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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 2 Hansard (26 February) . . Page.. 491 ..

MR WHITECROSS (continuing):

Mr Osborne, in his address, talked about compassion being a great motivator of people like me who support the right of people to choose voluntary euthanasia if they want to. There is no doubt that compassion is an element of my motivation. But another element of my motivation is respect. Mr Speaker, I believe that the dignity of the dying, respect for their autonomy as human beings, is just as important. I believe that, in contemplating the moment of death, if we are to achieve the full measure of our humanity, we ought to have the opportunity to have around us a supportive environment; people with whom we can discuss the dilemmas that we confront and from whom we can get proper advice, control over our lives and control over the manner of our leaving. These are the reasons why I believe that the choice must be left to the individual. I do not necessarily say, Mr Speaker, that it is a choice I would make, but I have not got there yet.

This is one of a number of measures that have been taken where we as a legislature have confronted the reality of the choices which advances in medical technology have put in front of us. On a previous occasion, Mr Speaker, we have talked about the issue of withholding medical treatment. We have talked about the administration of pain relief in a way which could shorten life. These two measures are part of our response to the moral choices which face us because of advances in medical technology and the acceptance by us as legislators of the responsibility to regulate the making of those choices. The legislation before us today extends choices to another group. It extends choices in a way which I think is consistent with the way we have approached the previous groups. It extends them in a way which expands appropriately the operation of those laws. I do not accept the distinction that is made by some between a choice to undertake an action which we know will result in death and the taking of an action which we know will result in death. To me, they are both the same moral decision. The choice to turn off a machine or to provide drugs which will cause death is the same moral decision.

Mr Speaker, a number of objections have been made in relation to voluntary euthanasia in the public debate. Some of them have been repeated here today. One which is frequently introduced is the notion of the sanctity of life. Mr Speaker, I was brought up to cherish life, to love life, but not to fear death. I was brought up to believe that death is not generally something to be welcomed, but neither is life something to be clung to at any cost. I do not believe that we can pursue the notion of life to the exclusion of other values which are equally important to us as human beings. Autonomy, the ability to think for ourselves and the ability to choose for ourselves are equally important values. When we look at things like the International Declaration of Human Rights which was referred to earlier, certainly the sanctity of life is an issue which is considered to be important. But so too are a range of other values which go to the quality of our life. We cannot pursue arbitrarily one value at the expense of all others. We cannot say that we are upholding the sanctity of life by leaving people to die while suffering physically, mentally, emotionally and spiritually. I do not believe that that is upholding the sanctity of life.

We are told that to support voluntary euthanasia is to turn our back, in some sense, on the triumph of medical technology. We are told that medical technology can solve every problem; that it can overcome every obstacle; that voluntary euthanasia is simply unnecessary. I do not believe that the facts support those claims, and I do not believe that

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