The Paradox Of Care

Over the past five days I have found myself dealing with an unexpected time of incapacitation caused by a random medical situation.  While dining out with a group of people from our church, a piece of steak got lodged in my oesophagus, resulting in extreme pain and vomiting a lot of blood.  After a number of non intrusive attempts to dislodge the steak in the Emergency Department at Berwick Hospital, I was transferred to Dandenong Hospital where I required a gastroscopy to remove the blockage, which also revealed a couple of significant tears along my oesophagus.  Four days in hospital, excellent care from medical staff, the love and support of family and friends, and faith fueled prayers for healing have led to a full recovery.  Praise the Lord!!

During my stay at the Dandenong Hospital it was interesting to observe the ethnic mix of medical staff, reflecting the cultural diversity of the greater city of Dandenong.  I was cared for by doctors, nurses and orderlies from a variety of Asian, Middle Eastern, Islander and African nations.  Beyond the obvious differences in appearances and accents was a universal professionalism and level of care that transcended these cultural differences.

As a sick and vulnerable white Australian laying in a hospital bed in an Australian public hospital, I couldn't avoid noticing the paradox between the care I received from culturally diverse health professionals and the care that is given by Australian political leaders to vulnerable people seeking asylum in Australia.

While our circumstances are very different the contrast in care cannot and should not go unnoticed.  Vulnerable and desperate human beings who cannot help themselves should be treated with dignity and compassion by those who can, regardless of their nationality and circumstances.  It was humbling to be cared for in my time of vulnerability by people from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds who experience racial discrimination and may well have family or friends being rejected by a government they are serving through their medical expertise.

In transit between Casey Hospital in Berwick and Dandenong Hospital I met an Indian taxi driver who is studying a Degree in Commerce and drives taxis part time because he is not entitled to the same study concessions as other Australians.  In the ward at Dandenong Hospital I met an Islander male nurse who showed a particular interest in my case because of his training as a doctor back home but who is not qualified to practice medicine in Australia.  Yet, in the bed next to me in the Day Treatment Centre at Dandenong I overheard the phone conversation of a young drug affected Australian making racially critical comments about the staff and service of the hospital.

The experience of being hospitalized this week, while unwelcomed on many levels, gave me a deeper respect for people from culturally diverse backgrounds and a stronger resolve to bridge the growing gap of misunderstanding between Australians and those who seek to call Australia home!

Civility v's Hostility

"We are losing the art of civil debate in our society, as we secularize...because we are losing the ability to understand the value of the other person.  Voltaire is accredited as saying, "I may disagree with you, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."  That's not the way we conduct the debate at the moment in this country or in the west.  If we don't like someone else's debate now, we demonise the person who puts the idea on the table.  Voltaire understood...that each individual ought to be valued enough for you to say let them put their idea on the table, then we'll debate that idea.  The greater the potpourri of ideas we've got in a pluralist society the better the chance we have of getting good policy out of it.  We will never get good policy in this country again until we learn how to have a civilized debate where we debate the issues and decide the case on the merits, not on, sorry to say it, popular applause." - John Anderson, former deputy Prime Minister

Last night, the Australian Christian Lobby hosted the Make It Count 2013 Election Webcast, featuring a panel of experts presenting a Christian worldview on a wide range of issues being debated during the current election campaign.  While there were many viewpoints expressed of interest to me, I was particularly interested by what former deputy Prime Minister John Anderson had to say about the issue of civility in debating social, political and religious issues.

Secularisation of society has hijacked public debate, demonising and ridiculing any point of view that conflicts with popular opinion.  The freedom of speech we celebrate as a democratic nation and the foundations of belief for people of faith are systematically being eroded by the facade of tolerance and equality.   This is highlighted by a form of hypocrisy emerging from a secular worldview that defends diversity of opinion and lifestyle on one hand, while on the other hand attacking and labeling a biblical worldview as bigotry.  The paradox of the current social and political climate is that it has traded civil dialogue for hostile debate, contradicting the values it seeks to defend.

This critique of the impact of secularisation on civil dialogue, however, must be balanced with the acknowledgement that the same hostility and hypocrisy experienced by a biblical worldview today has historically been inflicted upon society by dogmatic religious views.

What is really needed today is a return to open respectful dialogue by exchanging hostility for civility and embracing a genuine appreciation for diversity of thought that contributes to healthy discussion.  

As a person who holds a strong biblical worldview, it is ironic that I agree with Voltaire's philosophy, "I may disagree with you, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."  Well, I may not literally defend to the death.  However, I have learned to value and engage in dialogue that welcomes a diverse range of social and religious views without feeling the need to demean or belittle those with whom I would disagree, and yet still maintain my faith convictions.  In my current role as a Salvation Army Officer where this desire for civility is played out daily, I am in dialogue with people from other faiths, engage with community leaders who hold contrasting social views and provide pastoral support to those who don't share my moral and ethical convictions.  The impact of this civil dialogue is strong diverse relationships that provide the foundation for healthy interaction between church and community.

Maybe if society was less concerned with "popular applause" and more prepared to embrace John Anderson's call for "civilized debate where we debate the issues" and not "demonise the person who puts the idea on the table" we would have some hope of addressing the complex issues facing our nation.