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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 2 Hansard (26 February) . . Page.. 445 ..

MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):

can administer lethal doses, as well as being able to administer life-preserving or life-extending drugs, then their very function changes. If they are seen differently by their patients and the broader community, and rightly so, what possibilities of extension of this concept are opened up?

I note that a very important proponent in this debate, the Northern Territory's former Chief Minister, Marshall Perron, has himself in recent days actually argued for a significant extension of the concept in his own legislation in the Northern Territory. He told that same parliamentary committee that the Chief Minister and I appeared before that he believed that there was a case "to expand the legislation to other categories". He gave the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee the example of a quadriplegic who might live for 20 or 30 years but be begging his carers daily for release. He went on to say:

That leaves unanswered the misery and suffering which we see, and that I object to, in groups other than the competent terminally ill adult.

It seems to me, Mr Speaker, that, if the chief proponent of this concept in the Northern Territory is, even now, when the ink is barely dry on his legislation, prepared to argue for the extension of this concept into other fields, then that extension or the consideration of that extension is virtually inevitable should we open the door to this concept. I certainly have great fears about where that debate would end if we were to allow that extension.

Mr Speaker, I think that related to the debate about what kinds of options are opened up is the question of what message we send to the terminally or chronically ill or disabled, who are obviously amongst the most vulnerable in our society. (Extension of time granted) The Australian Medical Association has remarked upon the pressure that the possibility of euthanasia may place on a person with a terminal illness, who may feel some sense of guilt about being a burden on his or her family. We need to be conscious of the fact that the option of euthanasia itself influences the thinking of a terminally ill person. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind, and I do not believe that it is an exaggeration to say, that some people will feel a sense of duty to their families to seek assistance with euthanasia. Already, we have all heard talk about persons not wanting to be a burden on their families when they grow older. How much more real is that kind of pressure when they lie in a hospital bed and have explained to them, as a matter of law, the option available of euthanasia?

Nor can we ignore the possibility that economic considerations might play a part in the way that society approaches euthanasia. Once we embrace the concept of certain lives not being worth living, it is conceivable, with the pressures on health budgets - which we all know are enormous and widespread throughout this country and indeed throughout the world - that there would be a temptation to deny scarce resources to a person whose life is considered to be of poor quality, when it could be judged that resources are better spent on somebody with a better quality of life. I know, as a former Minister for Health,

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