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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1995 Week 9 Hansard (22 November) . . Page.. 2307 ..

MR MOORE (continuing):

The next argument that needs to be dealt with is the argument that the moral good of the whole society ought not to allow for a few. Of course, that is inconsistent with the view put by the World Health Organisation in its Ottawa Charter, which I am fond of quoting. It is a case of empowering individuals to make their own choices. Part of a moral fibre of society is surely about allowing people to make their own choices and not dictating our own moral view over the moral view of others.

Another argument put was that it will become a callous act, a quick fix. I do not believe that anybody would accept that. Mr Osborne chuckles, so I had better take a bit more time with this one. If there is going to be a callous act, if there is going to be a quick fix and we are going to be worried about the financial circumstances, then surely the notion that doctors are making that decision themselves, rather than the patients, would indicate that that is the action we are going to get. When the patients themselves are making the choice, there is no quick fix to it; there is no callousness associated with it.

Mr Osborne and others questioned the validity of the opinion polls conducted by the Voluntary Euthanasia Society and offered some alternative questions. I have been accused on many occasions of backing opinion polls that do not ask the right question or supposedly ask a loaded question. If ever there was a loaded question, it was the one put by Mr Osborne, who leaves now, I understand, to go and do an interview. The opinion poll question was a valid question because it put very clearly the intent of the Bill. But I should add that, even if the result had been completely around the other way and said that 25 per cent of people were in favour of active voluntary euthanasia, I would still believe in this and I would still go ahead.

Like Mr Humphries, I do not allow the polling to dictate to me at all, and I think I should make that clear. I have taken on a number of issues in respect of which I believed that the polling would show that I was in a minority. I still respect people's right to act rather than be dictated to by polling, but I think it is fair to say that the poll was valid. Morgan gallup polls have been asking a series of questions since the 1960s, and we have seen an increase in support for voluntary active euthanasia right through that time.

There was argument put, I think by Mr Kaine, that the Bill does not allow for mistakes in diagnosis. No, it does not, but it allows the choice to go with the patient. While we know that doctors make mistakes in diagnosis, in this case the choice is made by the patient. That is where the choice belongs. A mistake could be made in determining whether or not a person was in a terminal phase of a terminal illness. That needs to be verified by a second doctor. Yes, a mistake could be made, but I would argue that this does not make the situation worse. It makes the situation better than the one we currently have, in which a single doctor, perhaps without the agreement of the patient, terminates the patient's life, usually with an overdose of a pain-killer.

There was also an argument put about the maturity of Labor in having a conscience vote. I think I dealt with that reasonably well earlier. Another argument was that this legislation will mean a subtle shift of balance in the health system. Yes, I think that is correct. I think it will mean a subtle shift of balance in the health system if this legislation

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