Page 3216 - Week 11 - Wednesday, 21 September 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
did not have the operation, they would be dead. Fortunately, I had some very good medical advice from other practitioners, and I pulled them out of hospital. After three weeks of care, the problem was handled without the operation. In both cases, these people did not have this unwanted, unnecessary part of the body removed. They were able to keep their gall bladders and the problem was handled. So, that was my quandary with a number of areas of this Bill. There can be times when one should be able to refuse medical treatment.
MR DE DOMENICO (12.06): Madam Speaker, I wish to respond very briefly to the comments made by the Attorney-General. He commented on the fact that the Government has more resources than the committee and that was why there were 30 amendments, albeit most of them technical. He said that it was a bit political for anyone to suggest that the fact that there were 30 amendments was in some way an argument against the Bill. I dispute that comment, because I do not think that it is political at all. I think that it is a quite reasonable assessment for anyone to make when one is told to vote on a piece of legislation. When you are exercising a conscience vote on a piece of legislation - I imagine that members opposite are not on this occasion - you have to be very careful to make sure that what you are doing is the right thing.
There is another thing that I would like to say about some of the comments made by the Attorney-General. I will not be supporting any amendments to this Bill. I voted in principle against the Bill because in the current situation a doctor is allowed to make the decision, and quite rightly so. It might not be a codified law, and it might not be the perfect thing; but, in my view, it has stood the test of time thus far. It has allowed the doctor to make the decision. A lot of people might say that we should remove the right from the doctor and give it to the patient or somebody else; but it has stood the test of time. We have allowed the doctor to make the decision. I believe that what we are doing now is allowing 17 politicians to attempt to make a decision based on what those 17 politicians think people want. I think that we are getting onto dangerous ground if we do that. Let us look at the definitions, and let us take the situation where someone asks for an overdose and says, "Please give me maximum relief from my suffering, Doctor".
Mr Moore: As is reasonable.
MR DE DOMENICO: No; the words are, "Please give me maximum relief from my suffering, Doctor". That request sounds quite reasonable. The patient says, "I am in enormous pain. Give me maximum relief for my suffering, Doctor". In this case, I believe that the word "reasonable" is not a test. It is no test at all, because "maximum relief from pain" may mean killing people. I would like the Attorney-General to clarify this. If I am not terminally ill but I am in enormous pain and if I say, "Please give me maximum relief for my suffering", does that open up the possibility for that maximum relief to be a lethal dose of morphine or whatever it is? If it does, or if it may - I do not think that the amendment clarifies it - we have to think very carefully before we start voting for anything.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .