Page 1879 - Week 07 - Wednesday, 16 June 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Community reaction to voluntary active euthanasia has changed, perhaps coincidentally, in line with the development of life-prolonging technology. In 1962, a Morgan gallup poll revealed a 47 per cent positive response to the question, "If a hopelessly ill patient, in great pain, with absolutely no chance of recovering, asks for a lethal dose so as not to wake again, should a doctor be allowed to give a lethal dose?"; 39 per cent answered no and 14 per cent were undecided. In 1992, the response to the same question revealed that 76 per cent of the Australian population voted yes, 18 per cent voted no, and 6 per cent were undecided.
Although the questions are not quite as we would have worded them, the crucial role of the medical profession and the principle of medically assisted death are clear. These questions have been asked not by a voluntary euthanasia society but by a private organisation which survives by identifying issues of public concern. No doubt the introduction of this Bill and the ensuing debate will modify public opinion further, as the community will be exposed to the full resources of both those opposing and those supporting these reforms. For the present, the public opinion level of support is around 75 per cent. It is too strong to be casually dismissed.
If we were asked, "Should a doctor or family member be allowed to make the decision to deliver a lethal dose when a patient is terminally ill, without that patient's consent?", no doubt there would be uproar, as there should be. But this is what is happening at present, no doubt for the most compassionate of reasons. Nevertheless, this unregulated and chaotic approach leaves too much room for abuse and is an affront to the fundamental right of the individual to make their own decision regarding their life and death. The very opponents of voluntary active legislation support the medical profession's right to make these decisions on behalf of patients, providing it is done quietly. They have even suggested that this legislation would lead to abuses - abuses such as exist now. In fact, this legislation addresses those abuses by making it legally impossible for a doctor, or anyone else, to take any action to expedite a patient's death without the patient's consent, which can be given only under strict and assessable conditions.
Opponents have also argued that, if controlled voluntary euthanasia were to be practised, it would somehow lead to non-voluntary euthanasia, through the slippery slope argument. How? The only slippery slope I imagine this legislation will promote is the slope leading to more patients' rights. As the medical profession has become more specialised, individuals have become more and more disempowered, conceding control to the medical profession, who, generally speaking, have hidden behind esoteric medical jargon. Many doctors will tell us what is good for us in terms we do not understand and with ramifications we cannot discern, rather than treat us as partners in decisions about our own health.
The challenge in this Bill has been to draw up legislation which focuses on the rights of the patients as central to its purpose. It regulates where there is no regulation and gives very clear guidelines for both patients and doctors to follow. In a death-denying society, it will hopefully bring about respect for an individual's right to choose the time and quality of one's death without fear.
Debate (on motion by Mr Connolly) adjourned.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .