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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1995 Week 9 Hansard (22 November) . . Page.. 2308 ..

MR MOORE (continuing):

is carried. It will be a shift of power to the patient, but it will be a shift of balance in the health system that is rapidly going through our society and something that we will not be able to change. I mentioned earlier that it was only 20 years ago that doctors believed that they ought not to tell people that they had a terminal illness.

Mr Berry said that I had framed the legislation according to Labor Party policy. That is quite correct. I have never tried to hide that. That was the rational way to go about trying to ensure the numbers. In fact, I believed I had the numbers because members had taken a pledge to support this policy, along with others. Mr Berry also said that the legislation was not of the Labor Party's timing. I can understand that, Mr Berry, but do not worry. Since it looks like this legislation will not get up today, we will have another opportunity to get the timing right. This legislation will be brought back again to this Assembly, or the next one or the one after, and attitudes will change and this legislation will eventually get up.

Mr Hird raised the issue of the birds and the bees and the circles of life and the currawongs. I have no answer to that argument. I do not think I am going to be able to persuade Mr Hird on that level, although I will think about it. I am sure that there is something about the birds and the bees that will enable us to deal with that kind of argument. We also had a comparison with traffic laws and were asked what would happen if these were broken. The real comparison is a situation with no traffic laws whatsoever. That is the sort of situation we have with euthanasia. Only by introducing regulations, even if people break them and even if we do not get them perfect, will we improve the situation. There can be no guarantee that involuntary euthanasia will not occur. We know that it is occurring. That is one thing that I think members, in drawing their black-and-white conclusions, have missed in this debate, which is why I have emphasised it again and again. Involuntary active euthanasia is occurring right now, with no guidelines whatsoever.

A very interesting myth that carried right through the arguments of people who are opposing this legislation was the myth that all pain can be alleviated. Mr Speaker, that simply is not the case. Mrs Carnell will remember the Select Committee on Euthanasia going from place to place and talking to witness after witness. The people who dealt with patients dying from cancer or AIDS consistently said that about 15 per cent of patients - somebody quoted this figure earlier - were not able to have their pain relieved. But I point out that about only 5 per cent of patients who ask for voluntary euthanasia do so on the grounds of pain. The vast majority of people do so on the grounds of indignity. That also says something about the way we deal with palliative care.

Mr Speaker, I would like to deal with the question of the intention in delivering pain-killers. I started my speech by drawing attention to the difference between the intention to relieve pain and the intention to help a patient die and why I see very little difference. Mr Speaker, the current version of the Medical Treatment Act, in Part IV, subsection 23(1), under the heading "Adequate pain relief", states:

Notwithstanding the provisions of any other law of the Territory, a patient under the care of a health professional has a right to receive relief from pain and suffering to the maximum extent -

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