In February 2005, Mrs Maria Korp, aged 50, was choked by her husband’s mistress and left for dead in the boot of a car parked near Melbourne’s Shrine of Remembrance. She never regained consciousness, and on 26 July Victorian Public Advocate Julian Gardner, Mrs Korp’s legal guardian, authorised the cessation of her artificial nutrition. (Korp died on 5 August.)

Gardner made it clear that he had reached his decision after months of consultation with Mrs Korp’s family and two separate teams of doctors, including palliative care specialists. As Korp was a Catholic, he had also sought the advice of her priest and a Catholic expert in ethics. In his public announcement, Gardner repeatedly stated that Korp was ‘dying’ and that tubal nutrition had been ‘prolonging her dying instead of sustaining her life’.

Both the Catholic Church and Religious Right organisations responded angrily to Gardner’s decision. Monsignor Les Tomlinson of the Catholic Archdiocese of Melbourne asserted that Korp was ‘being denied the most basic of human rights’, but, curiously, added that the (often litigious) church would take no legal action against the decision. Prominent Catholic ethicist Nicholas Tonti-Filippini found it ‘[e]xtraordinary that the official responsible for looking after disabled people is now responsible for the death of a disabled person by withdrawing ordinary and reasonable care’. Right to Life president Margaret Tighe [Brian's Blog, 3 July 2005] said Mrs Korp should be fed until she died naturally rather than being forced to endure ‘the slow, agonising death of starvation and dehydration. Clearly Mrs Korp is very ill … but provision of nutrition and hydration is surely her due as long as she is alive.’ High-profile Queen’s Counsel Peter Faris described Gardner as ‘the Public Executioner - oops - Advocate’.

By the next day, other churches had joined the fray. Rev. David Palmer, the Presbyterian Church’s spokesman on ethical issues, declared that Korp was ‘being starved to death’ and that while Gardner’s decision had been a difficult one, ‘I do not know how or why the Public Advocate has made it. He said this was “in her best interests” - that is very strange language.’ Rev. Susan Gormann, ethics spokeswoman for the Uniting Church, said that her church held ‘grave concerns … We always err on the side of caution because we hold life in such high regard.’ Catholic Archdiocese spokeswoman Marcia Riordan stated flatly that the decision ‘amounted to euthanasia’.

Some letters to the Melbourne Age echoed these concerns. Thomas A. Watkin, a long-time supporter of Religious Right causes, took a very hard line: ‘Death has its own time, even for the terminally ill.’ Mark Rabich simply argued that life must be protected ‘at all costs’. Dr Dominica Ho, Secretary of the Catholic Doctors Association of Victoria, described Gardner’s decision as ‘a disgrace’ and asserted that Mrs Korp was ‘not dying’ and was ‘in a stable condition, and simply requires assistance with feeding’, thus directly contradicting Gardner’s central points. The basis for Ho’s claims was unclear, although it seems very unlikely that she had examined the patient.

Then, something happened. Gardner reiterated that Korp was dying and that her doctors had decided that her condition was terminal. Her body was unable to process food any longer and was in fact rejecting it. Had her case not gained some notoriety, Mrs Korp would probably have died by now ‘following doctors’ advice to her family that continuing treatment was futile and burdensome.’ Gardner was backed up handsomely by Melbourne University palliative care expert Prof. Michael Ashby, who said that suggestions that Korp would starve to death in an agonising way were ‘rubbish. That is very unhelpful and untrue.’ The Anglican Church also spoke out in support of the Public Advocate.

Some Catholic spokespeople had already expressed some unease with the Archdiocese’s rigid approach, but the trickle suddenly became a flood. Rev. Dr Norman Ford, director of the Catholic-funded Caroline Chisholm Centre for Health Ethics, said that Gardner’s decision was ‘perfectly in line with Catholic teaching’ as Mrs Korp was no longer capable of digesting nutrition. Korp’s priest, Father Stan Lim, said that his parishioner should be allowed to die with dignity: keeping her alive artificially in the circumstances was neither necessary nor just. Dr John Santamaria of St Vincent’s Hospital confirmed that if a patient had moved into the dying phase ‘then it is reasonable you don’t have to continue burdensome therapies.’

Gardner announced his decision on 26 July and by the following day it had become clear that the positions taken by the Melbourne Catholic Archdiocese, the Right to Life Association, the Presbyterian and Uniting Churches and letter-writers such as Dominica Ho were wrong in every respect. Indeed, it is a matter of some concern that the Catholic Archdiocese does not appear to understand Catholic theology when it comes to important questions of life and death. A word of clarification or even apology from some, or even one of these individuals or organisations would have been helpful - but answer came there none.

It was left to ‘pro-life’ stalwart Dr David van Gend to defend the indefensible conduct of his ideological allies:

On [her doctors'] clinical judgement, Mrs Korp [was] indeed dying, and the feeding tube was indeed burdensome and to be removed. But it was a grave failure of Mr Gardner not to make the clinical facts clear from the start, leaving an appalling misconception that Mrs Korp [was] being starved to death simply because she [was] disabled.

It’s hard to know how to characterise van Gend’s statement. In his initial announcement on 26 July, Gardner stated clearly that Mrs Korp was dying and that the artificial nutrition she had been receiving was ‘prolonging her dying instead of sustaining her life’. How could he possibly have been any more transparent? Dr van Gend’s conclusion can only be reached through a reckless disregard for the facts.

(References: Melbourne Age, 27-30 July 2005; News Weekly, 13 August 2005)

Filed in: Catholicism, Voluntary Euthanasia