My interest was piqued yesterday by a Twitter exchange between bioethicist Leslie Cannold and sceptic, Ken Dally (aka Cowcakes).
Leslie Cannold: Vic Doctors who will let u or a woman u love die rather than follow law & offer life-saving abortion http://t.co/9NeIqfrl
Cowcakes: @LeslieCannold: So many declarations of not being religious it makes one think they protest too much. http://t.co/YFkP0bRV
The website they refer to is Liberty of Conscience in Medicine – A Declaration; effectively a petition asserting the right of doctors to refuse to offer certain treatments (e.g. abortion, euthanasia) even if they are legal.
Now, I’m happy to concede there are compelling arguments both for and against this proposition (do you really want a rabidly anti-abortion doctor performing your abortion?), but this is not the issue that particularly concerns me about the Liberty of Conscience in Medicine declaration.
Rather, it is the matter alluded to in Ken Dally’s tweet:
“So many declarations of not being religious it makes one think they protest too much.”
I’ve been doing quite a bit of research on the anti-euthanasia lobby lately and I’ve been surprised to find that many organisations that declare themselves to be ‘secular’ or ‘non religious’ are clearly ‘playing possum’. It seems to me a rather ‘un-Christian’ thing to do, really.
Take the Discovery Institute, for example. Although it often describes itself as a secular organization, its activities, sponsors and target audience are explicitly Christian. Americans United for Separation of Church and State believes, “the group’s real purpose is to undercut church-state separation and turn public schools into religious indoctrination centers.”
The judge in the 2005 “Dover Trial”, agreed, noting that a close examination of the Discovery Institute’s infamous “Wedge Document” revealed the Institute’s religious (as opposed to scientific) goals.
So, I wondered, could the Liberty of Conscience declaration be another of these religious ‘sleeper’ organisations? I decided to find out.
The FAQ section of the Liberty in Conscience website specifically states that the declaration is not connected with religion or religious beliefs:
“There is no religious or faith component to the declaration of conscience in medicine.”
The ‘sponsoring organisation’ , Medicine with Morality is “also not religious”.
So who is behind this secular push for doctors to be able to refuse those treatments which are so often the concern of the religiously motivated? The FAQ’s provide the answer:
“Lachlan Dunjey, a GP in Perth Western Australia since 1968, known to be passionate about such things – passionate about medicine, passionate about the future of medicine and wanting to protect the “traditional” doctor/patient relationship from the things that are threatening it.”
Strangely, it doesn’t mention that Lachlan Dunjey was Western Australia’s Christian Democratic Party candidate for the senate in 2004, along with co-signatory Dr Norman Gage. At a safe distance from his ‘secular’ websites, Dunjey describes himself as ‘a church musician of 40+ years, as a doctor, and as a church elder’ and signs off as: Lachlan Dunjey, Morley Baptist Church, West Australia. In fact, Dr Dunjey is not just an ordinary Baptist church-goer, he is a former president of the Baptist Churches of Western Australia. But, of course, in his capacity as an anti-abortion, anti-euthanasia campaigner, he is entirely non-religious!
My suspicions aroused, I wondered whether, as implied in the FAQs, the doctors who signed off on Dunjey’s ‘secular’ declaration were similarly ‘non-religious’. With a few hours to spare I decided to do some judicious googling of the signatories.
It didn’t take long to find that signatory, Dr Michael Shanahan has served as both president and secretary of the Catholic Doctors Association of Western Australia. Similarly, Dr Terrence Kent is a former president of the Catholic Medical Guild of St Luke and Dr Elvis Semen appears to be a member.
So what’s this Guild of St Luke all about? Dr Lucia Migliore explains:
“As Catholic doctors, we should be foremost inviting Christ into our work, which completely changes the nature of what you are doing.”
No doubt.
Another signatory, Dr Jovina Graham, was involved in planning iWitness, a religious retreat designed to ‘recapture the spirit’ of Catholic World Youth Day. The focus of iWitness was “on enriching the participants’ spiritual lives through a deepened relationship with Our Lord.”
As I kept researching the Catholic connections just kept on coming. Signatory, Dr Mary Walsh, is married to Catholic “knight” and bio-ethicist, Nicholas Tonti Fillipini. Dr Phillip Elias is assistant dean at the Opus Dei affiliated Warrane College at the University of New South Wales, while Dr Albert Matti is involved with the Melkite Catholic Eparchy in South Australia.
Liberty of Conscience supporter, Dr Alan Donoghue lays out his beliefs in The Dominion Post , intoning that the Catholic Church condones neither sex before marriage, nor divorce. And, of course, you must raise your children as Catholics!
Dr Graeme Cumming, who is oft seen commenting on Bill Muehlenberg’s blog, was a Family First candidate for the Queensland seat of Fisher in the 2007 federal election.
“Christians”, says Dr Cumming, “do have and must take up the responsibility (not the “right”) to proclaim God’s law”. Yes, Dr Cumming, but it would be nice if you’d specify when you’re speaking from a religious, rather than a scientific perspective.
Dr Lucas (Luke) McLindon also seems to be a Muehlenberg fan, pointing out in one comment that, “As a committed Catholic, at the end of the day, my loyalties must lie with Scripture first and foremost …” I’m sorry, Dr McLindon, but as a patient I’d rather hope your loyalty was first and foremost to me.
But, if the Liberty of Conscience declaration isn’t quite as ‘secular’ as the FAQs suggest, it is certainly ecumenical. Dr Thalia Shuttleworth is a facilitator at the Sydney Life Church and, apparently, participates in ‘miracle’ healing sessions.(I wonder if that’s covered by Medicare?)
Dr Robert Pollnitz is the chairman of the Lutheran Church of Australia Commission on Social & Bioethcial Questions – not too sure how he would feel about ‘miracles and wonders’.
Dr Rosemary Wong, says her mission as an executive member of the Church of Christ’s Counsel@CrossCulture “is to bring Christ’s healing to the wounded in our families and communities, so that they may become the persons God has created them to be”. Pity if you really just wanted a few stitches.
Dr Graham Toohill, an Anglican from Gippsland, is a ‘vocational deacon’, apparently ‘chosen by God’ for a lifetime of service. Dr Toohill “offers time each week to the parish in pastoral care and outreach.”
Dr Robert Claxton is a Sydney Anglican who worked as a medical missionary in Uganda. He is a board member of African Enterprise a Christian Mission ministry committed to evangelising the cities of Africa (apparently whether they like it or not).
Another signatory with missionary credentials is Dr Richard Shawyer a ‘church planter’ who served as a Bible teaching missionary in Senegal with Worldwide Evangelisation for Christ. Similarly committed to mission work is Dr Rebecca Zachariah who worked with Lutheran Aid to Medicine in Bangladesh.
As my eyes grew dim and the night grew cold, I read that signatory, Dr Jeremy Beckett, is “avidly involved in student ministry with Christian medical and dental students in Perth” and, like Dr Margaret Payne , he works with the Christian Medical and Dental Fellowship of Australia. Jeremy’s speciality is the “interface between Christian faith and clinical practice”. His aim; to minister the love of Christ to broken people. Ah yes, the broken – so delightfully vulnerable.
Dr Beckett probably knows Dr Sally Tsang. Also a member of the CMDFA, Dr Tsang runs Hospital Link which helps to “connect you to fellow believers for refreshing fellowship and prayer right where the mission field (and stress) is!” I wonder how many patients at Dr Tsang’s hospital realise they’ve been admitted to a ‘mission field’?
Another CMDFA signatory is Dr Natasha Yates. In her student days, Dr Yates acted as the medical student bible study leader at ANU.
And where was declaration signatory, Dr Tyler Schofield on Sunday, 9 October 2011? I found him asking the congregation of the Alice Springs Baptist Church to turn to their Bibles for a reading from Revelations. Perhaps he should confer with Dr Nell Muirden who’s been involved writing Bible Studies for the Assembly of Confessing Congregations – a group of Uniting Church dissenters. Or maybe a chat with Dr Andrew Bradbeer who I found busily memorising the first chapter of the Book of Genesis.
Dr Bradbeer might find he has a lot in common with Dr Mathew Piercy who has written for Creation Ministries on the subject “Life is a gift from God”. Isn’t this turning out to be a lovely little coterie of like-minded doctors?
And, as the night turned to morning, and my googling fingers continued their work, more and more came to light. Dr Gabriel James aims to “serve God” by facilitating the 40 Days for Life vigil at Westmead Hospital – all welcome providing they “conduct themselves in a Christ-like manner”.
If that all sounds too ‘kumbaya’ for you, try signatory Dr Arthur Hartwig for a little ‘old school’ religion. In the fundamentalist Christian Saltshakers magazine, Dr Hartwig complains that “Sin has been sanitised, euphemised, relativised, trivialised, corporatised, minimised, even decriminalised.” Ah, bring back those good old days when we stoned homosexuals, eh, Dr Hartwig?
Dr. Theresa Ong has a Grad Dip in Christian Counselling. Dr Nathan Grills has written about the ‘faith effect’ in treating HIV/AIDs and …. well, I could go on, but I think I’ve made my point.
In all I found nearly 70 of the doctors who signed the Liberty of Conscience declaration had clear links to Christian organisations. Of course, not everyone has their religious credentials plastered on the internet for all to see – I was never going to ‘unmask’ everyone. But, even though it might be argued I didn’t find Christian credentials for nearly half the signatories, I challenge those who have no religious affiliation or belief to step forward and declare themselves. I don’t think I’ll be deafened by the response!
Now, I’m not a Christian. I’m avowedly and publicly an atheist. But, I have a very strong ethical code and an incredible aversion to lying and deception. If an organisation tells me they’re ‘not religious’ I expect when I look at its members I will find a pretty good sprinkling of them who are ‘not religious’. I would also expect that religious dogma is not the driving force and influence underpinning the mission (pun intended) of the group in question.
I may not agree with them, but I have no objection to Christians stating their arguments in the public square. I do object, however, when their religious bias is not declared. No politician is going to spend the hours I spent last night googling the credentials of these doctors on a site which explicitly states it has ‘no religious or faith component’. And politicians should know whether the views being put to them are coloured by a hidden religious agenda.
The water of the Liberty of Conscience in Medicine declaration is so muddied with religious belief you could walk on it. And, it seems, there is such an intermingling of these avowedly Christian and avowedly secular ‘pro-life’ and lobbying organisations they even get muddled themselves! Take this telling exchange from the Review of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 [document file]:
Dr Chris FRENCH — Thank you very much for giving us the opportunity to address you regarding our concerns. We have Doctors in Conscience here but the actual proposal was from the Catholic Doctors Association of Victoria, so I will speak on behalf of Catholic Doctors Association of Victoria in this submission. That was Eamonn’s original proposal.
… The Catholic Doctors Association of Victoria gives its total and complete support for the measures to strengthen and clarify human rights. This is a major purpose of this association, linked as it is with a long tradition of preferential care for the disadvantaged of Catholic‑inspired organisations. The association and I personally give full and total support to the sentiments expressed in the preamble of the charter.
The CHAIR — Dr French, I do not mean to interrupt you but the committee was of the understanding that you were representing Doctors in Conscience.
Dr FRENCH — Yes, I must say it did occur to me as I was walking in the front door that the address to Eamonn was Doctors in Conscience. I had understood that this was the Catholic Doctors Association of Victoria. Do you have that in front of you?
The CHAIR — The submission we have is from Dr Eamonn Mathieson.
Ms CAMPBELL — Who is speaking to Eamonn Mathieson’s submission?
Dr FRENCH — I was going to speak to Eamonn’s submission. May I to see your copy?
Ms CAMPBELL — Because Doctors in Conscience is definitely not a Catholic organisation.
Dr FRENCH — Yes, indeed. That’s fine — —
Ms CAMPBELL — It has Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist and non‑religious people involved in it, and that was who we invited.
Dr FRENCH— Okay. In that case — —
Ms CAMPBELL — So we need someone who can speak on Doctors in Conscience.
Dr FRENCH — I can briefly speak on behalf of them. I am a member of that group and I have been working to this particular document so I am prepared. I can speak on behalf of it.
Ms CAMPBELL — But you are also a member of Catholic doctors of Victoria?
Dr FRENCH — Yes, I am, as it happens. So I can speak on behalf of Doctors in Conscience. I am a member of both organisations and I have actually prepared my proposal based on this document that has been given to you.
The CHAIR — On the submission of Doctors in Conscience?
Dr FRENCH — Yes.
The CHAIR — Okay. And the opening remarks you were making are consistent with the submission of Doctors in Conscience?
Dr FRENCH — Yes.
Oh dear! It’s so hard when you simply can’t remember whether to wear your Catholic camauro or your secular slouch hat when fronting up to these inquiries!
If Christians want to have their voices respected in the public square it’s time to stop these ridiculous games of religious hide ‘n seek. If your views are based on your religious convictions, at least have the honesty and courage to say so. If you can support your religious convictions with reasonable secular argument based on evidence and good science, by all means do so. But, for Christ’s sake (literally) have the decency to make it clear that even if every bit of evidence supported the opposite view, you would still oppose the proposition purely on religious grounds. After all, you wouldn’t want us to think that Christians cynically conceal their dogmatic beliefs in secular clothing and try to pass them off as ‘science’. That wouldn’t be acting in good conscience at all, would it?
“do you really want a rabidly anti-abortion doctor performing your abortion?”
No. I want a rabidly anti-abortion doctor to cease being a doctor.
Once again a wonderful article, you express my thoughts so well!!
Hi Chrys, when you advised me to stay tuned I had no idea that my suspicions would be so resoundingly confirmed.
Sorry for instigating the lost sleep
Chrys, Well said. As an active member of the pro euthanasia movement for over 10 years,I have oscillated between amusement and frustration at the shameless deception practised by people who are supposed to have superior morals. The arguments advanced are rarely religious based probably because they mean nothing to those who do not take things on “faith”. Another source of amusement is their insistence that God is the one who decides the timing of ones life’s end. And yet they are equally insistent that it is OK,indeed advisable to prolong life with all sorts of medical intervention.
Oh well feretted!
And I must say, I agree with everything you’ve written here – in there is something particularly distasteful about proclaiming one’s religious faith out of one side of one’s mouth, while denying it out of the other!
Justin: agreed. It’s pathetically obvious that if you’re unwilling to do your job, you have a right not to do it; but your employer then has a responsibility to fire you. Anyone who is unwilling to accept the rules of the medical profession has no right to be a medical professional.
Yeah I did the research too. Dr. Dunjey is a liar when he claims to be secular. It’s fkn disgusting how low christian doctors stink, while claiming to be ethical.
May there be a time in the future when Doctors must be compelled to declare their ‘allegiance’ before taking you as a patient.
Thank you Chrys for yet another important, well formed and clearly argued piece that expresses my ideas.
A few years ago when my children were still in high school I heard of how some of the female students could not obtain a safe abortion in our nearby ‘city’. None of the doctors would perform the procedure so they had to travel as far away as Tweed Heads to obtain the necessary help. This was pre RU486. When that finally went through one of my daughters rang me from school and said she would not be on the bus from school as she was attending a local GP to obtain the ‘morning after pill’. The girl was distressed and beside herself…’her mother would kill her’…so my daughter took her to the doctors in town who was one of the only ones who bulk billed so she could be helped.
I shall never forget that in the 1990′s-2002 young girls could not easily obtain legal abortions nor could happily be aware of the choices of medical help.
I later asked a nurse I knew why there were no abortions preformed locally. She said it was not only the doctors but that the chief theatre nurse refused to be involved in the abortion procedure so was holding the young female population of an area of 80,000 people to ransom.
Thanks again for this. You are a gem.
I take my hat off to you Chrys for all your research. Disappointing but not surprising to see these links. As for the doctors representing and lying about their organisations … hardly “Christian” in my book.
Thanks for burning the midnight oil to enlighten us. What a great expose. Their subterfuge is very concerning.
On the plus side, it’s nice to have a list of doctors to avoid.
Dr Chris FRENCH — “Thank you very much for giving us the opportunity to address you regarding our concerns. We have Doctors in Conscience here but the actual proposal was from the Catholic Doctors Association of Victoria, so I will speak on behalf of Catholic Doctors Association of Victoria in this submission. That was Eamonn’s original proposal.
“… The Catholic Doctors Association of Victoria gives its total and complete support … ”
[snip]
The CHAIR — ‘The submission we have is from Dr Eamonn Mathieson.”
Ms CAMPBELL — “Who is speaking to Eamonn Mathieson’s submission?”
Dr FRENCH — ‘I was going to speak to Eamonn’s submission. May I to see your copy?”
[snip]
The CHAIR — ” … the opening remarks you were making are consistent with the submission of Doctors in Conscience?”
Dr FRENCH — “Yes.”
Give an extra dimension to the phrase “Holy Fuck”, doesn’t it?!
*Gives* an extra dimension to the phrase “Holy Fuck”, doesn’t it?!
These Christians are flouting one of their beloved ‘commandments’ about “false witness” (No 9). Fucking Hypocrites! Totally “anti-Hypocratic”!
Chrys, if you can edit, please put Good or Good Conscience in inverted commas or quotation marks to suitably express irony – “Good” Conscience or “Good Conscience”. It really is too much!
Holey (sic) “holy” fucking hypocrites!
I know (as in, worked with) some of the folks who signed that declaration. There was no doubt in my mind that these are fine upstanding Christians working for the interests of their imaginary friends, and not so much that of their patients. Nice work in digging it up.
Great article, Chrys. You are doing a great job of lifting the rock and forcing the creepy crawlies into the light. Thanks.
Hi Chrys
What a very revealing article.
But why is “But” the linking word in these sentences?”
“Now, I’m not a Christian. I’m avowedly and publicly an atheist. But, I have a very strong ethical code and an incredible aversion to lying and deception.”
How about:
“Now, I’m not a Christian. I’m avowedly and publicly an atheist, and I have a very strong ethical code and an incredible aversion to lying and deception.”
Sorry to be picky, but I think you do yourself a great disservice otherwise.
[...] Gladly, the Cross-Eyed Bear My interest was piqued yesterday by a Twitter exchange between bioethicist Leslie Cannold and sceptic, Ken Dally (aka Cowcakes)… [...]
Brilliant. Great work.
“The cock crew a third time,” etc.
The 2 part doco on the Dover trial was repeated just last week on SBS. I highly recommend it. The Discovery Institute is a thoroughly bogus organisation.
Also: Elvis Semen?
I see this as nothing but bashing Christians once again. It appears to me that the world is happy to be open to any religion and opens it’s arms to diversity except when it involves Christianity. Did it not ever occur to you morally superior people that perhaps these doctors are not going in as a solely Christian group because then they would never even get looked at or listened to. Did it not ever occur to you that people who are Christians can have an opinion on something and put the religious implications of that aside and speak to that matter from a logical medical view point. Did it ever occur to you that these people do feel strongly about this issue and they know of other non-religious doctors who also feel that way so why band together as numbers are often what make the difference in whether one is heard or not. Why does it outrage you that doctors have a right to refuse to perform or prescribe procedures/medicine which goes against their moral beliefs? Why is that people don’t bat an eyelid at a Muslim/Buddist/Islamist etc refusing to do things that are against their beliefs but Christians are not afforded this right? Aren’t you using this article simply to push your athiest ‘anti-Christian’ agenda? Are we really happy to be going down a path where doctors are not able to conscientiously object to perform or prescribe medical procedures/prescriptions that they are opposed to? Do you want to go to a doctor who blindly carries out procedures without thought or conscience to the consequences? What if the euthanasia laws change to allow doctors to start killing off patients that are simply a burden on society rather than close to death and untreatable? Or what if the cost of treating them is too high? Is it okay to euthanase then? I for one am happy to live in a society where people have the freedom to object according to their morals and conscience. Look to history and see what happens when people of morals and conscience are stopped from speaking out. This model of euthanasia has happened before and we choose to ignore that, then it was called “the Final Solution” and the world was unaware until it was finally discovered after over 6 million healthy men, women and children were killed. Lachlan Dunjey has a quote he likes to use which goes along the lines of …’all it takes for evil to occur is that good men do nothing.’
Tanya, no-one is imposing anything on Christians. Euthanasia, by legal definition, requires consent. Christians will not be forced to choose euthanasia, nor to have an abortion, nor to marry someone of the same sex.
If you don’t think workers should be forced to do anything against their morals and/or religion, do you believe that Muslim taxi drivers should have the right to refuse airport passengers carrying duty free alcohol? Do you think shop assistants should be able to refuse to sell cigarettes? What if I’m morally opposed to selling hamburgers to fat people – should I take a job at McDonalds and then refuse to serve clients?
It’s a moot point really, because, in practice Christian doctors aren’t forced to perform abortions or euthanasia against their will. Legalisation may ask them to refer a patient who wants these options to someone else though. That is all.
I don’t think we ask too much. We ask that you don’t impose your religious views on the rest of us and we ask that Christians should represent themselves honestly in the public square. Christians are currently failing badly in both these areas and your reputations are suffering because of it.
“Why is that people don’t bat an eyelid at a Muslim/Buddist/Islamist etc refusing to do things that are against their beliefs but Christians are not afforded this right?”
Tanya, here we go again with a claim of special religious persecution where none exists. I can assure you that other religions behaving in this way will get exactly the same reaction here. For any medical professional to force their own morality on a patient is wrong. It is also morally abhorrent to not refer a patient in such circumstances.
Your argument on looking to history is a complete non sequitur. Genocide bears no relevance to the debate on euthanasia, it a scare tactic used by those without an argument in attempt to pervert/divert the conversation. And really bringing up the whole soundly disproved Hitler was an atheist meme. Oh! and attributing a quote to the wrong person just shows the poor quality of any research you may or may not have done. The quote ’all it takes for evil to occur is that good men do nothing” is actually a sentiment attributed to the Irish political philosopher Edmund Burke although it is generally pointed out it does not appear in that form in any of his writings but is a summarised interpretation of some of his work.