Page 3517 - Week 12 - Wednesday, 12 October 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
matters such as the nature of the illness and the consequences of remaining untreated and the health professional believes on reasonable grounds that the person has understood the information, weighed the options and affirmed the decision to refuse treatment.
... ... ...
I am asked whether the authority given by Clause 12 of the Bill to a grantee to consent to the withdrawal or withholding of treatment has the effect that the grantee who gives such consent in the circumstances set out in the Bill and with the intention of causing death may not be guilty of murder or manslaughter.
My view is that since Clause 12 confers on the grantee authority to consent to the withholding or withdrawal of treatment, it would be a good defence to a charge of murder or manslaughter to plead justification by virtue of Clauses 12 and 15.
I am also asked if a health professional who acted in compliance with Clause 21 would be protected against a charge of murder if he or she acted in accordance with the request of a grantee to withhold or withdraw treatment and intended the patient to die. As noted above, the meaning of the words "in good faith" in Clause 21 is not entirely clear but in my opinion it would be possible for a health practitioner to withdraw and withhold treatment in order to bring about the death of a patient, believing honestly on reasonable grounds (and without ulterior motive) that a request by the grantee has been made in accordance with the Act.
As I mentioned earlier, all members in this house have stated that their intention, if they agree with the Bill, is not to have it used for active euthanasia. We see from the legal opinion from Mr Francis that there is ambiguity here. That interpretation means that other possibilities are open. I suggest, on the basis of the advice of Mr Francis, that the amendment that I propose to clause 22 specifically inserting "other than the laws relating to homicide and suicide" would prevent homicide and assisted suicide. If the intention of members is not to allow that, I would hold that they should agree with the amendment.
When I surveyed on this Medical Treatment Bill, the question I asked was:
Should someone be able to refuse medical treatment (an operation, drug or any other medical procedure) even if it was considered vital to support their life?
The result was seven to two in favour of a person being able to refuse medical treatment, with approximately 10 per cent being unsure. I did not ask about active euthanasia, because the indication was that the Bill was not about active euthanasia. The reason I voted for the Bill in principle was that it was held by members supporting the Bill not to be about active euthanasia. However, I hold that the legal opinion of Mr Francis shows
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .