly independent and progressive country should not accept second best.
As the Queen’s duties are relatively straightforward and can be otherwise handled, there is no constitutional danger in eliminating the Queen’s role in Australia. To those who say that such functions are insignificant, and that we should leave well enough alone, I say Australia, and many other countries, can and should do better. It would be a massive symbolic fillip if an Australian could become Australia’s head of state. It would be even better if that first Australian head of state were to be a ‘first Australian’, that is, an Aboriginal or Torres Straight Islander.
The Queen could, if she wanted to actively extend her healthy relationship with Australians, write to the Prime Minister indicating that she is aware of the groundswell of support for an Australian to be the Australian head of state. She could offer her best wishes if Australia were to progress down the path of becoming a republic. Such a gesture would be noble and statesmanlike, and would engender respect from monarchists and republicans alike. It would unite, rather than divide. The alternative could be divisive, if the monarchy were to be disparaged or otherwise drawn into protracted Australian constitutional debates and referenda.
A head of state selected from a flawed class-based system in a foreign country that discriminates on the basis of religion, gender, age and family, and is not merit-based, is unacceptable. A national head of state should be a citizen of and solely committed to one country (so should not be a dual citizen), not be discriminated against on the basis of their religion, sex, sexual identity, age or other irrelevant characteristics, and should either be appointed or selected on merit, depending on the country’s political system.
In Australia’s case, a minimalist change would surely suggest a republic of some form. With such an egalitarian system, it would then be possible for any Australian child to aspire to be the Australian head of state. Which is how it must be.
David Swanton is an ethicist, scientist and director of Ethical Rights . He is also ACT Chapter Coordinator for Exit International.
A life well lived, a death journey unexpected
By David Swanton
Posted Friday, 6 November 2015 in ON LINE opinion - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate
Posted Monday, 2 November 2015 in the Canberra Times, p. Times 1
I am exasperated, devastated, and relieved.
I’ve experienced these emotions during the recent death of my mother. She said, in one of her last phone calls to me, that ‘I was told that it would be painless, and I’m so cranky’.
My mum, Bet to her friends, had pancreatic cancer. From her diagnosis in April until her death in September there were some bright moments, but we all knew there would ultimately be a downward slide. Even though she was told that her death by cancer would be made painless, she interpreted that as meaning that there would definitely be no pain or suffering, and was confident that would be the case. Unfortunately, she was wrong.
Her brother had recently died of the same disease, and had had significant surgical intervention. After medical advice, mum opted against major surgical intervention (though a couple of stents were inserted), chemotherapy or radiotherapy, not that those were really options for someone who was otherwise healthy, but was in her eighties and somewhat frail.
The reason I am exasperated, when mum was just cranky, is because my disposition is not as uplifting and indomitable as hers. Nobody’s could be. She never once asked ‘why me’, and she never complained about her situation. When we asked mum about her pain level, and hoping she had no more extreme pain flare-ups (a fact of life for many cancer patients, but she could not recall being forewarned), she would give a thumbs up, and try to manage a smile. She didn’t want us to feel down. She left a message in April to inform me of her diagnosis and said ‘Darl, it’s all OK, just calling to let you know I’ve got the results back and I’ve got pancreatic cancer. No need to call back. Bysie Bye’. It is easy to be exasperated when a person of such wonderful spirit had expectations of a painless death that could not be met.
Her poor quality of life in the last months was not the fault of her palliative carers. Her doctors and nurses at her hospital were professional, compassionate, and according to mum, ‘excellent’. All staff were committed and sensitive to the needs of patients in pain and suffering. However, more money is needed for the palliative care hospital system. Mum’s needs have always been simple, but she couldn’t use a phone or TV because, apparently, three quarters of the phones and televisions in the hospital didn’t work. We had to buy and teach her how to use a mobile phone in her last month (so she could call us as required). In the absence of a working TV that would have taken her mind off things, she existed to think, breathe and stare at a ceiling when we weren’t there. We can do better for our terminally ill in contemporary Australia.
Perhaps it is now moot, but it is interesting to speculate what mum would have done if she knew that she would eventually have two episodes of excruciating breakthrough pain: one requiring dramatic ambulance attendance, and the other while in palliative care. As well as these pain events, there is also a lack of dignity associated with this disease. She was toileted and showered, there was a cocktail of pills and suppositories, ongoing and frequent injections of painkillers and antiemetics, cannulas, little vomiting episodes, dryness, artificial saliva sprays (because drinking was nil or minimal), lack of appetite, nil food for the last week, emaciation, and gurgling respiratory infections. And that was in addition to the bowel blockage, the appearance of being six-months pregnant, the threat of possibly vomiting fecal matter, and knowledge that she would not be sedated so that scenario could never arise. And perhaps she should have buzzed the nurses every half an hour for extra pain relief, rather than waiting…
Until the last three days she still had a bit of spark. At that stage she indicated she would be happy to die then. She was then consumed by the disease, her optimism and vitality overrun as she drifted in and out of light sleep, signalling the onset of the inevitable. There was lots of hand-holding, lots of support, and distress at the discomfort of our loved one.
After her many pain events (minor events though were well managed in palliative care) and suffering, she died in the company of a nurse, while her loving husband and I, her eldest son, were but ten minutes away from being with her. She would have preferred dying in the company of her loving family and relatives, and preferably at home. Who wouldn’t? If she could have chosen her time of death, then the family could have been there for her. The extended family has been devastated.
Bet suffered more than I could or would wish to endure. I am a chapter coordinator for Dr Philip Nitschke’s voluntary euthanasia organisation, Exit International. Exit members, mainly your average grandparents, have access to information that would allow them to, for example, procure drugs that lead to a peaceful death. Such processes are currently illegal in Australia, despite overwhelming public support. Nonetheless, thousands of Australians have procured and are procuring their illegal drugs, just so they have the option of dying before their pain and suffering becomes unbearable.
Many patients would benefit if increased funding were made available for the palliative care system, which is more likely if voluntary euthanasia were a legal option. If I were in my mum’s position, I would have chosen, intentionally, to die earlier, rather than suffer as mum did. If mum had been better informed and had chosen that option, she would not have suffered as much. Given the cost of doctors, nurses, medications, hospital beds, leave from work for visiting relatives and friends, there is a substantial cost to keep patients alive and in a relatively pain free state. This is a cost society chooses to bear, humanely, for those patients who wish to hang on to the natural end, such as my mum. We wouldn’t want it any other way.
On the other hand, there are better opportunities for governments to expend scarce health budget funds rather than where they are not wanted, especially in these times of austerity. Many patients don’t want excessive funds spent on them and would rather, if legal options were available, choose voluntary euthanasia rather than pain and suffering.
I want the option—I hope I will have the legal option—of voluntary euthanasia. Bet chose not to have euthanasia. Whatever her choice was, it was her individual choice about her life, and it needs to be respected, as everybody’s choice should be. Bet is no longer suffering, and for that we are relieved. She had a great life. She loved and was well loved. She might have joked that mums are always right, but on her chosen end-of-life journey, I suspect even she would say it didn’t meet expectations.
Dr Swanton is director of Ethical Rights and ACT chapter coordinator for Exit International.
Voluntary euthanasia is about choice and respect
By David Swanton
Posted Monday, 8 June 2015 in the Canberra Times, www.canberratimes.com.au/comment/voluntary-euthanasia-is-about-choice-and-respect-20150607-ghhhy4
Posted Thursday, 11 June 2015 in ON LINE opinion - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate
www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=17416&page=0
It comes as no surprise that the Catholic Archbishop of Canberra and Goulburn, Christopher Prowse, has opposed euthanasia (Canberra Times, 28 May 2015). What people in his position often fail to realise is that if you propose a position as a basis for public policy then your position and the basis for it ought to be, and will be, subjected to scrutiny. His and the Catholic Church’s ongoing opposition to euthanasia fails any objective analysis.
Euthanasia is defined as a deliberate act intended to cause the death of a patient, at that patient’s request, for what he or she sees as being in his or her best interests. The voluntary nature of euthanasia is implicit in this definition, and if society were to respect the informed views of those choosing voluntary euthanasia, then it should be permitted.
