On the relative civility of the Euthanasia debate

Cara MacNish writes: Re: “Why has the euthanasia debate been less feral than that of marriage equality?” (Friday)

In asking why a special kind of vitriol is reserved for LGBTQIA people, Max Chalmers reminds us of Geoffrey Luck’s contribution in the September Quadrant, where he states that these people are “not only not normal, they are not natural”. It is interesting to juxtapose this against the Prime Minister’s Prizes for Science, also announced last week.

One of the most valuable lessons our PhD students learn is how much we don’t know. In any chosen field of study, when you dig deeply enough, you discover there are many more questions than answers.

This year’s Prime Minister’s Prize for Science went to Jenny Graves, a leading scientist in the evolution and function of humans and other vertebrates. Professor Graves’ work has “transformed our understanding of how sex chromosomes work and how they evolved, predicting the decline of the Y chromosome”. In collaboration with other scientists she is studying, for example, how bearded dragons change sex in response to temperature. This is curious to us, presumably normal for these lizards, but most certainly natural. Whether by creation or evolution, its hard to imagine by what unnatural means these lizards chose to be this way.

While humans may not be so susceptible to temperature change, one thing is for sure: they are certainly more complex. We don’t know what combination of genetic, hormonal and environmental influences leads people to their own personality and preferences – but again, whether made by a divine being or nature, we naturally are who we are. There is no other process, but the one that led to us being who we are.

It may seem convenient to classify everyone into two groups, based on their apparent body parts at birth, although a little research on maternity wards shows that even that is not so straightforward. The inconvenient reality, however, is far more complex. This is not something to fear, but rather just to accept, that there is a lot that we know we don’t know.

Keith Binns writes: Re: “Why has the euthanasia debate been less feral than that of marriage equality?” (Friday)

The debate on Assisted Dying is not as vicious as the debate on Marriage Equality for two reasons: 1. It’s not about sex which, since Jerome and Augustine has always been the church’s obsession and Achilles heel; and 2. If they use the same level of vitriol as in the “No” campaign they will offend their own constituency. (Which is the same reason that they will lecture on sex before marriage but not sex in old age which also often involves unmarried people having sex.)