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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 2 Hansard (26 February) . . Page.. 450 ..

MR OSBORNE (continuing):

I think, Mr Speaker, you would have to agree that this latter point is most important, as much of the talk about euthanasia focuses on the voluntary nature of the desire to die. However, the legalisation of euthanasia sets up a range of pressures that bear upon the patient - no matter how long and hard Mr Moore and his friends deny it. The patient is immediately susceptible to the view that they are a drain on the resources of society, that these resources would be better directed to someone who can recover, and that they should do the honourable thing by society and opt to end their life. People may also have less than honourable intentions for promoting euthanasia to their aged and infirm relatives. I am afraid, Mr Speaker, that this is an unfortunate trait of human nature.

So, even initially, given these few points, you would have to agree that there are reasonable grounds for concern that even professed voluntary decisions may not be genuinely so. This view was an important component of the report by the United Kingdom's Select Committee on Medical Ethics, which has been quoted earlier. It stated:

It would be virtually impossible to ensure that all acts of euthanasia were truly voluntary and that any liberalisation of the law in the United Kingdom could not be abused. We were also concerned that vulnerable people - the elderly, lonely, sick or distressed - would feel pressure, whether real or imagined, to request early death.

Mr Moore himself was concerned by these issues. I would suggest that that is why he has taken some time to get to where he is at at the moment. However, with respect, such safeguards as he is claiming are in this legislation are virtually impossible to implement. Unfortunately, Mr Speaker, as has been well documented, our current law does not stop euthanasia.

The United Kingdom's Select Committee on Medical Ethics based its unanimous rejection of euthanasia on evidence drawn from the experience of the Netherlands. Euthanasia is not technically legal in that country, but has been allowed there for in excess of 20 years. Five criteria were laid down by the Dutch courts to be followed by physicians who were administering euthanasia. These criteria included that euthanasia must be by entirely free and voluntary request only; that this request be persistent; that the patient be suffering intolerably, with no chance of improvement, which all sounds very familiar, Mr Speaker; that euthanasia be a last resort; and that it be conducted by a physician in consultation with an independent colleague.

It is claimed by those over there that these criteria are sufficient to ensure the appropriate use of euthanasia and that the criteria are indeed adhered to by those responsible for carrying out euthanasia. Euthanasia, it is said, would only be voluntary and would not lead to other forms of medical killing which would violate the patient's autonomy or right to choose. Mr Speaker, it is a bit like saying that, because we have laws against speeding, no-one will drive over the speed limit. That is silly. Suspicions that doctors were taking the lives of their patients without need or request have been confirmed, according to research conducted by the Netherlands Government Committee to Investigate the Medical Practice concerning Euthanasia. I know how fond Mr Moore is of that report, and I am sure that he will stand up and try to convince us that this will not happen here - and no-one will slip through the net, will they?

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