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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 2 Hansard (26 February) . . Page.. 451 ..

Mr Moore: It will be different.

MR OSBORNE: "It will be different", Mr Moore says. I will quote a few figures for our three new members, which show that, in 1990, 14,691 people died in the Netherlands by involuntary euthanasia. In 45 per cent of these cases, not only the patient but also their families were not aware of what was being done. The deaths of 8,750 people were caused through the withdrawal of life-prolonging treatment, without knowledge, let alone consent. A further 5,941 lives were actively terminated through the administration of lethal doses of drugs. Of those undergoing involuntary euthanasia, 1,474 were fully competent, and in 8 per cent of cases other courses of action were still possible. As I said before, Mr Speaker, Mr Moore has been known to question these figures, and I look forward to hearing from him on it.

Before I move on, Mr Speaker, I think we need to realise two quick things. (Extension of time granted) First, with the legalisation of voluntary euthanasia, there is no doubt that over time the quality of medical treatment and care generally will deteriorate as killing rather than treating becomes an acceptable alternative in medical care. I would suggest that the resources of the medical community concentrate on eliminating the problem, not the person. Secondly, practical experience has shown that people will die unnecessarily as a consequence of allowing voluntary euthanasia. There can be no escaping this.

The next important area that I want to get onto, Mr Speaker, is the one of autonomy. It would seem to me that this is the main thrust of Mr Moore's argument. The question posed is whether this type of legislation is going to increase the autonomy of the seriously ill or whether it is going to diminish that autonomy. The way the pro-euthanasia lobby has presented it is that people should spend more time thinking about how they want to die. I certainly do not disagree. Mr Speaker, I agree that the individual should have more control and the practitioner should have less. The question is: How do we promote the individual's choice? I have heard some of these people say that, for the individual, choosing death should be a bit like a career choice - you decide how you want to die, where you want to die and when you want to die - and it will not have any adverse effect on other people's autonomy.

The reality, Mr Speaker, is that they simply misunderstand the nature of human choice. Human choice is not simply a matter of "I want this; I want that". What type of world would that be? If we look at our own lives, Mr Speaker, I am sure that we would all like to be something different. We would like to change things. I know that we would all like to have better jobs, perhaps. We would all like to be rich or famous - - -

Mr Moore: Just you.

MR OSBORNE: Just me, Mr Moore says. I would love to be still playing football, Mr Speaker; but, unfortunately, it is just not possible. All of these things are possibly things we would like to choose; but the reality is that society influences our choice, it constrains our choice and it puts us into positions we do not necessarily want to be in.

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