Page 3213 - Week 11 - Wednesday, 21 September 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
time to look after this patient."? Is that reasonable? I suspect that there are times in a hospital when that is considered to be reasonable. So the terms "maximum extent", "maximum pain" and "reasonable in the circumstances" leave this Bill wide open to interpretation in any particular case at any particular time.
Madam Speaker, I repeat that these are the things about this Bill that trouble me. These are the reasons why I will not support it. I do not believe that it is specific enough to make clear the duty of the health professionals who are involved in the care of these people. As I said last week, it may even put those health professionals themselves in jeopardy of litigation after a patient dies. Is that what we want to do? Do we want to put in place a law that does that? I do not believe so. I do not believe that it is reasonable. I believe that any sane person in this community would say that whether the two results were reasonable - firstly, that a patient dies when perhaps it was unnecessary; and, secondly, that the health professionals concerned can find themselves in a position of litigation because someone somewhere asserts that what they did was not reasonable - required a very subjective judgment. I am very uncomfortable with that, and that is the reason why I will vote against the amendment.
MR CORNWELL (11.51): Madam Speaker, I rise to join this debate briefly and to support the remarks of my colleague Mr Kaine. It is rather interesting that, a little earlier today, Mr Humphries rose to correct an error that had been pointed out to him by the Right to Life Association. It was accepted by the Assembly. I think that this is indicative of the fact that this Bill is far from perfect. Mr Kaine has raised some very reasonable arguments. I do not use the word "reasonable" in any attempt to pun, because this is a serious matter.
Mr Berry: And who is going to decide what is reasonable?
MR CORNWELL: Mr Berry, the problem is that so-called small-l liberals like you opposite have this itch to legislate and to codify every possible human endeavour, and in doing so - - -
Mr Kaine: Living and dying.
MR CORNWELL: Yes, living and dying. In doing so, all that you create is more money for the lawyers and further confusion out there in the community as to a person's legal status. I do not know why you people have this itch, but you do. I personally do not believe that a piece of legislation of this nature should be debated at what is, effectively, a State level, or in this case a Territory level. I think that this is a matter of national importance. You may laugh, Mr Berry; but that happens to be my view. Despite the influence of the Federal Labor Government, this is still a democracy, and I have every right to express that view. I do not think that we should necessarily be debating this matter; but we are. Therefore, I am very happy to oppose the entire legislation, largely on the basis of what Mr Kaine has outlined.
I do not believe that it ties the matter up. In fact, I am very nervous, firstly, when I see that this piece of "perfect" legislation can be amended and improved upon by advice from the Right to Life Association and, secondly, when I find that I have here something like seven pages of amendments presented by the Attorney-General. These amendments give
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .