Page 2875 - Week 10 - Wednesday, 14 September 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
the patient. On the other hand, and balancing that, it is the intention of the Assembly that a patient should be able to receive substantial pain relief, even though the natural consequence of that pain relief may well be to hasten the end. It is a subtle distinction, but one that I think needs to be drawn.
Those amendments are put forward in the spirit of clarifying the intention of the Bill and making it clear, to anybody who would want to say the contrary, that this is not a Bill about active euthanasia. I know that it is not Mr Moore's intention that this be a back door to active euthanasia. He wants those issues debated later. I know that the intention is really to say that a patient should be able to get maximum pain relief, even though that may have some unintended consequences. It would not have been the intention of the Bill to say that a patient has a statutory right to demand, for immediate consumption, a litre of morphine - the consequences of drinking which would be sudden and immediate. So the amendment is put forward for that purpose.
There is also an issue, as my drafters advise me, which relates to the situation in a less than terminal context and the situation of a pregnant person seeking maximum pain relief. Doctors always have to have the qualification to be able to say, "We do not believe that this additional pain relief is appropriate because of the consequences that it could have on the child". It is important that there be that balance. So, the amendment is put forward for those purposes, not in any way to subvert the intention of that important provision which empowers the patient to say, "I know that the consequences of large doses of pain relief may be adverse; nonetheless, I want the pain relief". That is a provision which the Government fully supports; but it is a provision which could be read to suggest that a person has a statutory right to have a litre of morphine - which would result in very rapid death - or the right to demand, if not a lethal injection, a lethal intravenous drip or a lethal cocktail. That is not the intention of the Assembly. So, that is why those amendments are put forward.
Generally speaking, the Government welcomes this Bill. As I said in the Government's response to the committee's report, it was a very significant piece of work that was done by that committee. The fact that a unanimous committee recommendation was able to be produced is an indication that the committee system of this Assembly can work for great public good. We will not be the first place in Australia to have natural death legislation. It was passed some years ago in South Australia and Victoria. This legislation will be the most advanced in the country. We have benefited from the examination by members of the committee. Mr Moore, as the original proponent, has obviously looked carefully at what has happened in Victoria and South Australia. In proposing some of these finetuning amendments, the Government has also looked at that. I think we can say that our legislation, if passed by the Assembly, will be pretty much the best in the country.
Mr Humphries has circulated some amendments. The first seems to just correct a typographical error; so we will clearly be supporting that. I will listen to the precise explanation for the second amendment before we indicate a position on that. Mr Moore has circulated some amendments this morning. As we see them at the moment, they are just further expanding on the requirements for informed consent and
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .