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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 2 Hansard (26 February) . . Page.. 444 ..

MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):

Mr Moore and others in this debate have characterised the present law, which does not permit active voluntary euthanasia, as some kind of interference by the medico-legal system in a person's right to choose whether they live or die. The appeal to a Liberal, I think, of the philosophy of the right to choose is, in some circumstances, a telling one. Mr Moore says that, by refusing the option of euthanasia, we impose our values on other, suffering people. I think, Mr Speaker, that there is a misconception in that. Mr Wood, in his comments has drawn attention to that.

In some senses, we as legislators do indeed impose our consciences on other people, as Mr Wood has rightly said. But the other misconception is that euthanasia, as a concept, can somehow be slotted into our care and treatment regime in this city, indeed in this world, as if it were simply a new form of therapy or a new drug, and that its application has no other broader implications except on those people for whom it is applied. The reality is, Mr Speaker, that the concept of euthanasia confronts, in fact tears the fabric of, the ethical system of medical practice in general and of palliative care in particular. We cannot act in this way. We cannot promote euthanasia without bearing in mind the consequences for the rest of our ethical and medical system.

One of the elements of this legislation which disturbs me most fundamentally is the very consistent opposition of the medical profession itself to this concept. I appreciate that there are different views within the medical profession. Mr Moore, I know, has spoken publicly to some of those doctors who support the idea of euthanasia. It is my impression that the vast majority of doctors, though, do not support it, at least in the form of the legislation that has been talked about here and elsewhere. I have yet to meet face to face a doctor who takes the view that euthanasia is a principle that he or she would like to apply within their own daily practice.

It troubles me that we should be engineering a system which we as legislators might think to be praiseworthy and a great innovation and imposing it on a profession which actually has to administer it, when there is within that profession considerable concern about - indeed, strong opposition to - the very principles which underpin the thrust of the legislation. In fact, there seems to be some element of re-engineering here, with doctors being the subject of that push. I think we have seen from the Northern Territory experience that many doctors, perhaps the vast majority of doctors, are unwilling, to the point of refusal, to be involved in this process. I understand that, in a few cases, it has actually been impossible to find doctors who are willing to sign the necessary forms or even undertake the necessary actions. The attitude seems to be, however, that doctors in this case will simply have to fit in with this regime, even where most of the people in that profession do not believe that this is an appropriate imposition on the medical ethics that they work with. I believe that we should not go down the path of preferring the quality of human life to the sanctity of human life. For my part, it is contrary to the beliefs that make up the fundamental basis of our system of social values and the laws on which they are based.

The other argument, which has been put before and which, I think, still has some very great weight, is the "slippery slope" argument. I do not think Mr Moore, in addressing this debate or in previous debates on this issue, has actually addressed that particular issue, and I would appreciate his making some comments on that in his summing-up of this debate. I think it is a real issue. If doctors, with the full sanction of the law,

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