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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1995 Week 9 Hansard (22 November) . . Page.. 2254 ..

MR DE DOMENICO (continuing):

Being a Catholic and a Christian, I am not condemning anybody who disagrees with my view as being non-Christian or non-Catholic. I am aware of many fine Catholics and fine Christians who have a point of view different from mine. The third point I need to make is that one of the things that really made me think long and hard about what my view was going to be was that I am one of those people Ms Follett mentioned who have suffered cancer and intractable pain. When you have suffered such a disease, the first thing you think of, let me tell you, is how long you have to live. I hope that I have a hundred years. My will to live was the thing that really pulled me through.

Having said that, Mr Speaker, I should say that, in my view, euthanasia is the soft name for the act of taking a life. It is portrayed as a caring decision made as a result of the choice of individuals. But this cannot avoid the harsh reality that it is a deliberate and conscious act to extinguish a life. We are told that in this Bill, just as in legislation in the Northern Territory and overseas, there are adequate safeguards which will ensure that there is no involuntary euthanasia. Frankly, I am not convinced. The reality is that, while laws may be drafted in the strictest terms and have strong safeguards, those laws are policed by human beings with all their fallibilities and foibles, and the will to enforce those laws may change over time. Those who advocate euthanasia are almost invariably those who oppose capital punishment, primarily because of the danger that the innocent may be executed. The proponents of euthanasia effectively have less regard for the protection of the weak, the vulnerable, the sick. While I have great respect for the medical profession and for carers in our community, if but one person is killed against their will under this type of legislation that is a tragedy for our community and must be our collective responsibility.

This debate has been proceeding for at least 50 years. Euthanasia has been the subject of many reports such as that of the New York State Task Force on Life and the Law and most recently that of the select committee of the British House of Lords in January 1993. This latter report, as with many others, rejected euthanasia. It is worth quoting part of that report in light of today's debate. It said:

There is insufficient reason to weaken society's prohibition of intentional killing which is the cornerstone of the law and social relationships - it protects each one of us impartially, embodying the belief that we are all equal.

Mr Speaker, Eleanor Roosevelt once said:

It is not that you set the individual apart from society but that you recognise in any society that the individual must have rights that are guarded.

It is our responsibility to protect the rights of the weakest and the most vulnerable, even if that means appearing to restrict the preference of some. The cornerstone of the argument advocating the right to die is that each person should have a choice as to when to die. We live in a society where rights and choices, if those are the correct terms in this type of debate, are limited. There are prohibitions on torture and mutilation because society recognises that it is wrong to allow such behaviour whether or not people wish it.

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