Page 3200 - Week 11 - Wednesday, 21 September 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR KAINE (11.02): Madam Speaker, I indicated in my speech in opposition to this Bill last week that are were some aspects of it that trouble me greatly. Some of those aspects flow from the definitions that appear in clause 3. The first that I have difficulty with is the definition of "direction". The Bill says:
"direction" means a written or oral direction -
I notice that there is an error here -
made in accordance with Division 1 of Part I;
I think that should be "Division 1 of Part II". Madam Speaker, I indicated that I had no difficulty in principle with the notion that a person, being of sound mind, being an adult, and being fully informed on their condition, could make a written direction that in certain circumstances certain courses of action should follow. It is the right of an adult, sane, normal person, fully aware of all of the facts, to make such a direction. I have no difficulty at all with that.
The thing that troubles me, however, is when we extend that to an oral direction, because the Bill says later on that the oral direction can be given under duress or even in periods of stress or great pain. Having spelt out in some detail when a written direction is legitimate - there is a quite significant prescription as to what makes it a legitimate direction - the Bill then says that, notwithstanding all of that, an oral direction can be made, and as long as two health professionals are there at the time it is legitimate. That is a very large step that we are taking. From a legitimate, rational, sensible, informed decision, we are making this enormous jump to a point where the person, in fact, may be in no condition to make such a judgment and it is okay if two health professionals are present at the time. So I have grave difficulty with this notion of including this oral direction. I make it plain that I have real concerns about this because I believe that it does leave the Bill open to interpretation. It leaves it open to acts that might be taken by health professionals, believing that they are doing the right thing, when, in fact, the direction itself has very large question marks about it.
I recognise that people who are in sympathy with this Bill probably reject my proposition and I think it is very unfortunate that they are not prepared to listen. What we are doing here is moving into an area which is very largely ethical and moral. We are going to set into legislation things that some people think are ethical and moral, and I am not certain that the majority of the community would agree with that. I do not believe that they would. We have heard, for example, that there has been some attempt to assert that the Catholic bishop in this diocese agrees with this Bill when, in fact, that Catholic bishop has said that he does not. So we are already seeing an attempt to distort the opinions of people. How much worse can it be when a patient is in a hospital, under stress, under duress, and makes a decision on the spur of the moment and which is then interpreted purely by the two health professionals who happen to be there at the time? I think we are making a huge jump, and it troubles me greatly.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .