Page 3201 - Week 11 - Wednesday, 21 September 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
That is not the only part of this definitional aspect of the Bill that troubles me, Madam Speaker. I know that Mr Moore and others are going to pooh-pooh the expertise of the person I am about to quote. I do not know on what basis they do it. This person is clearly a world authority in the field of euthanasia and probably is much better informed and more widely informed than any of us in this room; but because I quote this person some people will say, "Ah, but that is not important; that person's opinion is irrelevant". I am talking about the definitions of medical treatment and palliative care. The definitions of medical treatment talks about "the carrying out of an operation", "the administration of a drug", or "the carrying out of any other medical procedure". Just what does that mean? It is quite non-specific. Presumably, it means anything that the medical profession deems to be a medical procedure. Would that definition be accepted anywhere else, except in connection with a Bill such as this? I do not think so.
The definition of palliative care includes, in two cases, the word "reasonable" - "the provision of reasonable medical and nursing procedures for the relief of pain, suffering and discomfort", and "the reasonable provision of food and water". What is the definition of "reasonable"? I am quite sure that we have had many a debate in this place over the last five years where this word "reasonable" has been questioned. Reasonable in whose estimation? What are the criteria by which a health professional is to determine whether what they are doing is reasonable? In other words, they have to make up their mind on the spur of the moment and then, if there are legal ramifications that follow, justify their position. First of all, that puts the health professional in a quite precarious position, and I made this point last week; secondly, it puts a person's life in jeopardy if the health professional makes the wrong interpretation of what is reasonable.
Madam Speaker, I think that there remain grave doubts about this Bill and they are reflected in these very definitions that appear up front. I think that for us to pass this Bill and accept that those definitions are reasonable under all circumstances, irrespective of what is going on in the hospital ward at the time, is quite irrational. I cannot believe that people sitting here, who have had time to analyse this Bill and, surely, have thought at some length about the subject matter that we are dealing with, could allow something so ill defined to go through and become embedded in a law that we have endorsed. I find that very disturbing. In connection with this word "reasonable", I want to quote Rita Marker, the executive director of the International Anti-Euthanasia Task Force. She makes the point very clearly. She says this:
The Bill defines "medical treatment" to include the "carrying out of any other medical procedure" ... yet fails to define what is meant by "medical procedure".
That is the point I just made. She continues:
It may be of interest to the Legislative Assembly that the meaning of "medical procedure" or "medical intervention" has been interpreted in the United States as meaning any procedure which a physician would provide, perform or authorise. So broad is this meaning that, in one court case related to the removal of food and water from
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .