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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 2 Hansard (26 February) . . Page.. 449 ..

MR OSBORNE (continuing):

My second point today, Mr Speaker, is that there is no possible way to legislate guaranteed safeguards for this form of euthanasia. Mr Bore - I mean Mr Moore, but it probably was not a slip-up, Mr Speaker - has tried hard in this Bill to provide foolproof safeguards; but he cannot absolutely guarantee them. This fact alone ought to be enough for us to turn our backs on this Bill today. Mr Moore and his supporters naively believe that, since some doctors and others already occasionally practise this form of euthanasia despite its being against the law, for some reason they will feel obliged to abide by this legislation should it become the law. According to Ria Hassan's 1992 study of euthanasia in conjunction with Adelaide's Flinders University, about one-third of Australian doctors had received requests from patients to take active steps to administer euthanasia. Of the 295 doctors surveyed, 19 per cent said that they had taken active steps to end a patient's life, but only half of them had done so at the patient's or family's request. In other words, Mr Speaker, these doctors had made the decision themselves.

Clearly, any doctors and others currently performing euthanasia against the law do so because they believe, as a personal judgment, that they know better than the law. Under a law allowing some instances of euthanasia, these people may well regard the legislation as validating their earlier actions, and will continue to use their discretion, whether it contravenes this Bill or not, because this is what they have always done. Unfortunately, Mr Speaker, as has been well documented, our current law does not stop doctors doing euthanasia. How on earth, then, can we expect that laws to regulate it will not also be flagrantly violated, as they are in the Netherlands?

I think, Mr Speaker, when I spoke two years ago I went over some details about some studies overseas; but, as Mr Moore has brought it up again, I feel that it is very important when considering the possibilities of bringing change to society, such as would be done by supporting this Bill, to examine both the findings of other jurisdictions that have considered such a step and the consequences of taking such actions. First, Mr Speaker, I will turn to considerations of the Canadian Law Reform Commission. The commission stated clearly that the legalisation of euthanasia is undesirable. It said:

From both the legal and social policy points of view, we believe that legislation legalising voluntary active euthanasia would be quite unacceptable.

The commission was concerned about the possibilities of incorrect diagnosis, the subsequent development of new treatments or the refinement of existing ones and, principally, the possibility of abuses. Again, it said:

There is a real danger that the procedure developed to allow the death of those who are a burden to themselves may be gradually diverted from its original purpose and eventually be used as well to eliminate those who are a burden to others or to society ... there is also the constant danger that the subject's consent to euthanasia may not really be a perfectly free and voluntary act.

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