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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 2 Hansard (26 February) . . Page.. 452 ..

MR OSBORNE (continuing):

Mr Speaker, let us look at the situation for the terminally ill - the people at the forefront of this whole debate. These people are not at the height of their powers, as many of us are. They are languishing in positions where they feel that things are out of their control. These people are dependent on the medical care they receive and on things like the support of relatives and friends. There is no doubt that they are in a very vulnerable position. Simple things like refusing to visit a sick person can be the difference between their wanting to fight and their wanting to give up, between having a life worth living and having a life they want to end. What this legislation does is to enable relatives, for whatever reason, perhaps to think that the person should just let go.

Mr Speaker, to deny the sorts of things that make a person's life worth living in the late stages is to not give them an autonomous choice. Under this legislation, it could and probably will happen. Pro-euthanasia people will say that I am not being compassionate by denying people the right to take this option. People who take this line often reduce it all to the physical level. Obviously, that is a part of it. However, compassion is about walking side by side with people and trying to eliminate the problems, whether they be physical, emotional or spiritual. Being compassionate does not mean eliminating the person.

Mr Speaker, a 1993 survey would have it that around 75 per cent of our nation agrees with the opinion that, if a terminally ill patient suffering unbearably, with no chance of recovery, asks for a lethal dose so as not to awaken again, a doctor should be allowed to administer it. However, this reflects somewhat woolly thinking about the facts of euthanasia and palliative care. Mr Speaker, Dr Brian Pollard, a man who has had extensive first-hand contact with the suffering and their families, has reflected and written at length on euthanasia. He notes that cancer is the main cause of terminal illness. Good palliative care today is such that pain caused by cancer can be reduced to at least a tolerable level. He notes:

What is often referred to as unrelievable pain may be, and usually is, what some doctor has not relieved or known how to relieve and that doctor has not consulted an expert for assistance.

So, those surveyed could have equally been asked: If a doctor is so negligent as to leave a terminally ill person in severe pain, for whatever reason, severe enough to drive that person to ask to be killed, should the doctor then be able to compound his negligence by killing his patient instead of seeking help? I see that Mr Moore likes it. I suggest, Mr Speaker, that these facts throw the whole debate into a new light.

Opinion polls have a deservedly bad name for the ease with which they can be manipulated, and, as I have demonstrated, the careful construction of a cleverly ambiguous or misleading question can easily influence the results. Opinion polls, including recently suggested referendums, are a distraction in the wider debate on euthanasia, however, as they are a misuse of ethical process. There are no criteria for an acceptable way to resolve this complex question of right and wrong by conducting a headcount among those whose knowledge of the issue is unknown and unknowable. Would these same people support a referendum on capital punishment? I would suggest not.

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