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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1995 Week 9 Hansard (22 November) . . Page.. 2265 ..

MR HUMPHRIES: Mr Moore says that he has better information about it. I would argue that when people hear this debate and they hear the idea of euthanasia they think instinctively, in many cases at least, about the right to refuse treatment, the right to die naturally, the right to refuse to have the life support machines continuing to pump the air or the nutrient into their bodies.

Mr Moore: Yes; but that is not the question that was asked.

MR HUMPHRIES: That might be what Mr Moore says, but I maintain that that is what people do think about these things. I suspect that the issue of a person being in the position of having their life terminated, perhaps while they are not even conscious, is an issue that is much more difficult. I believe that the likelihood of people supporting that in such large numbers when properly informed is much diminished. However, that is a matter we can consider for ourselves.

I intend to oppose the legislation today because I have strongly held personal views which dictate this reaction on my part and also because I believe that the legislation affronts the values upon which I believe all legislation in the Territory, all public policy, should be based. The subject matter of this Bill obviously concerns issues of life and death and pain and suffering, and those have deeply personal implications for all individuals in this place and outside it. The Bill goes to the most fundamental of ethical, moral and religious questions in our community, and it is understandable that the views should excite considerable antipathy in the community. I do not expect those who support Mr Moore's legislation to accept my decision, which is to vote against the Bill, but I do hope that those who do not support the legislation will be able at least to understand why it is that some do not see things in the same terms as those who support the legislation do.

The nature of the proposal before the Assembly is one that would enable a medical practitioner to perform a positive act that results in the death of a patient. The legislation builds in so-called protections, such as a cooling-off period and various preconditions, but at the end of the day, where the requirements or conditions in that legislation are satisfied, a medical practitioner will be permitted to administer a lethal dose of a substance to end the life of another human being. It is that fact, above anything else, which drives me to oppose the legislation. I cannot support it, because I regard it as being contrary to the duty we all possess to uphold the sanctity of human life. The termination of the life of a dying person, whether or not it is out of pity, whether or not it is carried out by a doctor or some other health professional, is a violation of fundamental tenets both of my personal faith and of sound public policy. Whether we profess to have particular religious convictions, whether we profess to be Christians or not, it remains true that Judaeo-Christian values and tenets underpin the basis of our society, including our obligations and rights as citizens to observe the law.

The prohibition on the taking of a life is not just a fundamental belief of the major world religions; society's prohibition on intentional killing is recognised as the cornerstone of law and social relationships. Reference has been made by Mr Kaine to the House of Lords Select Committee on Medical Ethics in 1993-94, which made this point very well. The report said:

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