In the history of Australia, no sitting leader has gone to an election promising to legalise euthanasia as part of their party platform. But this week, Queensland Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk broke with tradition to campaign on her and Labor’s proud pro-death agenda.
At Labor’s official campaign launch on Sunday, Palaszczuk told a 150-strong crowd that if she is re-elected this month, her government will introduce “voluntary assisted dying” laws within months.
The legislation was put on hold in Queensland’s parliament earlier this year after pushback from pro-life groups. Palaszczuk conceded that the scheme needed “further consideration” — and in particular, a review by the Queensland Law Reform Commission before it progressed through parliament.
That report is due back from the commission by 1st March next year, according to a recent media release. Despite this, Palaszczuk on the weekend promised to introduce the euthanasia laws to parliament in February of next year. The question must be asked: why?
Why is she campaigning on a platform of death? Why is she introducing legislation to parliament that has not yet undergone a review process that — by her own admission — is essential to protecting vulnerable lives? Considered alongside her already-radical stance on abortion, why is death such a priority for Palaszczuk?
An even more searching question is this: why is her agenda so similar to that of the Satanists who are holding the first-ever Queensland black mass later this month? I’m not suggesting any ties between the two; but Palaszczuk’s latest campaign pledge is truly a head-turner, and Queenslanders should be deeply concerned.
Like abortion, the reality of euthanasia is that once it is legalised, it is very often liberalised and then even radicalised. This has held true in many jurisdictions, and over many years.
Consider the Netherlands. Just recently it was reported that the Dutch government is now taking steps towards legalising euthanasia for children between the ages of one and twelve.
The decision is based on a study launched in 2019 by the Dutch Society of Pediatrics. The study had asked doctors and parents if they saw it as morally acceptable to euthanise pre-teen children who are suffering without prospect of improvement if parents requested it. The majority said yes.
The Dutch parliament reviewed this study last year and a majority of MPs supported the proposal to euthanasia children in such circumstances.
The Netherlands has long been known for its pro-death policies, being the first nation in the world to legalise euthanasia in 2002.
Every step of the way towards the current Dutch proposal has been met by strong opposition from the pro-life movement who have warned of a “slippery slope”: that legalising euthanasia under a narrow set of circumstances today will allow for that category to expand in the future.
And of course, every step of the way, the pro-death movement has dismissed the “slippery slope” concerns out of hand.
But all we need to do is look back to see who was correct. An article written by the Independent in 2002, reporting on the original euthanasia laws, reassured readers that:
Under the law, a patient would have to be enduring irremediable and unbearable suffering, be aware of all other medical options and have sought a second professional opinion. The request would have to be made voluntarily, persistently and independently while the patient is of sound mind. Doctors are not supposed to suggest it as an option.
But the Netherlands parliament has now seemingly forgotten these once-important protections. Now they insist that any child under the age of twelve — who couldn’t possibly understand the complexities of their situation — can have their life ended for them at the behest of parent and doctor.
As Jonathon Van Maren has noted,
A one-year-old infant cannot choose to die, and children legally barred from voting, consuming alcohol, or driving cannot understand what the offer of a quick and painless death really means.
When a doctor gives a lethal injection to a suffering infant, regardless of his motivation, he is killing that child; he and other adults have decided that child is better off dead. We used to understand how wrong that is. The Dutch government—and medical professionals tasked with the preservation of life—appear to have forgotten.
Pro-death activists can dismiss “slippery slope” concerns as long and as loudly as they wish, but it will never change the facts. Legalising the killing of humans welcomes more death and compromise than thought possible at the beginning, because it sears our collective conscience and prevents us from seeing our newly-sanctioned practices as immoral, as we previously did.
Consider that when a member of the British Parliament recently asked a Dutch doctor about the permissive euthanasia laws in the Netherlands, the doctor explained,
“We agonised over our first case of euthanasia all day, but the second case was much easier and the third was a piece of cake.”
Or consider that in Victoria last year, euthanasia was legalised with assurances that very few would choose it, and only in extreme circumstances. But then a year later it was admitted that ten times the number of assisted suicides took place than were anticipated.
These are not rare exceptions. They are now the norm when it comes to the legalisation of euthanasia, and the Palaszczuk should take note.
In a secular age, we have forgotten about the God Who loves and gives life; Who has made each of us in His image; and Who forbids the taking of other lives, because it is an assault not just on other humans, but on the God in Whose image we are made.
In the rush toward “progress”, we have also forgotten the existence of evil powers that love and welcome death. To partner with death is to partner with powers that love death and wish for more of it.
During the month of October, we are praying for life — specifically for the issues of abortion and euthanasia, that the nation of Australia would repent of these terrible practices and return to the life-giving God.
Would you join with us in praying?
If you have loved ones who will be voting in the Queensland election, we encourage you to share with them the Australian Christian Values Institute checklist, which will inform them of where the various parties stand on life-and-death issues.