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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1995 Week 9 Hansard (22 November) . . Page.. 2304 ..

MR MOORE (continuing):

too bound by party politics or too afraid of political risks to come forward and act responsibly on this issue. Is it that they know the general community attitudes are such that they would risk public condemnation for taking action against these doctors? Indeed, they know that, Mr Speaker.

It is clear that legislators are many miles behind community attitudes on this subject. In saying that, of course I exempt the members of this parliament who have supported this legislation today. It is irresponsible for legislators not to regulate this practice and bring in laws that ensure that all rights of the patient are protected. Mr Connolly and Mr Wood seem to see no hypocrisy at all in demanding for themselves a conscience vote after signing a pledge that they would uphold their party platform at the last election, knowing that this was part of the policy. Yet a conscience vote is the very thing that this Assembly is asking you to give to all members of the community. Mr Whitecross put that argument most succinctly. I am talking about the right to make up their own mind and choose according to their own conscience.

Having the choice is a fundamental right of democracy, and I will come back to that. As I have said before, this legislation will not in any way deny choice or threaten any human being. The lack of legislation such as this and the denial of choice, however, will not only impose the moral judgment of a few on the many but also leave an uncontrolled situation unregulated, with no consideration of protection for anyone. How can we deny those people who because they are terrified of their fate face the choice of violent suicide many months before they lose their faculties and who are locked in a hospital system that will not allow them to die at the time of their choice? These are mainly young people suffering from HIV and AIDS, whose strong constitutions, coupled with medical technology, ensure that their death is protracted in a way that terrifies them and surely demands our compassionate response.

Euthanasia is not a new issue, but it is one that will not go away. As medical technology advances, we can expect to live longer, healthier lives. We can also expect that our death will be made more difficult and prolonged as well. That, coupled with a growing demand for patient autonomy and control over treatment, will ensure that this issue has to be confronted. The issue that we are talking about is allowing a conscience vote for some members of our community, the most vulnerable in our community.

Mr Speaker, I had expected that today I would hear some new, compelling arguments that might make me doubt my position, but there has been very little that is new. Today the arguments have been presented sensibly and with very little emotional charge. That is the way such debates should be conducted. However, that is not always the case. I have had to deal with my son, at the age of 10, asking me, "Why is it, Dad, that the kids at school are saying you are a murderer?". That is not an easy thing to deal with. There are some in the community who believe that the way to deal with this sort of argument, this sort of debate, is with scare tactics. They believe that the way to win this sort of debate is to put up false evidence. I am not suggesting that any of my colleagues in the Assembly have done that, but that certainly has been the case in the wider public forum.

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