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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1995 Week 9 Hansard (22 November) . . Page.. 2300 ..

MR BERRY (continuing):

It was interesting to look at the report from the ACT euthanasia survey of 75 or 76 per cent of the people and see how the age brackets dealt with this issue. In my view, it is very encouraging to see that the 18- to 24-year-olds seem to have a more progressive attitude on this issue than people of my age and above. They are probably better informed on these issues than most of the people of my age and that of many of the other people in this chamber.

Mr Speaker, I think this issue comes down to a couple of basic elements. First, should I as a legislator prevent people from having a choice? I say no. I believe that it should be up to the individual to exercise that choice. If people want to satisfy their relationship with their God and their families and those sorts of things before they make that decision, it is entirely up to them to do so; but, as I said earlier, it is entirely up to them to decide when. It is not for me to exercise my conscience on this issue and impose my will on another individual. I think it is outrageous to suggest that I as a legislator should impose my will on an individual on such an issue. That is largely the system that is in place at this moment.

There was some talk earlier of the slippery slope. I think the slippery slope could be more hazardous in the present circumstances, because day after day we hear reports about medical professionals properly assisting their patients to die at their patients' request. But they are doing it in an environment where there is no regulation, no reporting requirements and no safeguards. All we can do is hope that they exercise their medical ethics in a way that is at the direct request of the patient. I say that we have to do something about what I would describe as a true slippery slope. We are turning a blind eye to it. We all say, "It is happening, so just let it happen". I do not think we as legislators should allow ourselves to do that. The medical professionals ought to be able to exercise their conscience on this. This is not compulsory for anybody. This is about people in the medical profession being given some protection when one of their patients decides that their time is up.

I did not believe my ears a little while ago when Mrs Carnell said that she was happy to provide drugs to relieve pain. One assumes that she would do that even in the knowledge that it was going to bring about the termination of a life. But she is not prepared to prescribe drugs which would terminate life. I just cannot see the difference.

Mr Humphries: There is a difference, Wayne.

MR BERRY: I do not think there is a difference at all if the intention is the same.

Mr Humphries: One is the intention to relieve pain; the other is the intention to kill.

MR BERRY: It is all right if you turn a blind eye to it and pretend it is not the same. That is the sort of thing that we as legislators have to avoid. Legislators have an obligation to reflect community standards. I think community standards have come a long way since the current laws were enacted. Doctors have made admissions and risked prosecution over their assistance to their patients on the issue of euthanasia, but we

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