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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1995 Week 9 Hansard (22 November) . . Page.. 2255 ..

MR DE DOMENICO (continuing):

So it is with euthanasia. We as a community have a responsibility to care for those who are the most vulnerable - the disabled, the sick and the frail - and least able to resist suggestions to hold onto life. Mr Speaker, if the Dutch experience is any indication, there is growing anecdotal evidence that euthanasia has moved from an option to a preference to an obligation for those who feel they are a burden.

We also hear from some of the proponents of euthanasia that those who oppose legalised killing - for that is what it is - are into control and against choice. They say that opposition comes from the churches, who are keen to keep control over their parishioners. This is untrue. Those who oppose euthanasia are from all walks of life. Some are Christian; some are atheists. Often their only similarity is the shared commitment to sacredness. They are not into control but care and realise that the untimely death of one of their community or threat to any others diminishes the humanity of the community. Many of them have had experience with relatives and friends who have been sick or have died after a prolonged illness. Many of them have cared for those who have suffered and are keenly aware of the value of proper palliative care as the appropriate way of addressing the suffering of those within the community.

Dame Cicely Saunders, the founder of the modern hospice movement, has said that she, as with most other workers in the hospice teams, deals regularly with patients who in a fit of delirium or depression have asked for an end to their suffering. Yet those patients often change their minds once symptoms of their sickness are effectively tackled and assurance is given that treatment now is only to enhance the quality of life and not to prolong it; that prolonging it is no longer desired or indeed possible. Dying persons often use such expressions as "I wish it was all over" or "I wish I could just die", but research by eminent psychiatrists with extensive experience with suicide - for example, Hendin and Klerman - has found that, when explored, these words are not meant to be taken as a wish to be killed. They are prompted by fatigue, fear, frustrations or similar emotions and, like other manifestations of emotions in such patients, may change from day to day or sometimes from minute to minute.

The challenge, then, or rather the obligation, I believe, for this Government and any other government and the community in general is to provide adequate care for those who are in their twilight months or years. We as a society must recognise that palliative care is as important as the care of our young and the otherwise healthy. Our aged and sick need to be assured that they still have value for others as well as for themselves. Their basic and simple right to relief and support in their twilight years should be ensured and not threatened by expedient solutions. If we are to give meaning to the phrase "a caring society", we must ensure that everyone is free from pressure and has a chance to use their last weeks and months as fully and as individually as they can. Legalised euthanasia cuts across that very ethos. It is the ultimate quick fix for those who are willing to choose expediency over fundamental rights which have underpinned our society's values.

It is the first purpose of medicine to restore the health of patients. If this can no longer be achieved, there is still much for doctors to do in relieving pain and suffering, even if the measures they take may incidentally shorten life. But no doctor or any other person has or should have the right deliberately to cut the thread of life. Mr Speaker, we must face the problems of our society squarely and with honesty. Euthanasia, in my view,

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