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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1995 Week 9 Hansard (22 November) . . Page.. 2297 ..

MR WHITECROSS (continuing):

and I know a lot of us have, who have terminal illnesses, some of whom have since died from their illnesses, and I know the strength of feeling of those people about the right of control over the end of their life. In many cases, Mr Speaker, this desire for control may not lead people to request that someone bring their life to an end, but it reflects a view that they alone can judge when the pain is too much and when their time has come and that others should not be taking that decision away from them. This Bill gives people that right.

We have heard a lot spoken about the sanctity of life. Indeed, we should view life as a sacred gift. But there are other things which are sacred as well. Our individuality is a sacred thing. Our right to autonomy is a sacred thing. In the single-minded pursuit for one value we will always tend to trample on other values along the way. In balancing those rights, I believe that someone in the terminal phase of a terminal illness is the person who should be making the final decision about when their life should come to an end, if they want to make that decision for themselves. I see this as being a positive benefit for the individuals involved, but I see other benefits in the legislation as well.

The legislation brings into the open decisions which, it is widely acknowledged, are already made in the hospitals or at home by people who are dying and by people caring for people who are dying. This legislation takes it out of that twilight zone where people cannot talk about it and seek the counsel of friends, relatives, priests or others because to involve other people is to involve them in something which might ultimately be judged to be a criminal act; so, instead, things are done in secret and things are done quietly. I do not think that is acceptable. I think that people who say, "We know that it goes on and we turn a blind eye to it, but we do not want to legislate for it because that will make it sound as though we think it is okay" are falling into the trap of denying the people who are involved proper access to the kind of considered decision-making which such a serious situation should involve.

The legislation also allows us to draw a distinction between choices which we as a parliament think are reasonable and choices which we as a parliament think are unacceptable. Instead of leaving these things in the hands of doctors, we are saying, "Where the person has made the decision, where the person has decided for themselves, that is reasonable. Where the doctor has decided that it would be good for the patient, or where the patient's relatives have decided without the patient's authority that it would be good for the patient, that is not acceptable". The legislation draws those distinctions and in the process gives some clarity to the practice in relation to this matter.

Mr Speaker, another important element of this legislation which has not been particularly touched on but which is very important to me is that people who are dying do attempt to bring their lives to an end and often successfully bring their lives to an end. But, because of our law, they do it without the assistance of qualified medical practitioners and without the benefit of any advice or counselling because, once again, it is in that twilight zone of illegality. People resort to extremely violent and unpleasant ways of killing themselves - such things as electrocution - because they do not have access to the kind of assistance which this Bill would provide for. People take overdoses

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