Mr Prowse and the Catholic Church should realise that voluntary euthanasia will not result in more people dying, but in fewer people choosing to suffer. Mr Prowse stated that ‘euthanasia is dangerous, which is one of the key reasons the Catholic Church has long opposed it’. He should have stopped at the first phrase, and then tried to make his arguments. Instead, he has subjected the Catholic Church to scrutiny.
It seems the Catholic Church does things because they have always been done that way and not because they are morally right. This is why the Church is still sexist (women cannot hold positions of power in the church), and homophobic (homosexual acts are acts of grave depravity). It is also morally perverse to advocate worshiping a God as something that is good, when that God, according to the Bible, has unjustly killed people, causes cancer in some children and causes others to suffer. With such a track record, the Catholic Church is poorly credentialed to make a moral case against euthanasia.
The first of Mr Prowse’s three arguments against euthanasia was that it would put pressure on vulnerable people to request euthanasia. This is a valid concern, but not one supported by evidence, given that regulatory options are available to mitigate any problems.
Brisbane euthanasia expert Professor Ben White was quoted in 2014 as saying that ‘a 2012 study had looked at whether men or women were dying more often and at the split between old and young, and people from different socio-economic backgrounds. It found no evidence to support concerns that legalising euthanasia would target the vulnerable’.
For many Australians, particularly those members of Exit International who have manufactured or procured their end-of-life drug of choice, suicide/euthanasia is a very easy option if they wanted it. What I hear from Exit members is that having a suicide/euthanasia drug gives them control and peace of mind (that they will have a good death if any medical condition worsens beyond what they can tolerate), and not pressure to use the drug.
Additionally, if there are concerns about vulnerable people, limits could be put on any regulatory framework for euthanasia, countering Mr Prowse’s second point that ‘acceptance of euthanasia cannot be limited’.
There will always be concerns about sensitive matters such as people’s wellbeing. Regulators should proscribe clinically depressed people and young people suffering from depression (please see organisations such as beyondblue or your physician) from accessing voluntary euthanasia.
Other limitations can be put on euthanasia. Favoured euthanasia regulatory systems require that a patient must request voluntary euthanasia and also be terminally ill in the first instance. However, a strong moral case could be made that even those without a terminal illness might wish to have a rational suicide. The debate about euthanasia and rational suicide ought to continue, and Dr Philip Nitschke will raise these and other matters at upcoming public forums and rational suicide/euthanasia workshops around Australia and overseas.
Mr Prowse’s third point was that ‘legal euthanasia would undermine the human dignity of all people by allowing us to think that death is a solution to serious and difficult conditions such as cancer, depression or Alzheimer's’. On the contrary, the reason why people choose voluntary euthanasia is to maintain their dignity and reduce their suffering. It is their choice about their life.
Why would someone’s dignity be undermined if somebody else chooses to shorten their life by perhaps ten days to reduce their suffering from cancer? While anybody’s death is the cause of much grief and sadness for loved ones, we should take some solace from the reduction in their suffering. To address Mr Prowse’s other concerns, the most favoured regulatory systems would prohibit depressed people and people with Alzheimer’s from accessing euthanasia (possibly through psychiatric assessments).
I agree with Mr Prowse about the importance of palliative care and it being available to those who need it. Of course, when a patient considers palliative care cannot meet their needs, then compassion, dignity and respect demand that voluntary euthanasia ought to be an option available to them.
Although over 80% of Australians, including a majority of Catholics, have continued to support the option of voluntary euthanasia over the years, the clergy and most politicians do not. Perhaps those opposing euthanasia should consider the principle of ‘do unto others as you would have them do unto you’. People generally dislike others interfering in their life, not respecting their views, telling them with whom they should have sex, or how much pain they should suffer when at the end of life. Consequently, people ought not dictate how others live or end their lives. Doing unto others what you would not want done unto yourself would be unethical.
David Swanton is an ethicist, PhD scientist and director of Ethical Rights. He is also ACT Chapter Coordinator for Exit International.
