Page 4396 - Week 15 - Tuesday, 19 November 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
There are a lot of issues surrounding the question of euthanasia, and they are very complex issues. I believe that there needs to be much more research and community consultation before any policy or legislation is put into place. Any decision needs to be very well informed, and we need to be totally convinced that it is the right decision. Mr Speaker, world surveys presently support euthanasia, and certainly I would like to see more discussion of it in the ACT. But I also support Mr Humphries when he says that it should be the subject of a conscience vote and not party policy.
MR COLLAERY (4.17): Mr Speaker, the views expressed in this debate have been interesting, but we have not had the opportunity to put on the record what the current legal situation is. I will do that briefly, and then move on. I will be as quick as I can. In this country it is not unlawful for a patient to refuse treatment. However, as one cannot consent to being killed, the health professional cannot hasten death. That requires, at the very least, that pain relief, foods and fluid be administered and that any other treatment which is not extraordinary be given.
The next thing - and I will not go through the enduring power of attorney issue, but that is what I am referring to - is that, if that attorney down the line refuses any sort of treatment, the health professional might still act where the opinion is that treatment could save the patient's life or is therapeutic or on the basis that the patient would have wanted it.
Next, the health professional runs a risk of an action for battery in these cases, but the court is likely to be unsympathetic to the claim. If the health professional does not act when there is a reasonable chance of saving life and the person dies, a spouse might sue the health professional for negligence. Therefore, the purpose of natural death legislation of the kind in New South Wales - and here - is to provide a living will provision that states the patient's wishes in advance, thus protecting the health professional from an action for battery.
Next is passive euthanasia - that is, asking a health professional, for example, to switch off life support. It has had a chequered history in the United States, where some States permit it whilst others deny it. The courts in the United States are recognising the multi-disciplinary ethics committees in hospitals, where they have to be consulted and agree on the circumstances in which a switching off is justified. In Australia and the United Kingdom it is still technically homicide.
The next situation is asking a health professional to inject a lethal dose. This is active euthanasia and is not permitted in any jurisdiction in Australia. It involves giving pain relief or other medication which may hasten death. All of those who have witnessed that situation know what I am talking about. I will not go into the emotional
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .