Page 3203 - Week 11 - Wednesday, 21 September 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Mr Kaine: It is a withdrawal of medical treatment Bill.
MR MOORE: Mr Kaine interjects that it is a withdrawal of medical treatment Bill. I will explain to him why I use the term "passive euthanasia", and I will do so by distinguishing between active euthanasia and passive euthanasia at the area where it is most grey. The area where it is most grey is when we have somebody who is at the point of death and we remove a life support system, perhaps a needle on a drip or something. We remove that needle and they die. You do not want to call that passive euthanasia. In the case of another person in exactly the same condition, we put a needle in and they die. The result is exactly the same; the intention is exactly the same. They die. That is why it is that I think it is appropriate that the term "euthanasia" applies too; but that is a personal opinion about the term "euthanasia". This is not called a euthanasia Bill. This is called the Medical Treatment Bill. It is a no-win situation.
I would like to continue quoting from that article. The bishop went on to say:
It is morally acceptable and even commendable to attempt to control a dying person's pain through medication, even if that may also have the effect of shortening the person's life. It is misleading to refer to these measures as euthanasia.
The difficulty the bishop has is with my calling it passive euthanasia rather than with the content of the Bill. In fact, that is reflected in the letter to the committee from his colleague Mr Neville.
The second point I would like to make is that Mr Kaine suggested that there may be members here who pooh-pooh Ms Rita Marker's comments that have been provided to us by the Right to Life Association. I think I am correct in saying that Mr Stevenson and I were the only members who attended the talk given by Ms Marker when she was here. To say that I pooh-pooh those comments is entirely inappropriate.
Mr Humphries: I was there too.
MR MOORE: I will clarify that. Mr Humphries was also there. I listened to all of those arguments very carefully indeed. Having been given the same paper that you are quoting from, I also read those very carefully. I do not take them lightly. That does not mean that I am going to agree with them; but I certainly have not dismissed them out of hand, as is suggested by the term "pooh-pooh".
The other point I would like to raise, Madam Speaker, is the notion that we are now giving special power to two professionals. The reality is that at the moment, under common law, only one professional makes that decision. It is a single professional. If anything, we are tightening up the process. I would have thought that Mr Kaine would welcome that kind of tightening up, which would be consistent with the argument put by him, Mr De Domenico, Mr Cornwell and Mr Stefaniak. Here you have the opportunity to tighten up on the current system. That opportunity is available to you.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .