Page 3204 - Week 11 - Wednesday, 21 September 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Finally, on the question of the word "reasonable", I read very carefully what Ms Marker said about one court in the United States and their interpretation of "reasonable". There is no doubt that the courts here can be influenced by decisions made in US courts; but the level of influence of those decisions is not as great as some people would imagine, unless, of course, it is the US Supreme Court, which is taken much more seriously. Even then it would be one of the factors influencing a court as to how it would judge what is reasonable. As part of our legislative system, it is appropriate for the courts to interpret these things. My final comment, Madam Speaker, relates to the issue about Division 1 of Part I. That is a typographical error and Mr Humphries's amendment will take care of that. It is appropriate that we deal with it then.
MR DE DOMENICO (11.17): Madam Speaker, I rise to indicate that, like my colleague Mr Kaine, I will not support any of the amendments. We said quite clearly last week that some of us were inclined to do that. I would like to comment, though, on some of the comments made by Mr Moore. Mr Moore talked about Professor Remmelink apparently coming to town in October or November, and he invited members to go and listen to him and to hear what is happening. Perhaps the logical thing for Mr Moore to do is to pull this Bill out today and delay it until such time as we have had the benefit of listening to Professor Remmelink and hearing whether he agrees with what we are debating this morning in the Assembly. Mr Moore also said that some people were fearful of his own agenda. I think those were his words. As I have said on many occasions, Mr Moore is quite up front in talking about certain things, and once again I commend him for that. Yes, there are some people like me who, in certain circumstances, are very fearful of Mr Moore's personal agenda.
I also am going to be talking about what Ms Rita Marker had to say. Whilst I did not attend her talk, I did spend quite a deal of time privately with her when she was here. She says this:
While the Bill may be assumed to have effect only when a person is gravely ill, there is, in fact, nothing in the measure which so states. Any person who may be (or may fear becoming) dependent due to age or disability would presumably be eligible for denial of such "medical treatment" as food, water, insulin, antibiotics or even simple first aid.
Ms Marker suggests that this appears to be the intent behind much of the ambiguity, since Mr Moore, the Bill's sponsor, has publicly expressed approval for enabling healthy elderly couples to end their lives if they fear future dependency. Ms Marker suggests that Mr Moore "has agreed that this would constitute a 'final frontier' in the area of human rights". Mr Moore supposedly said that on 2 February 1993 on the 2CN morning show. So, yes, Mr Moore, I for one am slightly fearful of your agenda.
Mr Moore mentioned three reasons in his initial speech. He was very supportive of this Bill because people would make the decision. My understanding is that people right now make that decision. There are certain people in hospital, Mr Moore, right now, who, in consultation with their families and in consultation with their doctors, make that decision anyway. That is one area where I think that argument is deficient.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .