Page 4398 - Week 15 - Tuesday, 19 November 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
will not be held to be the cause of death where he or she follows such a direction. This means that there is still no opportunity for refusal of life preserving treatment on behalf of another under any circumstances. Directives do not apply to the withdrawal of life preservation of a person who is in a persistent vegetative state unless that person has already made that decision referred to by Dr Kinloch.
That brings me to the Dutch situation. I will make available to members an extract from the Hemlock Quarterly, of July 1989, headed "The Netherlands as a Role Model". Professor Batlin, a professor of philosophy at the University of Utah, examined the Dutch system. He found that an estimated 6,000 of these deaths occur each year, although official figures are significantly less. He says:
Death in Holland is a process as opposed to a discrete event. It is shared as much by family as the patient. Typical aid in dying in the Netherlands involves the administration of barbiturates followed by an injection of curare. Whilst many of these deaths occur in hospitals and nursing homes, a great many take place at home. In nearly all cases the patient has had a long-standing request with his or her physician, with family members and, I stress, often with the clergy.
The professor goes on to indicate why the Dutch have created this system in a manner unlike the manner in which our common law system approaches it.
Ms Follett mentioned the Labor Party policy on the matter. My view, of course, is that if you have a policy - if you have a platform and you stand on it at an election - people generally expect that, if they are asked to elect you for the term, you will implement your policies. I think there is something slightly ambiguous in a Labor Party platform which, as we all know, leaves the timing or implementation to its executive. That situation would not be accepted in the Rally. Our people would expect us to implement our policies in government.
Mr Connolly: It has been there for 100 years, Bernard.
MR COLLAERY: I am well aware, as Mr Connolly interjects, that it is there; I am well aware of the need for consultation; and I am well aware of the fact that the Labor Party is reluctant to approach this issue. It is extremely reluctant to approach the issue. Mr Moore is not. I believe that there are significant elements in the community who deserve a quicker process for the resolution of this issue than we are acknowledging in this debate today.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .