Page 2896 - Week 10 - Wednesday, 14 September 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
I also have grave reservations about the euphemism, the Medical Treatment Bill 1994.
Mr Moore: It is an excellent name.
MR CORNWELL: Mr Moore interjects and says, "It is an excellent name". Mr Moore realises and remembers the effect - - -
Mr Moore: I would be happy to call it the passive euthanasia Bill.
MR CORNWELL: Mr Moore remembers the effect of an earlier Bill that came through this place, a Bill called the Unit Titles Bill, and look at the chaos that caused out there in the community because people did not know the full implications. I would suggest to you that people do not realise the full implications of this Medical Treatment Bill. Unlike Ms Ellis, I do not believe that there is a need for this legislation out there in the community. I have no doubt that, once the media report the passage of this legislation, we will get more representations than we ever have before. But if there was a need, Ms Ellis, and if you were concerned and were compassionate about this issue, why did not the Government introduce the legislation?
Mr De Domenico: Because they did not have the guts to; that is why.
MR CORNWELL: I believe that Mr De Domenico's interjection is correct, and I quote him - "They did not have the guts to". Lastly, to give the lie to this idea that there is a need out there, that there is strong support for it, why did Mr Lamont in his closing statement talk about community education on the matter? Once again we have our Labor Government social engineering and saying, "We will educate the community that this Medical Treatment Bill, this euphemism, is a good thing". Members, there is no support, no overwhelming or great demand for this legislation out there in the community, and I intend to exercise my conscience vote in voting against both the legislation and all of the amendments.
MRS GRASSBY (12.04): Madam Speaker, I consider that this is not only a good result from the committee but also a result that the public would accept. No-one wants to see anybody suffer from pain of any strength. There is not a doctor or a nurse who would like to see a patient in pain, let alone a loved one.
The Bill will take care of giving a person the right to sign a living will, and thus have any machine turned off if they are brain dead or not have artificial ways of keeping them alive. Life is precious to all of us, but if we are to be kept alive by means that are not our own - as would be the case if we were brain dead - we would not want this for our loved ones or for ourselves. This will take care of that. The machine is an artificial way of keeping people alive and can be turned off only by the decision of the person himself or herself, with a living will.
This Bill and the amendments proposed by the Minister have the agreement of the Anglican and Catholic churches. When I nursed, terminally ill patients were given pain-killers, on request, to help them stay out of pain. On many occasions, I know that this hastened their death. If the Catholic Church, which I belong to, had not been
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .