Following is the Hansard report on Cate Faehrmann MLC’s comments in the NSW Parliament about the actions of Dr Catherine Lennon, devout Catholic, NSW President of Doctors for the Family,  founder and board member of Matercare Australia and opponent of Ms Faehrmann’s Rights of the Terminally Ill Bill. That Bill is being debated, today (23 May 2013) in the NSW Parliament.

In Parliament yesterday, Ms Faehrmann quoted extensively from my blog post on Dr Lennon. I hope my readers and fellow bloggers will be heartened by the fact that we ‘citizen journalists’ can bring such issues to light and that we can have an impact if we speak out.

The mainstream media does not have to control the public debate.

But, if we ‘citizen journalists’ are to claim our power to expose and influence, we must not become the monster we are fighting. We must enter any campaign with an absolute commitment to honesty and ethics – even when this restriction may make it more difficult to achieve our aims.

I live by the maxim, attributed to Edmund Burke, “All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing”. It guides everything I do.

Ironically, Dr Lennon probably feels the same way.

But, in fighting against that which, she believes is ‘evil’, Dr Lennon has crossed the line. The end does not justify the means if the means are deceptive, dishonest, misleading and designed to misrepresent the truth. This is not only a sin against God (should you believe in him), it is a sin against mankind. This is not the way to argue or to win your case and I will never stoop to that level.

I hope to see Dr Lennon do the decent thing and step down from her position as president for Doctors of the Family NSW and from her board position on Matercare NSW.  She has done neither of them proud.

Hansard – New South Wales Legislative Council, 22 May 2013

EUTHANASIA PARLIAMENTARY BRIEFING

The Hon. CATE FAEHRMANN [10.15 p.m.]: I draw to the attention of the House the behaviour of Dr Catherine Lennon, who attended a briefing that I held for members on my Rights of the Terminally Ill Bill a few weeks ago. I will quote Chrys Stevenson and her wordpress blog called “That’s my philosophy” at length. At that meeting a person identified herself as the adviser to the member for Castle Hill, Dominic Perrottet. It turned out that this person was Dr Catherine Lennon, a Catholic pro-life activist and president of the quasi-religious lobby group Doctors for the Family. Dr Lennon is not a member of Mr Perrottet’s staff, as she indicated; she is his sister-in-law. However, she had not been invited in her own right nor had she been invited to attend the private briefing, although that is how she identified herself.

After she left the briefing, Dr Lennon made two telephone calls to the Australasian College for Emergency Medicine to complain that Dr David Leaf had made a statement to the effect that all emergency specialists are trained in euthanasia. That statement is disgraceful and untrue. Mr Perrottet has been adamant in his conversations with a number of people, including me, that Dr Lennon was not a member of his staff and that he had not asked her to attend the briefing on his behalf, nor did she have his permission to represent herself as his proxy.

In her email to members of Parliament several days afterwards, Dr Lennon capitalised on the credibility inherent in her professional standing as a doctor but curiously failed to disclose her other interests. Nowhere in that email did Dr Lennon mention her position as president of Doctors for the Family, nor did she admit to being a founder and a board member, along with her husband, Richard, of Matercare Australia—a non-profit Catholic organisation that specifically enjoins medical professionals to act as prophetic witnesses “by reflecting on the teaching and practice of contemporary maternal health care in the light of the Gospel and its values most recently presented in the Encyclical, Evangelium Vitae.”

In short, in writing to New South Wales members of Parliament, Dr Lennon fails to disclose an important vested interest. It is clear that in all things medical Dr Lennon answers primarily to the doctrines of the Catholic Church and the teachings of the Pope. One wonders whether she discloses that to her patients. In her email Dr Lennon misuses the term “involuntary euthanasia”—which is always illegal; what she means is “non-voluntary euthanasia. Euthanasia without explicit request—non-voluntary euthanasia—is not ideal, but unbiased studies recognise that it is sometimes unavoidable if the best interests of the patient are to be served. A doctor or an academic well versed in the literature on voluntary euthanasia would not make this basic error. It is the strategy of a propagandist to use an emotive term that is easily misunderstood by those not familiar with the terminology.

Dr Lennon complains that during the parliamentary briefing neither Dr Leaf nor Dr Ryan “gave any factual evidence, medical references or accurate statistics”. It is rather difficult to provide bibliographic references in a short presentation, but Dr Leaf’s 2012 article on the safety of voluntary euthanasia legislation around the world, published in the British Medical Journal, provides a number of informative references on this subject. Conversely, email lends itself perfectly to hyperlinks and bibliographic references, yet Dr Lennon’s email provides no usable links or academic sources to help members of Parliament check the validity of her claims.

For example, Dr Lennon alleges that, according to the Journal of Geriatric Internal Medicine in February 2008, “most doctor assisted suicides in Oregon were not requested due to physical pain but most were due to ‘existential’ suffering and some patients were physically healthy”. The statement is technically true, but by omitting the context of this factoid Dr Lennon cleverly gives the false impression that otherwise healthy patients in Oregon are being euthanised simply because they are depressed. That is categorically untrue and a scandalous misinterpretation of the data.

The question of course, which Dr Lennon neatly evades, is not who asks for voluntary euthanasia but who receives it. It is true that 93.5 per cent of patients who take advantage of Oregon’s death with dignity legislation say they are less concerned about physical pain and more concerned about loss of autonomy. Some 92.2 per cent cite the decreasing ability to participate in the activities that made life enjoyable and 77.9 per cent say that they are concerned about loss of dignity. However, under Oregon law a patient may request a prescription for lethal medication on the basis of their “existential suffering” until the cows come home, but unless they are terminally ill, mentally competent and have less than six months to live there is not a doctor in Oregon who can legally oblige. It is strange that Dr Lennon did not think it was important to make that clarification in her email to members of Parliament.

Dr Lennon also accuses Dr Leaf of failing “to acknowledge that most patients asking for lethal injections or other forms of assisted suicide actually have depression which affects their cognition and usually responds well to treatment and support”. The kindest interpretation of the many howlers in Dr Lennon’s email to members is that she has cut and pasted propaganda from pro-life bloggers such as Alex Schadenberg and Paul Russell, who was formerly the senior officer of the Catholic Archdiocese of Adelaide’s Office of Family and Life, but she has not bothered to go back to the source documents. That is unforgiveable for someone who is academically trained.

——————

A quotation which sent to me during the last couple of days suggests that, even according to her fellow-Catholics, Dr Lennon has let the team down badly.

The following quote is from Father Frank Brennan SJ’s address ‘Re-imagining the Mission — A Pilgrimage of Faith’, presented at the Catholic Education Sandhurst Conference: A Pilgrimage of Faith, presented 24 May 2012 at Catholic College Bendigo.

“If we as the People of God rejoicing in the name ‘Catholic’ are to bring the modern world into contact with the vivifying and perennial energies of the gospel, we need to ensure that our Church is an exemplar of the noblest values espoused by people of all faiths and none.We need to recommit ourselves to charity, justice and truth both within our own structures when dealing with each other, and in all our dealings with those outside the membership of our Church, especially those who differ with us conscientiously about the moral challenges of the Age.”

Chrys Stevenson

Dr Catherine Lennon

Voluntary euthanasia is a subject which inherently incites passionate debate from both advocates and opponents. Of course, it is only right that voluntary euthanasia legislation should be approached cautiously, with due regard for the rights and safety of patients. Those who find flaws in current or proposed legislation should, of course, state their case forcefully – using evidence and reason as a means of persuasion.

Unfortunately, this is not what happens commonly in debates over voluntary euthanasia legislation.

In a scholarly (2008) tome  on voluntary euthanasia in Europe, John Griffiths, Emeritus Professor of Sociology of Law at the University of Groningen, complains that:

“Imprecision, exaggeration, suggestion and innuendo, misinterpretation and misrepresentation, ideological ipsedixitism, and downright lying and slander (not to speak of bad manners) have taken the place of careful analysis of the problem and consideration of the Dutch evidence.”

It would not be inaccurate to say that the vast majority of this kind of breathtakingly mendacious propaganda emanates from the Catholic Church and its supporters.

Too harsh?

Last year, I had the privilege of viewing a yet-to-be released video interview between Els Borst, the politician who proposed the Netherland’s voluntary euthanasia bill and Neil Francis, formerly the CEO of Australia’s peak body on dying with dignity, Your Last Right.

In the video, Ms Borst complains that, in the late 1990s, after L’Osservatore Romano, the ‘semi-official’ newspaper of the Holy See, printed ‘absolute lies’ about voluntary euthanasia in the Netherlands she headed a delegation to the Vatican. Together with the Dutch Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Dutch Ambassador to the Holy See, Ms Borst told three top-level officials that if the lies didn’t stop, the Netherlands would sever diplomatic ties with the Vatican. It was that serious.

Earlier this month, I became aware of Sydney GP, Dr Catherine Lennon; a woman who shows  the lengths to which religious zealotry can drive a person to simultaneously believe they are supporting all that is good, Christian and moral, while acting in a way that is completely contrary to any Christian ethic as I understand it.

In the vast scheme of things, perhaps, Lennon’s sins are minor. But, taken to its nth degree, it is this kind of flawed and dangerous reasoning that drives religious zealots to believe that God not only wants them to fly planes into buildings, he will reward them for it.

On Thursday, 2 May, this year, Greens MP, Cate Faehrmann, introduced her Rights of the Terminally Ill Bill to the NSW Parliament. The Bill is due to be debated on Thursday, 23 May. Ms Faehrmann’s Bill is similar to the Death with Dignity Act which has seen physician assisted dying operate safely and successfully in Oregon since 1997.

The day before she presented her Bill to the NSW Legislative Council, Ms Faehrmann convened a private briefing for members of the NSW Parliament and their staff. This was not a public forum; members of the general public were not invited and entry was – or should have been – by invitation only.

As attendees mingled prior to the briefing, Richard Mills, President of Dying with Dignity NSW, was in a circle comprising Cate Faehrmann and invited speakers, Dr Chris Ryan and Dr David Leaf. Richard put out his hand to introduce himself to a blonde woman nearby. She, in turn, introduced herself to the group as Catherine, an adviser (parliamentary terminology for a staffer)  for Dominic Perrottet, the member for Castle Hill.

But, as it turns out, this was not the truth at all.

Subsequently, it became apparent that this person was Dr Catherine Lennon, a Catholic pro-life activist and president of the quasi-religious lobby group Doctors for the Family. Dr Lennon mentioned none of this when she introduced herself to Ms Faehrmann et al; and, for good reason. Dr Lennon is not a member of Mr Perrottet’s staff, nor had she been invited, in her own right, to attend the private briefing. Effectively, she was a gate-crasher.

NSW Labor MLC, Helen Westwood, who attended the briefing but was not privy to Ms Lennon’s introduction, explains why Dr Lennon’s presence at the parliamentary briefing is a matter for concern.

“If Dr Lennon did misrepresent herself as a staff member of a serving member of parliament (MP), her credibility as an honest broker of information in this debate must be damaged. Also, I am concerned that if she misrepresented herself that her actions jeopardise the future of Members’ briefings.

MPs are invited to attend Members’ briefings on the understanding that these are not a forum open to the public or the media, they are organised on the basis of an information session where MPs can hear from experts and ask questions that will assist them in understanding the Bill/Policy that they will be voting on without fear of having their comments/questions reported.

It allows for a free flow on information and can be very helpful to MPs in fulfilling their responsibilities to their constituency. I am concerned that MPs will be reluctant to attend Members briefings on these very controversial & polarising issues in the future if they believe their participation/attendance can be used as a weapon against them by members of the public with their own political agenda.”

Dr Lennon’s deception would not have become apparent if she had been content to quietly attend the meeting, take her notes and report back to the religious activists she was really representing. But religious zealotry is, by nature, neither quiet nor subtle.

After she left the briefing, Dr Lennon made two telephone calls to the Australasian College for Emergency Medicine (ACEM) to complain, in ‘very aggressive’ tones, that Dr Leaf had made a statement to the effect that all emergency specialists are trained in euthanasia – the implication being that the college trains doctors to kill people.

That is, of course, untrue, Dr Leaf had said nothing of the kind and had not mentioned the college in his presentation.

It was a spiteful move on Dr Lennon’s part and one designed, specifically, to damage Dr Leaf professionally.

Not content with that, Dr Lennon then wrote a diatribe (Catherine Lennon – Email to NSW Parliament), specifically targeting Dr Leaf, which she emailed to every MLC in NSW. The email is potentially defamatory and chock-full of misleading propaganda about voluntary euthanasia. 

Hearing of this bizarre train of events, I decided to find out more about the mysterious Dr Lennon. Why had she introduced herself as a staffer for the member for Castle Hill when it was clear that she was, in fact, a Sydney GP and pro-life activist?

Following a long telephone conversation with Mr Perrottet, the member for Castle Hill, I was able to establish that Dr Lennon is not an ‘adviser’, not a member of his staff, but his sister-in-law.

In his conversations with me and, later with Dr Leaf, Mr Perrottet was adamant that Dr Lennon was not a member of his staff, he had not asked her to attend the briefing on his behalf, nor did she have his permission to represent herself as his proxy.

Mr Perrottet clearly hadn’t asked for an ‘adviser’ to attend the meeting on his behalf – he told me he had no interest in the Bill.

Later, speaking to Greens MLC Cate Faehrmann, Mr Perrottet said he had spoken to Dr Lennon and she admitted to him that she had represented herself at the meeting as his ‘adviser’.

I would love to be a fly on the wall at the next Perrottet/Lennon family gathering!

One has to marvel at the zealotry which rationalises, not only using a family member’s position to deceptively gain entry to a private gathering, but in so doing, exposing that innocent kinsman to political embarrassment.

Dr Lennon’s post-briefing email to MPs is a study in Catholic pro-life propaganda.

As Cate Faehrmann says:

“It seems that nothing is beyond the religious right to block reform so desperately wanted by the vast majority of the community, including wrecking the careers of doctors who support voluntary euthanasia law reform. Their tactics often include lying and deception yet they seem to get away with this time and time again. It’s disgraceful and they need to be called on it every time they do it.”

Well, Cate, I’m calliing it.

In her email, to MPs, Dr Lennon is keen to capitalise on the credibility inherent in her professional standing as a doctor, but curiously fails to disclose her other interests. Nowhere does Dr Lennon mention her position as President of the dogma-driven Doctors for the Family.

Neither does she admit to being a founder and board member, (along with husband, Richard), of Matercare Australia – a non-profit Catholic organisation which specifically enjoins medical professionals to act as ‘prophetic witnesses’ “by reflecting on the teaching and practice of contemporary maternal health care in the light of the Gospel and its values most recently presented in the Encyclical, Evangelium Vitae”.

In short, in writing to NSW MPs, Dr Lennon fails to disclose an important vested interest: it is clear that, in all things medical, she answers, primarily, to the doctrines of the Catholic Church and the teachings of the Pope. One wonders if she discloses that to her patients?

Ophelia

Throughout her email to MPs, Catherine Lennon nonchalantly tosses about claims and statistics torn ruthlessly from their contexts. I have a mental image of Dr Lennon, Ophelia-like, madly but merrily tearing petals off flowers and casting them adrift in the stream.

This is a favourite strategy of pro-life religious campaigners. The academic and medical articles which report on these issues are complex. Often, the terms used – such as ‘involuntary euthanasia’, ‘non-voluntary euthanasia’ and ’euthanasia without explicit request’– are not what they seem to the uninformed reader and this is expertly exploited.

In fact, in her email, Dr Lennon misuses the term ‘involuntary euthanasia’ (which is always illegal) when what she means is ‘non-voluntary euthanasia’. Euthanasia without explicit request (non-voluntary euthanasia) is not ideal, but unbiased studies recognise that it is sometimes unavoidable if the best interests of the patient are to be served.

A doctor or academic well-versed in the literature on voluntary euthanasia would not make this basic error. It is a propagandist’s strategy to use an emotive term that is easily misunderstood by those not familiar with the terminology.

Dr Lennon complains that, during the Parliamentary briefing, neither Dr Leaf nor Dr Ryan “gave any factual evidence, medical references or accurate statistics”.

It’s rather difficult to provide bibliographic references in a short presentation. But Dr Leaf’s 2012 article on the safety of voluntary euthanasia legislation around the world, published in the British Medical Journal, provides a number of informative references on this subject.

Conversely, email lends itself perfectly to hyperlinks and bibilographic references, yet Dr Lennon’s email  provides no usable links or academic sources to help MPs check the validity of her claims.

She alleges, for example, that, according to “the Journal of Geriatric Internal Medicine Feb 2008”, “most doctor assisted suicides in Oregon were NOT requested due to physical pain but most were due to “existential” suffering and some patients were physically healthy.”

Why does Dr Lennon fail to provide the name of this study or its authors?*

The statement is, technically, true but, by omitting the context of this factoid, Dr Lennon cleverly gives the false impression that otherwise healthy patients in Oregon are being euthanised, simply because they are depressed. That is categorically untrue and a scandalous misrepresentation of the data.

The question of course, (which Dr Lennon neatly evades) is not who asks for voluntary euthanasia, but who receives it. Yes, it is true that the majority of patients who take advantage of Oregon’s Death with Dignity legislation say they are less concerned about physical pain and more concerned about loss of autonomy (93.5%), decreasing ability to participate in activities that made life enjoyable (92.2%), and loss of dignity (77.9%).

However, under Oregon law, a patient may request a prescription for a lethal medication on the basis of their ‘existential suffering’ until the cows come home but, unless they are terminally ill, mentally competent, and have less than six months to live, there’s not a doctor in Oregon who can legally oblige.

It’s passing strange that Dr Lennon did not think it was important to make this clarification in her email to MPs.

Adding to her campaign of misinformation, Dr Lennon accuses Dr Leaf of failing “to acknowledge that most patients asking for lethal injections or other forms of assisted suicide actually have depression which affects their cognition and usually responds well to treatment and support”.

In fact, under Ms Faehrmann’s proposed legislation, all terminally ill patients seeking assisted dying must have a psychiatric assessment. As in Oregon, if you suffer from depression which affects your cognition, you would not be eligible under the legislation before the NSW Parliament.

The kindest interpretation of the many howlers in Dr Lennon’s email to MPs is that she has cut and pasted propaganda from pro-life bloggers such as Alex Schadenberg (Executive Director of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition, a Canadian Roman Catholic pressure group) and Paul Russell  (formerly Senior Officer of The Catholic Archdiocese of Adelaide’s “Office of Family and Life”) but has not bothered to go back to the source documents. For someone who is academically trained, this is unforgivable.

A more cynical interpretation might be that Dr Lennon read the source documents, but wilfully chose to misrepresent them in order to make her case; knowing, full well, that most MPs are too busy or simply not interested enough to plough through pages of academic, medical and government reports to verify her claims. In other words, she is trying to play NSW MLCs for fools.

Whatever the reason, there is so much that is wrong in Dr Lennon’s email to members of the NSW Parliament, it’s hard to know where to start.

For example, Dr Lennon cites the Remmelink Report as evidence that, “in The Netherlands, legislation similar to that being proposed to the NSW parliament, resulted in a high number of patients being killed by involuntary euthanasia”.  Conveniently, Dr Lennon fails to provide the bibliographic reference which would show MPs that the Remmelink Report was tabled in 1991 – 22 years ago!

Similarly, Dr Lennon fails to mention that the Remmelink study was undertaken 10 years before the introduction of the current voluntary euthanasia legislation in the Netherlands. The problems identified in Remmelink, are problems addressed by the subsequent Dutch legislation – not problems arising from it. In short, Remmelink provided a pre-legislation ‘baseline study’ by which the success of subsequent legislation could be measured.

Feigning concern about high rates of what she erroneously terms ‘involuntary euthanasia’ in Europe, what Dr Lennon doesn’t tell NSW MLCs  is that, following the experiences of the Netherlands and Belgium, introducing voluntary euthanasia legislation is more likely to reduce deaths  [p.6] ‘without explicit request’ than increase them.

In her email, Dr Lennon complains that, while speaking about the use of Nembutal, Dr Leaf omitted to mention the current case of Erin Berg who “took Nebutal [sic] as instructed by Dr Phillip Nitchke’s [sic] book (and spoke on the phone to him) … had excruciating side effects and died after 10 days in intensive care.”

From Dr Lennon’s tortuous account, it sounds like Erin Berg rang Dr Nitschke, received instructions on where to buy and how to administer Nembutal, and acted under his medical supervision, doesn’t it?

In fact, Ms Berg contacted Dr Nitschke’s Exit International wanting to attend a workshop, but once she ‘came clean’ about her condition and psychiatric background she was told that Exit couldn’t help her.

Dr Lennon knows this. Dr Nitschke was recorded on video last year, publicly correcting Dr Lennon on this point, yet she continues to wilfully misrepresent his involvement in her tirades against voluntary euthanasia.

The case of Erin Berg’s death is far more complex than Dr Lennon suggests and is currently being investigated by the West Australian coroner.  Rather than Dr Nitschke being to blame, it seems the focus is on failures of the WA mental health system. Ms Faehrmann’s legislation will not facilitate psychiatric patients taking a plane to Mexico, buying Nembutal from some back street veterinarian, and taking the drug – and possibly, other drugs – unsupervised, in a hotel room!

Ms Berg’s death was tragic, but it was suicide, not voluntary euthanasia. It bears no relation to the carefully monitored, closely scrutinized system of voluntary euthanasia proposed in Ms Faehrmann’s bill.

It is disingenuous of Dr Lennon to conflate Ms Berg’s death with Ms Faehrmann’s bill and, in fact, Ms Berg’s sisters have said publicly that, despite what happened to their sister, they are not opposed to a person’s right to choose a peaceful death. It is, therefore, exploitative and opportunistic for Dr Lennon to keep dragging Erin Berg into the voluntary euthanasia debate – especially before the Coroner’s report is in.

As I researched Dr Lennon, it became clear that her propaganda filled email and her attack on Dr Leaf is not uncharacteristic. She ‘has form’.

Dr Nitschke’s experience with Dr Lennon is similar to Dr Leaf’s. Asked to debate Dr Lennon by the City Bible College last year, Dr Nitschke found she favoured personal attacks over an honest debate on the research and evidence relating to voluntary euthanasia. Dr Lennon’s attack on Dr Nitschke was so unseemly and aggressive that the embarrassed convenors of the debate, the City Bible College, later apologised to Dr Nitschke for inadvertently placing him in that position.

According to Nitschke, “Although the Erin Berg issue did annoy me at the City Bible Forum, I think it was Lennon’s intimate knowledge of the first AHPRA (Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency) inquiry [into Dr Nitschke’s fitness to hold  medical registration] that had just been launched that was of most concern to me at the time. Indeed it is this seeming close association between AHPRA and the Christian Right that continues to worry me,  with their involvement in the second (concurrent) enquiry.”

Dr Lennon also made something of a name for herself in her previous role as medical spokesperson for Australians Against RU486.  Bioethicist, Dr Leslie Cannold, encountered Dr Lennon during a radio interview on ABC’s Australia Talks Back, during the debate over the drug which has since been approved for use in Australia. Dr Lennon was given to referring colourfully to RU486 as ‘human pesticide’.

Dr Cannold told me that her encounter with Dr Lennon was “the only time I ever ‘lost it’ during the whole campaign.”

The transcript of the debate is unavailable, but Dr Cannold recalls saying something to the effect of, “For God’s sake, Catherine, you’re a doctor – you at least have to stray somewhere near the truth!”

Cannold says she was shocked and distraught that Dr Lennon was, “trading on being a medical professional but so unconstrained by medical fact.”

Dr Lennon was the medical adviser for the book, A Consumer’s Guide to the pill and other drugs, by pharmacist, John Wilks. According to a gushing review of the book on Amazon, Mr Wilks (in agreement with the Vatican and, presumably in concert with his ‘medical adviser’, Dr Lennon) argues that condoms are ineffective in preventing the transmission of HIV/AIDS and STDs and in preventing pregnancy. Another, less enthusiastic, reviewer brands the book, ‘thinly disguised pro-life drivel’.

I’ll leave the last word on Dr Lennon and her ilk to Dr Leslie Cannold. During our telephone conversation, Dr Cannold reflected:

“There seems to be a subset of Christian activists who seem to believe that the means justifies the end. Their own internal conversations with each other basically have the same element that radical movements have – that any means are acceptable in order to achieve the end which, they believe, is moral. It’s particularly misleading for the public when the person uses the title, ‘Doctor’, in front of their name, but pays no regard to fact or truth.”

Amen.

Chrys Stevenson

If you’re in NSW and you like this article, you might like to send the link to your local MLC.

* Richard Mills, President of Dying with Dignity NSW has subsequently located the article referred to by Dr Lennon. It is, in fact, from the Journal of General Internal Medicine (not Geriatric Medicine as stated by Dr Lennon).  It is by Linda Ganzini et al., and the link is “Why Oregon Patients Request Assisted Death: Family Members’ Views”.

That link provides only the summary – but even the summary shows how Ms Lennon cherry-picks information from articles, failing to mention the parts which don’t support her argument. As noted above, it’s important to remember PAD (patient assisted dying) is only available to patients who are terminally ill with less than six months to live.

“According to family members, the most important reasons that their loved ones requested PAD, all with a median score of 4.5 or greater, were wanting to control the circumstances of death and die at home, and worries about loss of dignity and future losses of independence, quality of life, and self-care ability. No physical symptoms at the time of the request were rated higher than a median of 2 in importance. Worries about symptoms and experiences in the future were, in general, more important reasons than symptoms or experiences at the time of the request. According to family members, the least important reasons their loved ones requested PAD included depression, financial concerns, and poor social support.”

Related Posts

Doctors for the Family’s hidden religious agenda

Doctors for the Family – debunked

I call ‘bullshit’ Mr Wallace – Doctors for the Family

Activist dead wrong on voluntary euthanasia (with Dr David Leaf)

The debate on assisted dying: distortion, misinformation and the influence of the religious lobby (speech)

Safe Laws on assisted dying are working worldwide – Dr David Leaf, British Medical Journal

Voluntary euthanasia and the religious right – Dr Jennifer Wilson, No Place for Sheep

Chrys Stevenson BA (Hons I),  is a Queensland-based freelance writer, blogger, speaker, researcher, historian and social activist.  Chrys graduated from Griffith University in the late 1990s and was the recipient of the University Medal for Academic Excellence.

Chrys contributed the first chapter on the history of Australian atheism to Warren Bonnet’s (2010) The Australian Book of Atheism. Since then, she has been published widely in various online journals.

Chrys was the keynote speaker at Dying with Dignity’s NSW 2010 AGM and Conference and, together with Dr Leaf, has written previously about the religious debate on voluntary euthanasia.

Chrys is the convenor of the Sunshine Coast Atheists.

She helped nurse her grandmother through Alzheimer’s and is now a carer for her 89 year old mother who is in the early stages of Alzheimer’s disease.

Chrys will be appearing at the Reality Bites Literary Festival in Cooroy on the Sunshine Coast at the end of July.

As a young woman, I felt strongly that, should I have an unplanned pregnancy, I would not want to have an abortion.

But then the day came when, duped by a man who told me he was sterile, I agreed to unprotected sex when I was not on the pill. The next day this wicked Welsh charmer blithely told me he’d ‘made up’ the part about being sterile.

I fell into a panic. The very last thing I wanted was to be pregnant to this bastard who’d so easily lied to get into my pants! Sure, I’d been stupid, but should I really have to pay for that moment of stupidity for the rest of my life?

I visited the Family Planning Clinic and they gave me a ‘morning after’ pill. I’m not even sure if it was legal then, but they gave it to me. The relief was overwhelming.

Fortunately – more by good luck than good planning – I was never in the position of needing to have an abortion. But, this incident clarified my position in the pro-life, pro-choice debate. I realised you really don’t know how you’re going to feel about an unwanted pregnancy until you’re faced with it. When it’s a purely academic question, you might think you would never have an abortion, but the truth might be quite different when you’re faced with the reality of an unwanted pregnancy.

I came to the view that, regardless of what my personal choice  might be, I couldn’t know in what circumstances other women might be making their decisions. Whether or not I’d choose an abortion for myself was immaterial. It was a woman’s right to make her own decision – ideally in consultation with  a doctor whose only interest was what was best for their patient. I became pro-choice.

So, I was delighted this week when a friend put me in touch with David Nolan, director of communications for the Washington-based, Catholics for Choice. I am always happy to work with and promote the efforts of religious organisations which challenge the antediluvian views of their fundamentalist frères.

According to their website, Catholics for Choice:

“… was founded in 1973 to serve as a voice for Catholics who believe that the Catholic tradition supports a woman’s moral and legal right to follow her conscience in matters of sexuality and reproductive health.”

With a not-inconsiderable budget of $3 million per year, Catholics for Choice imagines a world:

• Where all women and men are trusted to make moral decisions about their lives.
• Where the decision to start a family is thoughtful and planned.
• Where policy makers and advocates are free to support policies that create a more just and compassionate society.
• Where life-saving health interventions aren’t blocked by sectarian interests.
• Where abortion is safe, legal and truly accessible, and both contraception and child care are available and affordable.

Instead, they argue, we live in a world:

• Where abortion remains illegal or unavailable for millions of women around the world, even when it could save their lives.
• Where a woman who needs emergency contraception at a hospital or pharmacy is denied because of the religious beliefs of the pharmacist behind the counter, or the nurse in the emergency room.
• Where policy makers are ostracized in their churches and harassed by their clergy because of their support for sex education or reproductive healthcare for poor women.
• Where a rape survivor in a war torn country can be told by the Vatican that she must continue the pregnancy that resulted from her attack.
• Where more than 40 million people live with HIV and AIDS while the Vatican lobbies against the use of condoms.

“In all parts of the world,” says Catholics for Choice, “women, men and their families suffer because they lack the resources to plan their families, and the comprehensive information and education to keep themselves safe and healthy.”

Moreover:

“The Catholic hierarchy’s powerful lobby plays a huge role in influencing public policy and affects everyone ― Catholic or not ― by limiting the availability of reproductive healthcare services worldwide.”

Meanwhile:

“The Catholic hierarchy’s ban on contraception and abortion has a disastrous impact on women’s lives, especially the lives of poor women who may rely solely on government-run programs for access to reproductive healthcare services.”

Unlike Mother Church, Catholics for Choice recognise that:

“It is women and their families who pay the price every time theocracy trumps democracy in the debate over women’s healthcare.”

Hear! Hear! This is a theme I’ll be returning to in my next blog post about Catholic dogma and medicine in Australia.

Currently, the World Congress of Families is being held in Sydney and Catholics for Choice has a number of delegates attending and reporting back on the disinformation and propaganda being perpetuated as part of this fundamentalist talk-fest.

You see, the World Congress of Families hasn’t been convened to support all families – just the ones who fit with their closed-minded, fundamentalist Christian/orthodox Catholic view of what a ‘natural’ family is. Theirs is a “Leave it to Beaver” concept of the family; a concept which, to be frank, the rest of us discarded along with Leave it to Beaver reruns, back in the 70s.

As the American Academy of Pediatrics attests, not only does the “Leave it to Beaver” family no longer exist – it never existed. It is an idealised, sentimental, entirely fictional, utopian view of family life which suppresses the dysfunction which is, too often,  a hidden feature of the much vaunted nuclear, patriarchal, ‘traditional’ family.

If your family consists of two mums or two dads, a single mum or dad, one or more step- or adoptive parents, or even, perhaps, a family with two dads and two mums yours is not the kind of family the World Congress of Families want to protect – although they certainly have a unhealthy interest in discussing how very bad you are for your kids!

What the World Congress of Families is really about is finding ways to  impose its own narrow, religious view about what a family is on the rest of society. A big clue about that agenda  is that day one of the proceedings included a Greeting to WCF VII from the Vatican, followed by a few words from Archbishop Paglia (speaking via video), on behalf of the Pontifical Council on the Family.

This is not a kumbaya, everyone is beautiful, celebrate diversity kinda gig! It’s a pursed lip, tut-tut, ‘it would never have done for the Bishop – it would never have done for His Grace’ kind of affair.

Looking through the program, there’s a host of the ‘usual suspects’ whose mission in life is to impose their religious doctrine upon those of us who don’t share it: Bill Muehlenberg (sigh!), Angela Shanahan (groan!), Miranda Devine (*eye roll*), David van Gend (unprintable!), Miriam Grossman (unspeakable!), Nicholas Tonti-Filippini (flippin’ heck!), Mary-Louise Fowler (conference chair and also head of the Australian Family Association), Peter Westmore and Pat Byrne (president and vice-president of the National Civic Council – ’nuff said!)  … and so on, ad nauseum.

If you put ’em all in a pot, melted ’em down ( missionary style!), drained off the contam-inated water and served up the rest, you’d have a nice big bowl of unadulterated bigotry, balderdash and bile; the three major food groups for would-be religious zealots.

What is heartening is that the vast majority of Christians don’t agree with the bullshit being cast about with gay abandon at the WCF.

For example:

• Only a very small percentage (around 14 per cent) of Catholics support the Vatican’s view that abortion should never be legal.
• A majority (53 per cent)  of Australian Christians support same-sex marriage.
• A majority (54 per cent) of American Catholics support same-sex marriage.
• A majority (82 per cent) of American Catholics think contraception is morally acceptable.

Not to put too fine a point on it, despite it’s rather grand sounding name, the World Congress of Families is a neighbourhood meeting for a fringe group of religious fundamentalist bigots and theocrats; people who hold an extreme minority view on issues relating to the family and who want to impose that view, through policy, on the rest of us.

So, it’s wonderful that Catholics for Choice are there taking notes and holding their feet to the fire.

Catholics for Choice describe the World Congress of Families as a ‘festival of verbal and logical hijinks’ and their reports on the hijinks are highly entertaining.

The Introductory Report  suggests that, even amongst its followers, the World Congress for Families has gone off  with all the force of a (rather pathetically organised) damp squib:

“The 2013 World Congress of Families (WCF) kicked off in Sydney a few hours ago to little effect, even among its own. Hours after the opening ceremony welcomed attendees, neither the website, the Twitter feed nor the Facebook page mentioned great speeches, rousing applause or magnificent crowds. In fact, each still had the conference as starting in the future and was holding out hope for more registrants, with the long-extended early bird price open to every bird.”

According to Catholics for Choice:

“Australian columnist Phil Scott, writing for Gay News Network, has provided the best description so far of the organizers: “This organisation hails from Rockford, Illinois, courtesy of the Howard Centre for Family, Religion and Junk Mail. They believe in the ‘natural family’ (heterosexual variety) and promote reparation therapy for homosexuals. Reparation comes from the verb ‘to repair.’ Did you guys know you were broken? Funny, neither did I. Guess it depends on your perspective.”

But it seems likely that all that good advice on how to force women to have children they don’t want and how to turn gay people straight has not found a large, receptive audience in Sydney. Catholics for Choice note the rising desperation in the tone of the Congress’s correspondence as the opening day drew closer:

“The World Congress of Families 7 Sydney is almost upon us and as you COUNT DOWN the days to the Congress, the Organising Committee is COUNTING UP the participants—we need your help….[We] would like to see double the number of delegates registered … to know that this Congress is on track.”

Funny, we didn’t have that kind of problem with the Global Atheist Convention – we filled the enormous space of the Melbourne Convention and Exhibition Centre. It was wall to wall heathens!

Catholics for Choice report on Day One of the proceedings is now published, and subsequent reports will be up on their website soon.  Apparently, the Sydney WCF has attracted – wait for it – around 250 delegates.  With 84 keynote and invited speakers on the program, that’s a ratio (at best) of about 3 audience members per speaker. (Chrys suppresses an almost uncontrollable urge to let loose with a loud, manical laugh):

When I was working in the theatre we used to refer to this kind of pathetically small turnout as an ‘audient’ – too small to be referred to with the collective noun, ‘audience’.

Still, you’d expect those who did attend to be enthusiastically in favour of speakers who barrack for the ‘natural’ (aka heterosexual) family. But, says Catholics for Choice, the speeches are getting less than a luke-warm reception.  For example, Australian Bishop, Peter Elliot’s, “celebration of the family, used as a justification for keeping the status quo ante on all issues of marriage and sexuality, was not met with the enthusiastic reception one would expect from the family’s staunchest protectors. Instead, we had silence.”

According to the Catholics for Choice spies observers:

“Throughout the day various forms of tortured reasoning, often the hallmark of conservative politics, were in evidence. They included the mistaking of correlation for causation; fallacious appeals to nature (sometimes known as the “is-ought” problem); selective empiricism; and the “best defense is offense” tactic of ascribing one’s own moral failings to others.

Time and time again, speakers would contend that the very existence of the family constellation with which they are most comfortable was proof that this type of family was both inevitable and morally correct.”

Commenting on the speakers’ contortions as they tried to ram ‘square-peg’ academic research into ideological round holes (ooh, that sounds slightly salacious doesn’t it?) Catholics for Choice report on ‘appalling breaches of academic rigor and honesty’ and “data” produced by ideologically driven research which ‘mistakes moral rigidity for scientific rigor’. Why am I not surprised?

The whole thing sounds rather sad and underwhelming. The problem is, apparently, that even those who are attending this sorry symposium realise their defence of the ‘natural family’ simply isn’t gaining traction; not in society nor even with their fellow Christians. They are ideological outliers – a rapidly diminishing population of social pariahs. An iota of extremists. A morsel of monomaniacs. A pinch of puritans. A tiddy-bit of traditionalists. A zero-population of zealots.  A smidgen of sophists.

As Catholics for Choice insightfully conclude:

“Once the door closes with a bang on all the groups who aren’t ‘our sort of people’, you’re left shut in with only people like yourself to talk to, and what is there to say?

If today was any indication, there’s a lot of silence and not much substance.”

If you’d like to be kept up to date on the World Congress of Families Sydney, 2013, email djnolan at catholicsforchoice dot org and ask to be put on their WCF mailing list. I know they’d like to spread the word.

Chrys Stevenson

That Deveny woman’s been at it again!

This time she’s been bagging ANZAC Day. The hide of the woman! In a series of tweets on 25 April, Catherine Deveny wrote:

“Anzac Day. A celebration of a society so fucked up it saw no other option than to go to war. Kill, rape and invade. Then glorify it.

“The ‘spirit of ANZAC’ does not define our nation. It’s our peaceful secular democracy rooted in workers rights, feminism & multiculturalism.

“Read your history. No war Australia has ever fought has resulted in our ‘freedom’ or ‘opportunities’.

“Days like #anzacday are simply a rewriting of history to stop the sucked in and ripped off burning down parliament and killing politicians.

“Not the day for it? The only day for it. Show respect? That’s exactly what I’m doing.

“It’s very clear Japan had no intention of invading Australia. The persistance (sic) of this myth is amazing/alarming/convenient.”

I’ve written here about why I didn’t put the boot into Deveny. But, many others disagreed with her in the strongest possible terms, as is their right.

What concerns me is that those brave, true-blue, hand-on-the-heart Aussies who tore into Catherine (for pointing out what others think is nothing more than the bleeding obvious) have not been given due credit for their insightful arguments, their compelling defence of the ANZAC tradition, their use of evidence, or their patient and persuasive polemic on why a view held, not only by Deveny, but also by many veterans, should be taboo. It’s a crying shame, really.

It seems to me that those people who took on Deveny should really get their moment in the spotlight. Their ANZAC Day efforts should appear whenever a prospective partner or employer happens to Google their name. After all, they must be so very proud, defending their country and all. It hardly seems fair that they should just fade into oblivion after taking all that time finding pithy adjectives to throw at a hard-working woman and mother who just happens to have a different take on ANZAC Day to them. I tossed and turned all last night just thinking about the injustice of it all.

So, here in my little corner of the blogosphere, I’m happy to shine a light on Deveny’s critics; happy to use my network to make them a lot better known. And, with a little bit of nifty internet research, I’m delighted to say, if you read on, you can get to know these Aussie heroes better. Perhaps you’ll even recognise one or two of them. Catherine tells me she’s already getting lots of emails from people saying, “Oh my God! I know that person!” And boy, do they deserve the recognition! So, here goes:

Richo Richman aka Richard Heath

As you can see, Richo has a real way with words. That’s why he’s such a hugely successful comedian. Really! Just google him and you’ll see all the gigs he’s done and where he’s gigging next. Well, maybe not. It seems Richo’s comedic talent is largely undiscovered – or, perhaps, undiscoverable.

Apparently Richo was educated at Timbertop school. Maybe that’s where he learned all those big words. Timbertop must be so proud.

Still, comedian and radio personality Meshel Laurie seems to appreciate his style. Perhaps we’ll see Richo performing the warm up for Meshel’s next show, eh?

Ignibus Ignes

Aww, shucks. I wasn’t able to find Ignibus Ignes’ real name but I’m sure hoping someone will recognise him or her. Ignibus (not to be confused with Ignorant) is a dyed in the wool Liberal supporter.

Almost as cranky with the Greens and Labor as he/she is with Deveny, Ignibus (proudly incognito) boasts the photo of a cockpit of a superhornet as his/her icon. An RAAF connection there? Or simply Walter Mitty wishful thinking?

Come on, Ignibus – don’t be shy! Tell us who you are. After all, your nemesis, Catherine, is at least ‘man’ enough to make her statements under her real name. I’m sure your anonymity is an oversight.

Mick Thom

Mick (aka Michael) Thom is a St Bernard’s College old boy. Ah, those Catholic schools, they really know how to produce fine, upstanding Australian citizens, don’t they? Tony Abbott, George Pell and now, Michael Thom! I wonder if Mick has political aspirations. I sure hope I can give him a little more exposure!

Michael’s an athletic sort and still close to his old alma mater. He’s the Vice President of St Bernard’s Old Collegian’s Cricket Club and their 2^nd XI Captain – for now, at least.

If you want to join Michael Thom’s fan club you can find him on Twitter: @mickthom10

Russell (Mad Dog) Hutchison

Russell Nelson Hutchison (aka Mad Dog) is a Vietnam vet and avid beer can collector from Vincent, Townsville. Russell served as a tactical operator on HMAS Sydney and HMAS Stuart between 1965 and 1968, back in the day when women were scarce aboard naval ships; perhaps just as well.

Maybe we should introduce Russell to Gracie Grace who believes that Australian soldiers are unique among the world’s armies in their categorical rejection of violence against women.

After all, as Russell so forcefully argues, a good raping is perfectly acceptable providing the woman deserves it.

Dean “Trash” Willis

Dean Willis is another one of those unassuming critics who hides his light under a bushel. Not one to push his real name into the limelight, Willis prefers to ‘trash’ people under his trashy pseudonym. He also goes by the name of Deany_yo on Instagram. I’m sure he’ll appreciate the extra traffic.

Hailing from Australia’s east coast, it seems congratulations are due to Mr Willis and his wife Melissa. They’ve just had twin boys.

Oh, what lessons he can teach them on how to engage in respectful debate and how to speak to women. Lucky, lucky boys – and lucky Melissa to have such a gem for a husband.

Brendan Brookman

Brendan Teejay Brookman (click to see his smiling face) is a Townsville based soldier with the 2^nd Battalion Royal Australian Regiment. Brookman was deployed in East Timor from 2009 to 2010. It appears his passion is now to defend the internetz against womenz like Deveny. And what a fine job he is doing!

The army must be bursting with pride to have Brendan showing the world’s netizens just what fine men our modern Australian army is producing.

Poor old Gracie Grace (above) must be having heart flutters at the idea that one of our brave boys could suggest that the way to deal with Melbourne comedians who don’t agree with him is to line them up in front of a firing squad. Australian soldiers would never think such a thing, would they Gracie?

Grahame Hopewell

Our next proud patriot, Grahame Hopewell, resides on the south side of Brisbane. He’s the father of three, including a daughter. You wonder if a ‘rifle butt to the face’ is Mr Hopewell’s standard method of discipline, or whether it’s a punishment reserved for women who get above their station.

Grahame, we’re sure you’re right in asserting your arsehole is prettier than Deveny, but I’m curious. Just how much time a day do you spend looking at your arsehole as opposed to talking out of it?

Ari Hinchco

If there’s one thing Deveny did right on ANZAC Day, it was to give the stalwarts of that proud tradition an excuse to show us just what kind of people they are.

Take Ari Hinchco (Please! Take Ari Hinchco! – boom-tish). Originally from Herefordshire, Ari was in the Royal New Zealand Navy. He posts as @freelancer17235 on Twitter.

Ari is a veterans’ advocate and I think we can all applaud him for that. I come from a military family and I know how appallingly successive governments treat our veterans and how important it is for our veterans to have good advocates.

I guess it’s a good thing that advocates should be particular about where they put their penises (God knows Catholic priests aren’t so particular!) And, I think we should give props to Ari for the creative idea of turning our Dev into a dartboard. As his old mates at the ex RNZN Navy Club say, Ari has ‘never been one to hold back’.

It just makes you wonder whether that applies to all his endeavours, doesn’t it?

Eliah Sutton

Eliah James Sutton is a personal favourite of mine. An alumni of Mountain Creek State High School at the Sunshine Coast, but now resident in Darwin (presumably in the army), Eliah used to post as Shmeelsy on Myspace. Here Eliah tells us ‘you gotta ask your self is this where you wanna be when jesus comes back … sitting on your ass feeling sorry for your self’.

Clearly a good Christian boy, Eliah also fills us in on what he’s looking for in a woman: “Chicks with brains and high sex drives … brains don’t really matter …” Perfect. An ideal candidate for home-schooling his children.

… clearly, Catherine, losing a few IQ points might help if you want to endear yourself to Mr Sutton.

On Facebook, Eliah was keen to get his friends to join the Catherine Deveny feeding frenzy.

And even emailed Catherine direct, just to make sure she got the message:

Nick Shackcloth

Nick Shackcloth is also from Darwin and planning to join the Australian Defence Force in August this year. I bet they’re champing at the bit to have Nick join the forces and bring a bit of class to the military.

Encouraging women to commit suicide by plunging off the top of high buildings is certainly a more modern twist on chivalry than escorting little old ladies across the road. (Still, being a lollipop lady for octogenarians might be a tad dangerous given that Nick spends so much time texting from his Sony Xperia (TM) smartphone.)

Nick was educated at Coolum State High School at the Sunshine Coast – I’ll bet he’s on their honours board.

Graeme Hopkinson

Graeme Hopkinson (posting as @churchurchur on Twitter) is a 46 year old charmer from Queensland. Click if you dare, girls, but have a bottle of smelling salts at the ready! We don’t want you swooning in a sudden attack of ‘the vapors’!

Graeme, dear, if your wife ever leaves you, you must use this as your RSVP pic!

Originally from New Zealand, Graeme now lives on the Gold Coast where he spends his time, selflessly encouraging people who don’t agree with him to top themselves. Clearly, disagreeing with Graeme must be so painful that death would surely be preferable!

Not one to cave to political correctness, Graeme is happy to castigate girlfriend beater, Chris Brown, for being a ‘dumb nigger’ while feeling totally comfortable hurling verbal abuse at Ms Deveny because that’s … um …. different.

You have to love a man who can keep two totally conflicting ethical viewpoints in his head at the one time.

I bet Graeme would be good at juggling too – if only he could find some balls.

Olivia Smith

Lest I be accused of bathing the men in glory while ignoring the ‘fairer sex’, it’s important to note that most, but not all of Deveny’s critics were men. There were some lovely ladies laying in to her as well.

Take the glamorous would-be make-up-guru-to-the-stars, Olivia Smith, posting as @OliviaMae13 on Twitter.

And, you know what they say! ‘Bogan is the new black!’

————-

So there it is – it’s not a complete run-down of all those who threatened Deveny with rape, suggested she should kill herself, or simply took the time to tell her how ugly she is – but it’s the best I could do in a day. I’m sorry to all those people I didn’t get a chance to spotlight. Maybe next time.

And, I can’t complete this post without a special shout out to those fabulous people at the Quality Hotel Mildura Grand who, after hearing of Catherine’s tweets, decided to cancel the booking she’d made at their property for the duration of her Curvy Crumpet show in Mildura.

Apparently, it’s a new policy being tried out – guests’ political and social opinions must conform with management’s before a booking can be honoured.

What’s next, party political hotels? The Quality Hotel Mildura LNP Grand? The Tullamarine Airport Greens Hotel? The Laverton Labor Inn?

Those clever bunnies at Quality are set to revolutionise the hotel industry! Just watch! Next we can segregate based on religion and race too. What fun!

And, what fun ‘Defending Deveny’ again. She certainly keeps me busy! Buzz me Deveny, this is turning into a full time job! We gotta talk about commission rates!

Chrys Stevenson

PS: If you want to see both Deveny and me (preferably not for the purpose of topping us, raping us, or encouraging us to plunge from high buildings) we’ll both be appearing at the Reality Bites Literary Festival in Cooroy, Sunshine Coast, Queensland from the 25-28 July. More details here.

Update – Friday 17 May 2013:

Peter

Yesterday, a man called Peter sent through just the sort of comment I’ve been waiting for. YouI would have thought this post gave fair warning about what I planned to do to people who sent through gendered and abusive comments!

“Too good to spam!” I thought and promptly googled Peter’s details, aided by the email address attached to his comment. I subsequently published those details here.

“Oh, Peter!” I wrote, “Such a very poor business decision.”  I pondered how many of his customers would remain after learning how he speaks to women on the internet. Here is Peter’s comment:

“fck you moron my grandfather getting wounded Darwin was lie,get your fck head out of your ass smell the rose’s what about broome( lots of aboriginals got wounded and killed so that lie to are you racist to now, it ather parts western australia were bomb to so was thats lie to , were where your fck uneducated parent’s from,maybe just maybe they where hiding behind bong,so that why your drug fcked whore, look in the mirror ,your the joke you idiot, my grandfathers never did what you say happen, how fck do you know what they did you read it somewhere plz O plz give us book, your not only unaustralian but it think your racist you have branded not only white aussie’s and aboriginals who have served this country as well you know what wrote,”

I pointed out, for the record, that I would not have publicly revealed Peter’s full name, email, town, business name and connection with a Christian school  if he had written something along the lines of the following:

“I disagree with Catherine Deveny’s views on ANZAC day. My grandfather was wounded in Darwin during World War II, I am very proud of his service,  and ANZAC Day means a lot to me and my family. Is Ms Deveny aware that many Aborigines were also wounded and killed in the wars Australia has been involved in? Aborigines are given so little recognition in this country.  Isn’t it right that we should commemorate their military service?

Yes, terrible things happen in wartime but I think most Australian soldiers simply ‘did their bit’. I’m sure my grandfathers were never involved in anything untoward, so why shouldn’t we take some time on ANZAC Day to honour them? I worry that views like Ms Deveny’s are disrespectful to many people whose families served our country – including our Indigenous population. Perhaps Ms Deveny should think a little more carefully before voicing criticisms next time.”

My point is that this blog post as not ‘outed’ people for disagreeing with Deveny – but for the way they did it.

To his credit, Peter has since posted what I believe to be a sincere apology:

“i wish to make this public, LADYs and Gentlemen im very sorry for my language and the way talk about women in general today i was outline, i have never talked like that in my life,unless its to your face without the swearing, im very sorry as i have PTSD and the med plays hell on my mind but that not way i shouldn’t talk or say anything about or anyone even if i dont like what they say thankyou chrys for pulling me up i was out of line.”

As the aim of this blog was to make people reflect on the wisdom and consequences of abusing women online (and elsewhere) I think the appropriate response is to accept Peter’s apology, remove identifying details from this blog post and hope he has learned a lesson.

Related Posts

The Anzac Spirit. Top 100 Hate Comments – Catherine Deveny

Misogyny Justified by Defence of ANZAC Day? (The War On Catherine Deveny) – The Antibogan

Are Australians militaristic fascists now, too? – PZ Myers, Pharyngula

From 25-28 July, I’ll be at the Reality Bites non-fiction literary festival at Cooroy on Queensland’s Sunshine Coast. I’d love you to join me there and I’ve negotiated early access to discounted tickets for my readers.

Here’s a sneak preview of the Festival Program

My sessions are:

Little tales of misogyny – 10am-11am, Sunday, 28 July, Cooroy Library ($15 or buy Festival Pass)

At Reality Bites I’ll be moderating a panel discussion on misogyny with Tanya Levin, prominent Australian feminist, Professor Ann Summers and Jeff Sparrow, left wing writer, social activist and author of several books including his latest, Money Shot: A Journey into Porn and Censorship. 

Conversation: Hillsong to Hard Time – 2pm – 3pm, Sunday 28 July, Cooroy Library ($15 or buy Festival Pass)

Later on Sunday afternoon, I’ll also be interviewing my dear friend, Tanya Levin, about her two non-fiction books: People in Glass Houses: An Insider’s Story of a Life In and Out of Hillsong and Crimwife: An Insider’s Account of Love behind Bars.

Workshop: Citizen Journalism – 12pm-3pm, Friday 26 July, Cooroy Library ($90 or buy a workshop package – see below)

As if all that wasn’t enough, I’ve put my hand up to host a workshop on citizen journalism. I’ll talk about the history and successes of citizen journalism and, in ‘real time’ I’ll show participants  how to start their own blog, I’ll discuss what makes a good blog post or online article, we’ll look at some different styles and genres, and I’ll give tips on getting your work published and using social media to maximise your audience. Participants will discuss what they’re passionate about, how they’d like to change the world, consider what makes them ‘unique’ and work on creating their own post to publish ‘live’ on a blog we’ll create together.  Importantly, we’ll also pay some attention to the responsibilities of being a citizen journalist, including tips on research, honesty in reporting, sorting out opinions from facts, fact checking, assessing the weight of evidence and linking to source material.  The workshop will be 3 hours and I’m hoping we’ll all have a lot of fun.

While I’m going to be immensely busy at Reality Bites, surprisingly, I’m not the ‘star turn’. 😉

The line-up is incredible and includes:

Catherine Deveny – Comedian, social commentator, television celebrity and l’enfant terrible, Catherine Deveny, will appear at a special event at the historic Majestic Theatre, Pomona on Friday evening, 26 July.

Dev plans to give us 10 easy lessons on how to Destroy the Joint (harking back to radio jock, Alan Jones’ famous complaint that Australian women are ‘destroying the joint’). Dev is riveting on stage and you just never know what she’s going to say next! You’ll be shocked, you’ll be entertained, you’ll be riveted, but most of all, you’ll be in awe of her energy, talent and passion. Don’t miss it. Really. Don’t. Miss. It.

Dev will also join the Destroying the Joint panel discussion hosted by festival organiser, Melanie Myers from 12.30pm-1.30pm on Saturday, 27 July at the Cooroy Library.

Alesa Lajana – Joining Catherine at the ‘Majestic’ event is the remarkable Alesa Lajana. Most recently, Alesa has been collecting stories to transform into songs of our shared black and white history. Alesa will  sing of hope, love and regret in a voice that will take your breath away.

As a special offer to my readers, you can purchase individual tickets (i.e. not part of a package) for the Majestic event for $35 (full price $40) until 11 May. If you can get together a group of six or more and pay together, we can do a little better. To take up this offer, contact Annette Hughes at (07) 5447 7063 and mention my name.

Mark Dapin – Mark is an award-winning author and highly experienced journalist whose latest book, Spirit House, was short-listed for the Miles Franklin award. Spirit House tells the story of Jimmy Reubens once a POW on the Thai-Burma Railway, but now the grandfather of a 13 year old grandson who helps him lay his ghosts to rest.

Chris Sarra – Chris, Queensland’s ‘Australian of the Year’ in 2004, made his mark as the highly innovative principal of Cherbourg State School. His book, Good Morning, Mr Sarra tells of Chris’ fight to implement his ‘strong and smart’ philosophy into Cherbourg and, more broadly, to ensure that Aboriginal children ‘no longer hope for a better education; they can expect it.’ Chris will give the Festival Address at the Festival Launch on Thursday evening, 25 July at Cooroy Library.

Kristy Chambers, nurse and author of the hilarious Get Well Soon! My (Un)Brilliant Career as a Nurse  – (Kristy will be interviewed during a High Tea by my mad mate Vicki O’Brien whose own (un)brilliant career in nursing lasted less than an hour. It should be an hilarious event!)

Michelle Law – Michelle, sister of Benjamin Law, is an AWGIE award winning screenwriter  and a successful author in her own right. Recently, along with Catherine Deveny and a slew of other remarkable Australian women, Michelle was a contributor to Jane Caro’s Destroying the Joint: Why women have to change the world.

Matthew Condon – I once had morning tea with Sir Terence Lewis, just before the launch of the Fitzgerald Inquiry. I remember taking a perverse pleasure in asking him if he’d noticed the brothel just down the road from our meeting venue. Matthew Condon’s latest book, Three Crooked Kings, is the first of two explosive investigative accounts about former Queensland police commissioner Terry Lewis, and crime and corruption in Queensland and NSW over a half-century. Matthew is a prize-winning Australian author and journalist.

This is just a taste. Other writers appearing at the festival can be found here.

Special Offer for My Readers

Reality Bites is a terrific, intimate festival where you can really get up close and personal with the writers. I’d love my readers to come along and enjoy it as much as I have over the last three years. I’ve done some fast talking and some wrenching of hands behind backs and persuaded the organisers to open their ‘subscribers only’ offer to you.

As my readers, for a very short time (until 11 May), you have access to early bird, discounted ‘packaged’ tickets for the event before the tickets go on sale to the public. This means you can get in early for the popular sessions before they sell out.

Secure your place to hear this year’s line up of visiting authors including:

Anne Summers   Catherine Deveny   Mark Dapin   Matthew Condon   Jim Hearn   Mary-Lou Stephens and many many more.

Take advantage of our package deals :

READER’S PACKAGE: SAVE $35 –  Reader’s Package Discount Price $130:
includes a Weekend Pass plus entry to the Festival Launch with Chris Sarra and Majestic Event featuring Catherine Deveny and Alesa Lajana at the fabulous Majestic Theatre.

(Includes festival launch, Majestic event, entry to main stage, conversation and close up sessions – but workshops not included).

WRITER’S PACKAGE: Immerse yourself in your craft.
SAVE $40 on a  Workshop 4-Pack  –  Discount Price $320: access to4 Workshops  (other sessions not included)
SAVE $35 on a Writer’s Package – Discount Price $200:  includes your choice of 2 Workshops and 2 Close Up Sessions. (other sessions not included). Only 25 tickets per workshop; these sell out quickly.

AFTERNOON TEA @ Tea-licious with Kristy Chambers and the effervescent Vicki O’Brien. Book early – will sell out! – $25 (not included in weekend or other packages). Only 35 tickets available

Confused? If you’re interested in attending for the whole long weekend and want to get a taste of all the festival has to offer, I’d recommend buying a Reader’s Package, then adding on a workshop and the afternoon tea event. Total cost would be: Package – $130; Workshop – $90; Afternoon Tea – $25; TOTAL: $245

Individual tickets go on sale on 11 May. A weekend pass is $90. That will give you access to the main stage, close up and conversation events but not to any workshops, the launch (with Chris Sarra), or the Majestic event (with Catherine Deveny). You can buy these separately and add on to your weekend pass, but check to see if a package would be more economical.

If you just want to pick and choose, and, perhaps, can’t make it for the whole weekend, you can attend individual main stage and close-up sessions for $15 each.

My 3 hour workshop is $90 if you don’t buy a package that includes workshops.

CHECK OUT THE PROGRAM FOR DETAILS
Individual tickets go on public sale 11 May

 

I had a lucky escape during the last few months. I went into hospital for a routine procedure and came out feeling remarkably well. I’d had a raft of tests in the lead up to the operation and, apart from a humongously large fibroid, everything seemed to be as it should be.

A few days after the operation a resident from the hospital called. In a stammering voice he said, “Ummm, I’ve just been going through your pathology report and, ummm, errrr, well … it’s Friday and I thought you should know that …. ummm, the pathology found a malignant tumour. We’re all pretty shocked here. There were no indications prior to your surgery and we’re pretty sure we took it all out but … ummm, we’re going to have to get you back to check because … errr, we didn’t know it was there.”

Long story short, I went in for another surgery to have more bits removed and I’ve now been pretty much cleared. I’m incredibly lucky. There was no indication that I had cancer, i had no symptoms, and if I hadn’t, coincidentally, had to have an operation for something different (but in the same location) I may not have known until it was too late.

Now, tests missed my cancer but, generally, they’re pretty good at picking them up. I make sure to have regular mammograms, pap smears and colonoscopies. The former two are made easier because they are covered by Medicare. The colonoscopy costs a bloody fortune but then, I weigh up, “A couple of hundred bucks versus bowel cancer” and somehow the “couple of hundred bucks” seems rather less important. I’m lucky I have the money. I’m sure there are many who don’t have vital tests because they simply can’t afford them.

Which brings me to the subject of this post – bums –  anuses to be precise. Icky for some, lovely for others but, we’ve all got one and like all of our other ‘bits’ they’re prone to cancer too.

My friend, Rod Swift of Melbourne’s gay and lesbian radio station, Joy 94.9 FM, tells me that while the Australian government provides Medicare funding for women to have pap smears to guard against cervical cancer (caused by the human papillomavirus – HPV) they don’t fund anal smears for men or women who have anal sex to protect against anal cancer (caused by the same virus).

This makes no sense. As Rod says, “Alarmingly, the rate of cancer among gay men is even higher than the rates of cervical cancer among women.”

I find this shocking – particularly as my own, very recent, personal experience shows, early detection of cancer is critical.

Rod has started a petition asking Health Minister, Tanya Plibersek to add anal pap smears for HPV to the Medicare Benefits Schedule and to promote their availablilty and necessity to men who have sex with men – the highest risk group.

So, my dear friend Margaret received a letter, today, from a group called “Defending Natural Marriage”.

They asked that Margaret sign a petition and return it to them – kindly making it postage paid – so they can present it to Parliament.

Margaret is known for her fierce commitment to ethical and moral standards and, therefore, was understandably eager to complete and return the petition. But, as you can see below, not without a few minor edits of her own:

It seems to me that Margaret’s version is much better than the original. So, if you’re from NSW might I encourage you to contact Premier O’Farrell either by snail mail or by email to office@premier.nsw.gov.au and copy and paste Margaret’s amended text into your message?

To:  office@premier.nsw.gov.au

Subject:  In Favour of Legalising Same-Sex Marriage

Mr Premier:  As a citizen and resident of New South Wales, exercising my democratic rights, I declare my support for the “State Marriage Equality Bill 2012” currently before Parliament, which seeks to legalise same-sex marriage.

I respectfully ask you and the honourable members of Parliament to take my views into consideration when deliberating on any measure that grants legal recognition to same-sex partnerships, as doing so would broaden the natural family and be excellent for the common good of society.

— Don’t forget to include your name, address and email —

If you’re not from NSW, I’m sure the Premier would still be delighted to hear from you. Just amend the first sentence to:  I am not a resident of New South Wales, but, even so, I wish to declare my support for the “State Marriage Equality Bill 2012” currently before Parliament which seeks to legalise same-sex marriage.

And, of course, many thanks to the folks at “Defending Natural Marriage” for prompting us to remind our politicians that bigots and homophobes are the vocal minority and do not represent the views of the majority of fair-minded Australians or even the majority of Christians.

Chrys Stevenson

Please consider donating to Australian Marriage Equality – every little bit helps to achieve equal marriage.

My readers will remember ANZAC Day 2011 on which the Australian Christian Lobby’s Jim Wallace tweeted that our ANZACS didn’t fight for gay marriage and Islam. You would have thought the brouhaha that followed that event would have warned everyone against using the day to push their own ideological agenda.

But independent South Australian MLC, Ann Bressington – a well-known anti-vax, anti-abortion, anti-fluoride, anti-anything-else-that’s-even-mildly-sensible conspiracy theorist – is immune to salutory lessons, it seems.

Ms Bressington chose the day to post a Facebook message linking the ANZACS and “BIG PHARMA”.

With steam emanating from every orifice, I wrote a retort which has been published today on Online Opinion.  You can see it here:

ANZAC Day usurped for Bressington’s anti-science balderdash

Now, my dear friend Hilton Travis (Somewhere to Think / The Outspoken Wookie) has, quite rightly questioned whether I’m being hypocritical in slamming Ms Bressington, while not also criticising my friend, Catherine Deveny for her ANZAC Day tweets. It’s something I gave deep thought to in writing the article.

In a series of tweets, Catherine wrote:

“Anzac Day. A celebration of a society so fucked up it saw no other option than to go to war. Kill, rape and invade. Then glorify it.

“The ‘spirit of ANZAC’ does not define our nation. It’s our peaceful secular democracy rooted in workers rights, feminism & multiculturalism.

“Read your history. No war Australia has ever fought has resulted in our ‘freedom’ or ‘opportunities’.

“Days like #anzacday are simply a rewriting of history to stop the sucked in and ripped off burning down parliament and killing politicians.

“Not the day for it? The only day for it. Show respect? That’s exactly what I’m doing.

Chrys Stevenson

The Creation Museum has it right! Dinosaurs and humans co-exist! The point was proven this weekend when Piers Akerman gave his pre-historic views on same-sex marriage on the ABC TV’s Insiders.

Here are some excerpts from the segment:

Dennis Atkins: All of the polling says people support it, anybody under 40, when they’re asked about it, say, “Why haven’t they done it yet?” That’s their point.

Barrie Cassidy: But Tony Abbott conceded that … he said that that’s the prevalent view.

A discussion ensues about how even Tony Abbott has softened his view on the issue, the Liberal Party is looking at the possibility of allowing a conscience vote and how Barack Obama’s view evolved so that he now supports same-sex marriage.

Piers Akerman interrupting the pro same-sex marriage reverie of the other panellists: Barrie! I’m sorry. This may be a big issue for the ABC, but I don’t think it’s a big issue across the country. I think it’s a very low level issue and if you ask Australians what really concerns them, gay marriage or homosexual marriage or whatever , is way down their list of priorities … It doesn’t interest me.

Barrie Cassidy: It goes to your value system …

Piers Akerman: It does go to your value system … well, the question is, “What is a man and what is a woman. What is a marriage?” A marriage is a man and a woman.

Barrie Cassidy: David Cameron says it’s an issue of basic human rights, and I think he’s right.

Piers Akerman: Well I don’t think he is right. Because, if you can have all of the social benefits of a civil union without calling it marriage, why do you want to go that extra step?

Barrie Cassidy: Because marriage is a basic civil right.

Piers Akerman: It’s a right between a man and a woman.

Barrie Cassidy: No! It’s a basic right for anybody ….

Piers Akerman: Between anybody? Then you’re talking about polygamy, then you’re talking about anything else …

Really, I’m almost past being cranky at the likes of Piers Akerman, Jim Wallace and Bill Muehlenberg. Now I’m just embarrassed for them. They are dinosaurs. They have all the hallmarks of antediluvian anachronisms blundering across an unfamiliar landscape, bellowing alarmingly as they find themselves in an environment which no longer supports the bigotry which sustains their kind.

Of course, every age has had its share of dinosaurs. And, as I contemplated the ridiculous sight of Piers Akerman channelling fellow fossil, Corey Bernardi on the Insiders, it occurred to me that, in a different age, Piers Akerman would have been making similarly ridiculous arguments about other issues.

For example, Piers, arguing that “…if you can have all of the social benefits of a civil union without calling it marriage, why do you want to go that extra step?” reminded me of the dinosaurs who argued against those new-fangled horseless carriages. Why would you want a motor vehicle when you can have a perfectly good horse?

As “Royal Blend” said of those faddish contraptions in a Barcaldine newspaper in 1896:

“… it is reckoned the whole idea will fizzle out in time like any other amusing toy invented for adults. The horseless carriages are described as clumsy to handle, awkward around corners, and utterly useless for climbing hills. To pull a tram-car that one horse can draw, an engine of six-horse power would have to be provided.”

Yep, just like same-sex marriage, horseless carriages are a passing phase, it will never catch on.

“This may be a big issue for the ABC, but I don’t think it’s a big issue across the country,” said Piers, suggesting that popular support for same-sex marriage is just some kind of media beat-up.

Yet, when a Senate Committee called for submissions into an inquiry into same-sex marriage they received an unprecedented 79,200 submissions – 46,000 of which supported the proposition.

Similarly, when the House of Representatives Committee launched on online poll to seek voters’ views on the issue, it received over 250,000 responses with a strong majority of 64 per cent favouring marriage equality.

It reminded me of how the dinosaurs of times past talked about another ‘very unimportant matter’.

“It appears to me that when Parliament meets the first thing to be considered will be women’s suffrage, and a lot of valuable time will be wasted on a (very unimportant) matter,” complained “Locus Standi” in a letter to the editor of the South Australian Chronicle on 2 June, 1894:

“Women’s suffrage is certainly not required at the present. Will 30 per cent of those who signed the petitions vote? … The temperance parties, who are considerably in the minority, are only asking for it. Then why should the minority rule the majority?”

And, like Akerman’s objections to same-sex marriage, “Locus Standi” had good reason to oppose the shocking idea of women being allowed to vote!

“If women are given the power to dabble in politics things will soon come to a pretty climax in South Australia. Would it not be most unbecoming to see women with infants in their arms (especially on a wet day) wending their way through mud and rain to the polling-booth, and in nine cases out of ten give an informal vote? …

Who will cook the dinner, clean up the house, prepare the children for school, and attend to a score of other things that require looking after every day in a well-conducted and regulated house? If such a ridiculous thing were permitted it would be a severe blow against society … Some of the noisy election meetings ,would not be a fit place for women to attend ; home darning socks would suit them much better, leaving political matters to their husbands to look after.”

Yes, there have always been dinosaurs who have been happy to argue on moral grounds against granting equal rights to others.

As Piers suggests, allowing same-sex marriage is just the start of the slippery slope to total moral decay. He would, no doubt, have found a soul-mate in “Locus Standi” who reasoned:

“… if women are to be placed on the same footing as men as regards political matters, they should also be allowed the privilege of occupying seats in Parliament. That is what it must certainly come to in the end. Now is the time to have it nipped in the bud.”

In The Queenslander on 9 June 1866, for example, “Australasian” fears that if the Americans grant suffrage to ‘negros’, who knows what liberties might be given to non-Anglo-Saxon Australians!

“… As well give the suffrage to apes … The common sense of the Anglo-Saxon revolts against it … No white Australian wants to sit in Parliament with John Chinaman, or wishes to discuss the tariff with an aboriginal member from the Murrumbidgee. Negro suffrage involves the necessity of negro representatives in Congress, and at the very mention of such a phenomenon your religious emancipationist starts back in horror.”

Ah yes, no good Christian could countenance sitting next to a coloured person on the parliamentary bench. It would be like … like … well, like allowing homosexuals to get married! Unchristian, ungodly and unthinkable! Whatever would Jesus think about policies which seek to include those on the fringes of our society – women, people of colour, homosexuals? Well, we know, don’t we. Just consider how he treated those who were discriminated against in his own time – lepers, tax-collectors, gentiles, prostitutes. Oh, oops, that’s a rather an inconvenient analogy isn’t it?

You see, for all the arguments that might be made about the basic civil rights of homosexual couples to marry, the bottom line, for Piers, is that it is as morally repugnant as polygamy, bestiality or incest. I couldn’t help but imagine Piers as one of the dinosaurs who so vehemently opposed the unthinkable practice of mixed-sex bathing on Australian beaches. As “Reformer” argued in Adelaide’s “The Register” on 13 November 1916:

“… what may be the result, afterwards, of their being in one another’s company while there is but a single layer of thin fabric separating them from complete nudity? … I maintain that mixed bathing should be abolished. Although the young people may exercise restraint while in the water; they have received the incitement to evil.- The result or effect of mixed bathing is the evil and the only way to remove the effect is to remove the cause.”

“… the question is,” growls Piers, “’What is a man and what is a woman? What is a marriage?’”

Answering his own question he asserts: “A marriage is a man and a woman.”

Dinosaurs like Piers Akerman have always argued that equal rights cannot be granted to others because … well …. because those people who say they want to be equal are just not the same as us. Take those female upstarts from the women’s lib movement of the 70s who thought women should have equal rights and equal pay. As DP Kenny of Nedlands, Perth pointed out in the Women’s Weekly of 6 December 1972:

“As a mere male, may I say that Women’s Lib. is doomed to ultimate failure. It is founded on the fallacy that women,were they but given the opportunities, could be man’s equal. Why the disgruntled advocates of this movement should want to emulate men remains a mystery. Men, it seems, have no ambition to be other than masculine, as God made them. Women, todav, are becoming more and more ungodly in their irrational determination to get rid of their femininity – their most formidable weapon in the time-honored battle of the sexes.”

We can learn a lot from history. There have always been arch-bigots and arch-conservatives who have tried to stay the tide of progress. All have failed. Today, their foolish bigotry is preserved in the archives like insects preserved in amber. We can read their humorous arguments against horseless carriages, women’s suffrage, racial and sexual equality and marvel that anyone could have been so short-sighted, so prejudiced and so narrow-minded. Just so, in the not too distant future, there will be those who, long after same-sex marriage is as commonplace and uncontroversial as horseless carriages and women’s equality, will stumble across the rantings of a long forgotten blowhard called Piers Akerman and think, “Ah yes, just another dinosaur. How very wrong he was. Silly, silly man.”

Chrys Stevenson

Imagine if a teacher at your child’s school stood up in front of the class and said:

“Children, many people will tell you that when you become sexually active you should use condoms to protect yourselves from catching and transmitting disease. But, what they don’t tell you is that condoms are secretly impregnated with diseases. Condoms spread disease – they don’t protect you!”

This, of course, is one of the conspiracy theories spread about condom use. There is no credible evidence of this subterfuge, no credible scientist supports such a wacky claim. But, when someone in authority (e.g. a priest) tells it to those who are trusting and vulnerable, they are apt to believe it.

Imagine now, a similar scenario. A teacher at your child’s school tells them, instead, that there are ‘two sides’ to the government’s campaign to have all children vaccinated against childhood diseases; that the government is actively suppressing the fact that vaccinations are dangerous.

Should a teacher who is actively anti-vaccination be allowed to impart those views to her students? Certainly, students should have the benefit of a balanced argument where there is a genuine scientific disagreement. But, as with the creation vs evolution debate, the vaccination vs anti-vaccination debate is primarily ideological, not scientific. The ‘science’ from both creationists and anti-vaccine campaigners is too often faux-science from fringe dwellers, non-peer reviewed articles, quack ‘medical’ sites or cherry-picked and/or misinterpreted from genuine scientific research.

Today, my friend and fellow blogger, ‘Reasonable Hank’ has raised questions about the intentions of Anna Stancombe, a Queensland science teacher employed by the Queensland College of Teachers, a Queensland government statutory body.

Ms Stancombe is also the administrator of an anti-vaccination Facebook group called Vaccine Education Australia. The group’s ‘byline’ is:

“Educate Before You Vaccinate – showing the risks and dangers of vaccines and the benefits of natural health therapies.”

Natural therapies? Like the homeopathic vaccines recommended by the similarly misleadingly named Australian Vaccination Network? Even the British Homeopathic Association has been forced to admit they don’t work!

The screen captures below show Ms Stancombe a) verifying herself as an administrator of this anti-vaccination group and b) actively spreading unscientific anti-vaccination propaganda:

This last comment, to be blunt, is total rubbish. America’s Centers for Disease Control and Prevention confirm that:

“The viruses in the flu shot are killed (inactivated), so you cannot get the flu from a flu shot. The risk of a flu shot causing serious harm or death is extremely small. However, a vaccine, like any medicine, may rarely cause serious problems, such as severe allergic reactions. Almost all people who get influenza vaccine have no serious problems from it.”

Note, they don’t say that no-one ever had an adverse reaction to a flu shot. They do say, however, that of all the millions of people who receive them, there are very few serious problems. Considering how many people die from the flu each year, the risk of having a flu vaccination is far, far less.

Similarly, the Queensland Health Department confirms:

“You definitely cannot get the influenza from having the flu shot. The flu vaccine contains no live flu virus at all – it’s actually a small dose of parts of inactivated flu virus. However, a small number of people might experience flu-like symptoms such as fever and tiredness as a result of the vaccination.”

Again, no denial that some people may have minor adverse reactions. But, does the flu vaccination cause the flu? No. It’s simply impossible and, quite frankly, a science teacher should know that.

Not surprisingly, the Facebook group, Vaccine Education Australia, for which Ms Stancombe is an administrator, also pushes the scientifically disproven bunkum that there is a causal link between vaccines and autism:

That is not to say, of course, that Ms Stancombe shares this loony view, but I saw no comment from her disputing it.

Now, the fact that Ms Stancombe is a teacher and also happens to be against vaccinations is no crime. She is as entitled as anyone to believe in any tinpot conspiracy theory she wishes. One might raise some concerns about a science teacher who is unable to grasp that an inactivated flu virus cannot cause the flu, but let’s give her the benefit of the doubt.

The fact is, if a teacher believes in leprechauns or magic crystals, that the moon landing was faked, that the American government engineered the 9/11 attack on the World Trade Centre, that the British Royal Family are really alien reptiles or that long dead great aunt Enid haunts the downstairs broom closet, it is entirely their own business … Until they decide to use their privileged position as a teacher to proselytise their own, particular hobby-horse. This is our concern about Ms Stancombe.

Earlier this week, NSW Green’s MP, John Kaye spoke out about the dangers of anti-vaccination ‘voodoo’:

“The NSW State government has taken action against one of the most disgraceful sources of misinformation, the Australian Vaccination Network.

However there are still far too many parents falling prey to absurd and disproven voodoo claims and conspiracy theories.”

Ms Stancombe took offence, posting on Mr Kaye’s Facebook page:

Fair enough. As I said, there is no law that says teachers have to be reasonable outside of school hours – or that they have to like the Greens!

As often happens with these kinds of issues, Ms Stancombe’s comments were challenged by pro-vaccine advocates and a Facebook mêlée ensued. Par for the course. Move on – nothing to see here (although if you want to see the details, the conversation is covered more fully on Reasonable Hank’s blog).

What is alarming is that at the end of this Facebook debate, Ms Stancombe posted something particularly concerning. She said:

Let me just repeat that:

“I have school tomorrow to teach all about the pros and cons of vaccination. 🙂 I win.”

In the context of this argument, I think it is fair to assume that Ms Stancombe is not aiming to ‘teach all about the pros and cons of vaccination’ in the sense that the CDC and Queensland Health do. As we have seen above, these responsible, science-driven bodies freely admit that a very small number of people have severe adverse reactions to vaccinations. No-one who advocates vaccinations – or any other kind of prescription medication – suggests that there are never any side-effects, sometimes even lethal side-effects. The art of medicine is about balancing risk. No-one in the mainstream medical or scientific communities is hiding that. Any GP will tell you that there are pros and cons with vaccines but, except for a very few (largely identifiable) people, the pros massively outweigh the possible cons.

In concert with the Australian Vaccination Network, Ms Stancombe clearly believes, however, that there is a hidden ‘side’ to the vaccination debate which is not being told – one which she is eager to impart to her students. If this was not the case, how does she ‘win’ the vaccination argument she has been involved with?

Ms Stancombe’s employers may do well to ask exactly what she teaches in her classes. Does she tell her students that vaccinations are dangerous? That the flu vaccine will give them the flu? That measles and chicken pox are ‘harmless’ childhood diseases? That vaccines cause autism? That their own government is in a conspiracy against them?

If so, she is actively undermining the health message of the government which employs her, and may be risking the health of any children in her care. Further, if Ms Stancombe is teaching children and they believe her nonsense, she is putting the health of the next generation of children at risk.

Now, I will be the first to admit that I don’t know what Ms Stancombe teaches or intends to teach in her classroom – or, indeed, whether she teaches children or adults. I do know that she posts publicly against vaccination, that she has made at least one wildly inaccurate statement about the flu vaccine and that, in the context of an anti-vax argument, she has publicly stated that she intends to continue the discussion with her students, thereby ‘winning’ her anti-vaccination argument.

I believe, at the very least, this warrants an investigation from her employer and a warning that her private prejudices should not – indeed, must not – be brought into the class room.

Ms Stancombe’s stance on anti-vaccination is her own business – she is entitled to her own opinion, no matter how misguided. She is not, however, entitled to endanger public health by teaching unscientific nonsense to either children or adults while on the government pay roll.

Chrys Stevenson

Related Articles:

Queensland anti-vaccine science teacher to teach students about immunisation? – Reasonable Hank

I have to fence my damn pool to keep your kids safe, you bloody vaccinate your kids to keep mine safe! – Ya Think?

6 things to say when you’re faced with anti-vaccine rhetoric – Dr Rachael Dunlop, Mamamia