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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 2 Hansard (26 February) . . Page.. 453 ..

MR OSBORNE (continuing):

Mr Speaker, the last thing I am going to do is turn to the law and voluntary euthanasia. It is noteworthy, and by far the most compelling thing to me, that no code of ethics or law has ever suggested that anyone has a right to kill. This is the case, Mr Speaker, because, to state the obvious, the right to life is the most basic right we have. It is inalienable. It can be forfeited and should be forfeited only in the case of an unjust aggressor, be it an individual or a community. This ensures, according to the International Declaration of Rights of 1948, that we all have equality at law. However you cut it, however you try to pretend that it is not so, to legalise euthanasia you would have to say this: Innocent life can now be killed. This is essential to understand.

If we allow euthanasia on the ground that the quality of a person's life is such that it is no longer worth living, then all life as we know it is de facto threatened, because all life is lacking some quality - some more than others, Mr Speaker. We as human beings would no longer be equal at law. We would have a quality of life at law if this legislation goes through. Once we as an Assembly introduce a quality of life ethic, replacing the existing equality of life ethic, we have a whole new ball game, well beyond the point under discussion. (Further extension of time granted) You might argue, Mr Speaker, that I am taking a long shot in saying this; but the point is that, to an individual, that choice to be an autonomous individual is to do so in the community. To be is to belong. To say that autonomy is absolute is ridiculous. We are social by definition. To legalise voluntary euthanasia on the ground of quality of life is not just a matter of discussion or debate; it is a matter of fact. In February 1995 the Justice Minister for the Netherlands saw no reason why involuntary euthanasia should not be legalised and euthanasia extended to those with a terminal illness. It is a noteworthy fact, Mr Speaker, that the Patients Association set up a hotline to counsel patients concerned about the practice in their country. There are doctors in the Netherlands who advertise that they do not perform euthanasia. The elderly fear doctors and often fear taking medication.

In the Northern Territory, sensitivity to the indigenous people seems to have been forgotten, as many of the indigenous people fear approaching hospitals in light of the legislation up there. I find it ironic that legislation introduced on the ground of compassion threatens the most vulnerable. What is introduced in the guise of choice becomes expectation, and perhaps obligation. We should be doing more to undermine the stress that people - not only the patients, but also the doctors and the loved ones - suffer, and we should be looking at better funding for the ageing population.

Finally, Mr Speaker, what message are we sending to the young people of the ACT? Here we have a huge number of them unemployed; we see that the suicide rate per capita is the highest in the country amongst these people; and here we are considering legalising the killing of people who are innocent, simply because they lack a quality of life. Would they surely not see the hypocrisy a number of years ago of the moral outrage against nuclear testing in the Pacific as a threat to life as we know it, when the people who protested long and loud are the same ones who are in favour of the legalised killing of innocent people? Where is our consistency, Mr Speaker? We live in a real world, in which things are not perfect. Let us relieve the human being's distress rather than kill that human being.

Debate interrupted.

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