Page 684 - Week 03 - Wednesday, 21 March 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
these guidelines should be seen as additional to, rather than a substitute for, a legislative basis for informed consent. In drafting these guidelines, care must be taken to ensure that the paternalistic tone of the report is not reproduced. Arguments that there may be circumstances in which it is in the patient's best interest to withhold information cannot be accepted. In no other profession or circumstance would such an approach be tolerated. Because these decisions concern our health, our most fundamental interest, this principle should not apply in the medical world. People are constantly taking decisions about their health - their diet or attention to exercise, for example. Yet the moment they walk into a doctor's surgery there seems to be a long-established tradition that they cede to the doctor a substantial degree of the right to make decisions.
Patients must claim their rights. I believe that doctors have taken great strides in recent times in respect of the information that they give to patients, but much more is yet to be done. The importance of this matter, an individual's health, is such that full acknowledgement of this, through strong legislation, is absolutely essential.
MR COLLAERY (Attorney-General) (5.12), in reply: I thank members for their comments in relation to this paper. In view of Mr Wood's comments, which were slightly and informedly critical, I thought I should mention that really this document was an historic one. It is the first time that three law reform commissions have jointly published a report, and they were the Victorian Law Reform Commission, the Australian Law Reform Commission and the New South Wales Law Reform Commission.
Also historic was, contrary to what Mr Wood suggested, the length and breadth of the inquiry. If I could draw Mr Wood's attention to appendix 4 of the document, he will see there that the inquiry received submissions from, or was otherwise assisted by, at least 20 individuals and 33 independent organisations, including the Women's Electoral Lobby, the Humanist Society of Australia and the Australian Council on the Ageing. To say that the report is strongly overinfluenced by the medicos is probably being less than just to the report. Be that as it may, it is historic - - -
Mr Wood: But you will listen to those comments.
MR COLLAERY: I think we will examine the Hansard, and no doubt the writers will look at that, too. The report has produced, as Mr Wood has suggested, a mixed reaction from the medical profession. Perhaps I should inform the house what that is, to my knowledge. The Federal President of the AMA said that he found the view that we could get informed consent impracticable. That was rejected by the Health Issues Centre of Victoria, which believes otherwise. It believes that the onus is on the doctor to try to ensure that the patient is comprehending what is being said.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .