Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Lancet . . Page.. 1315 ..

the palliative care in the ACT is amongst the best available. The staff working in these areas are extremely dedicated, professional and compassionate human beings who are deserving of the highest praise. However, there are those who, regardless of the benefits of palliative care at its best, ought to be allowed the choice to have assistance to die if their pain and suffering cannot be eased to their satisfaction because of the nature of their illness. Evidence presented before the Select Committee on Euthanasia by people with expertise in these areas consistently claimed that somewhere between 10 and 15 per cent of terminal cases could not have pain relieved to the person's satisfaction.

Another most important reason is that the practice of doctors assisting patients to die already occurs in an uncontrolled manner and not necessarily at the patient’s request. Those who argue that if we legalise this practice under stringent conditions the “slippery slope” effect will come into play where patients who do not ask for assistance will be disposed of by doctors for economic reasons or because of pressure from families. To them I say, “This legislation is necessary to protect patients from this possible malpractice”. We know from a series of research works that, in fact, the practice of active involuntary euthanasia does go on; and that ought not be necessary. What we seek to do is ensure that the individual involved is the person that has the choice. Without controls, with current community thinking the way it is, we must guard the patient's rights with legislation that allows only the patient to choose this alternative; and then only under the strictest of guidelines.

Much has been made by opponents of voluntary euthanasia of the Remmelink report, since it was commissioned in the Netherlands. The results of this report were summarised in the Lancet in 1991. It is clear from the Lancet article that this is a detailed, careful study of euthanasia in that country. The estimate for active voluntary euthanasia in the Netherlands at the time of the study was 1.8 per cent of the population. The most common reasons given for requesting euthanasia were: Loss of dignity, 57 per cent; unworthy dying, 46 per cent; pain, 46 per cent; and being dependent on others, 33 per cent. You will notice, Mr Speaker, that there is an overlap in those figures; they do not add up to 100 per cent, because people would give two reasons. In only 5.3 per cent of cases was pain the only reason.

The report showed that each year there were approximately 9,000 explicit requests for euthanasia, of which one-third were agreed to. In addition, over 25,000 patients each year seek assurance from their doctors that the doctors will assist them if the suffering becomes unbearable. As the report showed, in the Netherlands the availability of the option alone under certain circumstances is valued by patients and falls well short of euthanasia on demand. There was an estimated 0.8 per cent life-terminating acts performed without the consent of the patient. Although almost all of those were clearly suffering severely and their life was shortened by a few days or hours only, cases such as this give serious cause for concern as they cut across the principle that there must always be a serious and informed request from the patient. This is the situation that occurs in Australia today, without voluntary euthanasia. Once again I stress that it only reinforces the need for strict guidelines so that this cannot occur in the future.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .