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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1995 Week 9 Hansard (22 November) . . Page.. 2306 ..

MR MOORE (continuing):

Mr Connolly, I think very sensibly, set out for us the two conflicting principles - on the one hand, sanctity of life and, on the other hand, autonomy. The issue of autonomy has also been dealt with in some very strange ways. None of us ever seek complete autonomy, because we recognise that we live in a society; but we draw a line somewhere. Most of us draw the line at action that would hurt somebody else. That is where the line is normally drawn. Mr Connolly and I have discussed that on a number of occasions. In the legislation that I have put up, the autonomy of people in no way interferes with somebody else's life. It is not like giving somebody the freedom, for example, to drive on whatever side of the road they like, to shoot somebody or to break somebody's arm. As one famous American jurist put it, "I can wave my arm around as much as I like, and have the freedom to do so, until my fist connects with somebody's face, and that is where the freedom stops". I think that is a very clear and concise description of autonomy. On the other side of the autonomy argument is the sanctity of life argument. The word "sanctity" is the same as the word "holy". We talk about the holiness of life. The two words are religious in their origin. The social control we are talking about is indeed religious, even though members may try to distance themselves from that, as Mr Osborne did particularly effectively.

The next argument we heard was that it would corrupt and brutalise doctors if they administered voluntary euthanasia. Doctors are administering involuntary euthanasia right now. Surely that is a much more brutalising practice. Doctors can make the decision without asking. They usually make the decision in consultation with close members of the family. That is the way it is normally done at the moment. An advanced-thinking doctor may sometimes do it in consultation with the person themselves. But it does happen now. We are not talking about introducing some whole new concept. We are talking about regulating something that is going on now and drawing it back from the slippery slope. We also debated the notion of decision-making. The decision-making at the moment is not about individuals deciding. It is about doctors and politicians setting the rules or preventing people from making their own decisions. One has to wonder about what is tolerable and dignified about that.

I dealt with the issue of fear and anxiety in the Northern Territory, but I also think it is important to recognise the genuine fear and the genuine anxiety - and I think Ms Follett spoke to this very well - people have about even voluntary euthanasia. The real issues here are issues about communication; they are not issues about the fundamental principle. The propaganda machine that tries to stop this sort of legislation generates that fear and that anxiety through its attempts at social control. If anybody were to have fear and anxiety, they would have it now under the current system rather than under the system that is put forward in my legislation.

It was also argued that voluntary euthanasia would be at the expense of palliative care. Nothing could be further from the truth. Just the opposite is surely going to be the case. How much harder will people try to ensure that somebody is not in pain, that somebody is taken care of and that the appropriate palliative care is in place if they believe that that person might otherwise make this final choice.

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