Maria Korp - Euthanasia Controversy

Euthanasia Controversy

Anti-euthanasia campaigners threatened legal action in an attempt to save the life of Maria Korp in August, 2005. They held peaceful protests outside Melbourne's Alfred Hospital to demonstrate against the "inhumane" decision by the Public Advocate, Julian Gardner, to stop artificially feeding her.

Maria Korp's artificial nutrition and hydration was ceased on 27 July on the decision of the Tribunal-appointed legal guardian, Mr Gardner, who stated that all of the doctors who had examined her (including a specialist independent of the hospital arranged by the Public Advocate) had advised that further treatment other than palliative care was futile and that she had no prospects of recovery. He concluded on the basis of the medical evidence and on the basis of evidence of her beliefs and values that continued treatment was not in her best interests.

An appeal against Mr Gardner's appointment — as a legal means of challenging his decision — as Maria Korp's guardian was reportedly considered by opponents of his decision but no appeal was made. The protest group's spokesperson, Mrs Tighe, reported to the media that they would be willing to give anything a try in order to stop her from dying from starvation. Maria Korp's husband Joe had publicly stated through his lawyers that he would fight in the courts any attempt to withdraw medical treatment. It was for that reason that the hospital sought the appointment of a guardian. It was only after the Public Advocate approved his visit to Maria that he changed his mind. Her daughter Laura De Gois indicated that she did not oppose Mr Gardner's decision.

According an ABC radio report, Julian Gardner, the public advocate who made the decision, explained that they talked over a period of months to people who knew her well, including her priest, to find out what she believed, and took advice from "an expert Catholic ethicist". He was provided with details of the medical evidence and asked to consider whether, given that evidence of her medical condition, withdrawal of treatment other than palliative care would be in accordance with the statement on this issue by the former Pope in April 2004. He concluded that it would be. Many of her family members were against the cessation of life support. their reasons wrere not publicly stated other than to claim that the doctors were wrong and that Maria was not dying. This was the basis of the comments by a family member in Portugal. It is only possible to speculate whether family members’ opposition was to avoid Joe being charged with murder or whether they saw withdrawal of life support as euthanasia which is considered a sin in the Roman Catholic Church.

The controversy was heightened by the fact that it occurred at the end of the internationally publicised controversy about Terri Schiavo, an American woman in a vegetative state (for a decade or more longer than Maria Korp) whose artificial treatment and hydration was ceased following a decision by her husband that was made after numerous court cases which ultimately confirmed his authority to do so. Although the Public Advocate was at pains to state that the actions did not amount to euthanasia (he noted that medical treatment decisions such as this had been authorised by the Supreme Court in Gardner re BWV VSC 173 and that euthanasia was unlawful) the raw nerve that the case touched among many people did not stop some of those who either supported or opposed euthanasia characterising it as such.