Page 3207 - Week 11 - Wednesday, 21 September 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
It would be nice to say that we have perfection in this legislation in dealing with the issue of death with dignity, or natural death, or medical treatment - however you want to put it. The concept of allowing a person to not have interventionist treatment is an issue that has confronted a number of parliaments in Australia, and a number of parliaments of different political persuasions have put through Bills similar to but not identical to this. We think we perhaps have got it better. Yes, Mr De Domenico, there are some 30 Government amendments to be moved, but that is not an unusual process. We have had a very long committee discussion on this, starting from a proposition that was advancing the case for active euthanasia and ending up with a unanimous committee report saying, "No; look at the issue of natural death legislation", and coming up with a recommended Bill.
The reality of life is that the resources available to the executive government are always going to be rather more extensive than the resources available to a committee. The normal process is that the committee will recommend a Bill and the executive government will then take that Bill and send it through all the various areas of expertise in the Attorney-General's Department. We have come up with a number of definitional issues, and we are linking it better with the existing power of attorney and other areas of the civil law. So, I think it is a bit political to say that there is something wrong because there are 30 amendments. It is the normal process. The executive government takes the output of a committee and puts it through the normal Cabinet process whereby things are circulated and everyone gets a look at it to come up with improvements.
I think your concern is this: Can we get the perfect definition? I would like to think that we have better definitions than the other States, and we are working towards a good outcome. Can I say that it is perfect? No, I cannot; but I can say that it is much better than the current position. There is grave uncertainty for doctors at the moment, and that is why this law, or a law like this, has been passed by a number of State parliaments. What is the current position? The AMA's code of ethics is probably as close as you could get to the current position. It simply says, "Always bear in mind the obligation of preserving life, but allow death to occur with dignity and comfort where death is deemed to be inevitable and where curative treatment appears to be futile". That leaves doctors deciding when to withdraw treatment, when to accede to a patient's wishes in an incredibly grey area. What we are seeking to do is to provide a level of protection for doctors in that very difficult area.
To suggest that this is opening the door to active euthanasia is, I think, misleading. I am concerned about some letters that have been circulated, probably to all members, suggesting that we are going far too rapidly on this; that wanting to move so quickly is legislative bushranging. This has been a very long and studied process, with extensive public hearings. It has been very well publicised. There would be hardly anybody in Canberra who would not have known that there was an Assembly committee looking at euthanasia; that the issue of active euthanasia as opposed to natural death or death with dignity legislation was before that committee. There were extensive submissions. This is the end of a very long and very considered process.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .