Page 2888 - Week 10 - Wednesday, 14 September 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
other considerations. Dying is, in many cases, a demeaning experience for all involved, not only for the person who is dying but also for their family and friends. Indeed, I believe that the sentiments embodied in the select committee's report would be better expressed if it talked not about the right of a patient to die with dignity but rather about the right of a patient to die with a minimal loss of dignity.
Mr Deputy Speaker, to illustrate this point and the need for legislation to deal with these issues I would like to relate to members a story which I believe speaks for itself. I have omitted names and other specifics, for reasons which will be obvious to members. Some years ago there was a Sydney couple. The wife had recently retired from her professional position in the public service, and the husband, while nearing retirement and despite the fact that he was a diabetic, was still actively engaged in his role as a professor - a head of school at a university in Sydney. He was not only pursuing his teaching, administration and research roles in his specialty area of that university but also playing a leadership role in international forums in his specialty, working with other academics in his field around the world, helping to establish tertiary courses in his discipline in Asia and advising government in his area of expertise. All in all, this man was contributing significantly to Australia and the world in an area of growing importance, and his intelligence and dedication were respected by his peers in academia and by those involved in the practical application of his speciality.
This couple took a rational approach to most issues and, in particular, their own mortality. For many years they were members of the Voluntary Euthanasia Society in New South Wales and were strong advocates of its views. As retirement approached, they both recognised that it was possible that they too may well have to face the indignities associated with terminal illness and death. So, they set in train, with their legal advisers, a process of developing living wills which would allow the withholding or withdrawal of over-the-top medical treatment in the case of terminal illness. Given the state of the law in New South Wales at that time, this was necessarily a protracted process.
Unfortunately, before the living wills were finalised the professor suffered a diabetic stroke. He was admitted to a teaching hospital in Sydney, where he suffered further strokes, and his death was seen as highly probable. Only a combination of his own strong will and the intervention of the medical teams at the hospital allowed him to survive. After some weeks his condition stabilised and it was possible to assess his condition. Mentally, he was as alert and intelligent as ever; but, physically, he was paralysed on the left side and partially paralysed on the right side and, as is often the case with diabetic related strokes, his eyesight was severely impaired. After a period of stabilisation, the medical advice to his wife was that there was little or no likelihood of recovery and that he might survive for another 10 years in his current state.
As I believe most partners would do in the circumstances, his wife took the wheelchair-bound professor home and undertook the role of carer. This was a 24-hour, seven-day-a-week job, with little support and many difficulties, not the least of which was physically manipulating a man substantially heavier than herself from bed to wheelchair and back. What of the man himself? He could not feed himself; he could not clothe or
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .