Page 3510 - Week 12 - Wednesday, 12 October 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Mr Connolly said, "We are comparing a doctor in these circumstances to a lawyer with a vested interest". I have to tell you that one of the arguments in this area is that sometimes there is a vested interest in the profession in these matters. That is the argument that takes place - there is a vested interest. I think it is naive in the extreme to imagine that vested interests will not be a factor, even in a doctor's treatment of a patient. I have great admiration for doctors in this town and, indeed, generally. The Government would probably acknowledge that that has possibly been a problem for the Liberal Party. But the fact of life is that we cannot assume that all doctors will act on all occasions with only the best of motives. Sometimes other factors will intrude, and it is safe and it is healthy to include an additional safeguard. It is not an onerous requirement. It does not mean a lot of forms being filled in or other documents having to be passed around. It means simply getting a second opinion on a matter which could result in death. It does not seem to me to be a lot to ask.
MR STEVENSON (11.39): Once again, I think it important to understand the value of having this safeguard. Even a doctor with the very best of motives may be wrong. There would be hundreds of thousands of cases where one doctor has disagreed with another doctor on medical treatment. In a case as serious as this, there is value in getting a second opinion. Mr Connolly suggested that that may not be the case because no second opinion is required in chemotherapy. I would personally suggest that it should be, and that would be a more relevant viewpoint.
Amendment negatived.
MR CONNOLLY (11.40), by leave: I move:
Page 4, line 24, omit "person appeared", substitute "health professional believes on reasonable grounds that the person has".
Page 4, line 25, omit "to understand", substitute "understood".
Page 4, line 26, omit "to weigh", substitute "weighed".
Page 4, line 27, omit "to affirm", substitute "affirms".
I think it is worth pointing out that this is a further safeguard. This is again exactly the sort of thing that Mr Moore was talking about. We look at the Bill and we look for further safeguards. The original form of the Bill basically says that you cannot give effect to the informed consent direction to withhold medical treatment unless the person appeared to have understood it and to have weighed the options and so forth. That, when we looked at it carefully, was a purely subjective test. The doctor could have said, "He appeared to me to have understood that and yes, there could be scope for danger there". So, instead of a subjective test and the health professional simply saying, "Yes, subjectively, to me, the person appeared to have understood it", we are tightening this up by putting in an objective test requiring that the health professional believe on reasonable grounds that the person has understood the informed consent process, weighed their various options and affirmed their decision.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .