Page 3501 - Week 12 - Wednesday, 12 October 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Clause 8
MR CONNOLLY (Attorney-General and Minister for Health) (11.11): I move:
Page 4, lines 1 to 4, omit the clause, substitute the following clause:
Other directions - requirements
"8. Subject to sections 5 and 10, a direction other than a written direction is not valid unless it is witnessed by 2 health professionals (1 of whom shall be a medical practitioner) present at the same time.".
Madam Speaker, this amendment again goes to the nature of directions, and it is consistent with the amendment which we have just picked up in relation to clause 6.
MR KAINE (11.11): Madam Speaker, I think members by now will have become aware that there is much about this Bill that concerns me, and this is just another cause - - -
Mr Moore: You voted against advance directives.
MR KAINE: If Mr Moore wants to talk, he can get to his feet and talk later, Madam Speaker. This is another case where I am concerned about the ramifications of the legislation. This Bill places the onus on two health professionals to make a decision. We will come shortly to a debate about the meaning of certain words which preclude the operation of, I think, section 17 of the Crimes Act, which has to do with assisting in a suicide. If this Bill becomes law, I can see that there will be many cases where the actions of health professionals in circumstances such as this will be challenged.
I am interested to know how, if a decision made by two health professionals under these circumstances is brought into question in a court of law, it is going to be validated. The Bill simply says:
Subject to sections 5 and 10, an oral direction is not valid unless it is witnessed by 2 health professionals (1 of whom shall be a medical practitioner) present at the same time.
Mr Moore: Come on! This is straight filibustering. You know how things work in court.
MR KAINE: Madam Speaker, I take exception to that. I have legitimate objections to this Bill, and I am debating those objections. I am not concerned about a filibuster or Mr Moore's opinion about that. I have genuine concerns about this Bill; and I intend to express them, whether it pleases Mr Moore or whether it does not. This is yet another clause in the Bill that causes me great concern. How does one determine after the event whether these conditions that are prescribed here have been met - that such directions have in fact been witnessed by two health professionals; that one of those professionals was a medical practitioner; and that those health professionals were present at the same time?
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .