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

None . . Page.. 1525 ..

Even if the latest survey showed that only five per cent of the community wanted this choice, instead of 75.5 per cent, would we have the right to deny them? We are not, by this choice, affecting the rights of others in any way. If one does not want this choice, for whatever reason, they need not avail themselves of it. In an indirect way, we will be strengthening the protection of those who are currently victims of involuntary euthanasia. Although there is some tolerance in the community for well-meaning doctors to assist the suffering to die, with or without their permission, this legislation will ensure that these doctors will have to show that they have satisfied the conditions and demands of the Act if they are to escape prosecution in the future; and that is the way it ought to be. The patient, and the patient alone, ought to not only have the choice but also be safeguarded, as much as possible, against abuse.

The situation that exists right now is that the practice is unregulated and dangerous. All those who would argue that this legislation will make it expedient for those in charge of health dollars to “do away with the aged” are arguing against themselves. That practice is a possibility only if there are no controls, if euthanasia is in the hands of the medical practitioners and not the patients, as indeed it is now. The life and the wishes of the patient can only be more respected with this protection, not less. Perhaps members of the Right to Life would get a shock - and I see Ms Tighe in our chamber today - to see me amongst their ranks, joining my voice to theirs, if this had anything to do with non-voluntary euthanasia. This Bill is about giving choice and more power to patients.

The slippery slope argument is also wearing a bit thin. Remmelink will be dusted off once again and misquoted once again by the proponents of social control. Let me remind members that, if Remmelink were to do a survey in Australia right now, the results, if the doctors were honest, would probably be about the same; that is, about 1.8 per cent of patients who were assisted to die were assisted without the patient's consent. The slippery slope reaction to Remmelink's report was to tighten the controls of the practice, to regulate it so that this level of abuse would be reduced. I might add that there is no way that it could have happened if the Dutch had had the benefit of legislation such as I propose today.

Senator John Herron, in his speech to the New South Wales Liberal Women's Council on 23 November 1994, presented a curious argument. He very eloquently gave arguments for and against voluntary euthanasia and then explained why he could not support its legalisation. Then he described a situation where he assisted a friend to die without consent and justified himself. Senator Herron is, of course, a medical practitioner. He justified himself in these words:

I visited him at home until the time came when fluid developed in his lungs which needed draining. He was admitted to hospital, it was drained, but within a few days it reaccumulated. I was called urgently to the hospital as he was screaming that he couldn’t breathe. His wife was at his bedside. I ordered a dose of morphia intravenously. The nun drawing up the drug paused and I spoke to her quietly. “Sister, if you have any moral dilemma I will give it myself”. She replied “Doctor, I wonder if it is enough”. He died peacefully within the hour.

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