Page 3194 - Week 11 - Wednesday, 21 September 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
. According to the Remmelink Report, Dutch physicians deliberately and intentionally ended the lives of 11,840 people by lethal overdoses or injections - a figure which accounts for 9.1 per cent of the annual overall death rate of 130,000 per year. The majority of all euthanasia deaths in Holland are involuntary deaths.
That brings me back to some of the concerns I have about the Bill. Rita Marker brings up a perfectly valid point about there being no definition of "any other medical procedure". I could well understand that that could be held to be the things that she suggests. It could well be that we are simply talking about conjecture either way. As for the provision of reasonable medical and nursing procedures for the relief of pain, suffering and discomfort under "palliative care", I think there would be some cases where it could be ruled that it was unreasonable to be expected to handfeed someone all the time. As I mentioned last week, there is some contradiction between the definitions of "medical treatment" and "palliative care".
Clause 6 of the Bill refers to a person who is of sound mind. What is the definition of "sound mind", and who decides whether my mind is sound or not? I have heard every member in this Assembly at one time or another say that the other members of the Assembly are not of sound mind, or words to that effect. When it comes to oral directions, that is simply determined by health professionals who would state that the patient told them certain things. Turning to clause 21, we should understand the protection for doctors and nurses, provided that they do something in good faith. That removes the right of action for a member of the family or the person themselves. We surveyed a question on this Bill. The question was:
Should someone be able to refuse medical treatment (an operation, drug or any other medical procedure) even if it was considered vital to support their life?
We surveyed 406 people; and 69.7 per cent said "Yes", 20.44 per cent said "No", and 9.85 per cent said that they were not sure.
I want to go on to some more of the points that Rita Marker brought up. She said that one of the highlights was the lethal intent of clause 22. She said:
The wording of Clause 22 and the omission of important elements in discussing pain relief appear to contain the key to the reason for this Bill.
Certainly treatment to relieve pain and other symptoms of disease should be given so that the patient may live more comfortably. However, Clause 22 makes no attempt to clarify what is meant by "maximum relief" -
I believe that this is the vital point -
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .