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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 2 Hansard (26 February) . . Page.. 499 ..

MS TUCKER (4.54): My position on euthanasia has not changed since we debated the issue last, and I support this Bill. As I said last year, I have taken this issue very seriously, as I am sure all members have. There are very few issues that require you to confront very fundamental questions about life and death, and underlying values and ethics of our society. I am not going to take a lot of time today, because I think it is already on the record how and why I came to my decision to support this legislation.

I believe that this legislation is not only compassionate; it also is about bringing more accountability into practices which are already occurring. I believe it is about choice. The right to choose to end one's life because of unbearable suffering in the terminal phase of a terminal illness is a reasonable right to be given by society to its citizens. We know that those with power and influence are able to exercise that choice already. I do not accept the slippery slope argument - that we shall end up taking the lives of people without their consent, based on quality of life or economic reasons which are totally out of control. I believe that society can make moral distinctions which would prevent such a progression of events. Obviously, there must be careful monitoring of how this legislation works in practice. Of course, the discussion will move on. People may well argue that this right should be extended to others, but that is not a reason to reject this particular proposal. We must look at issues as they arise.

On the issue of the morality of this legislation, I have to say that I do not see the moral distinction between passive and active euthanasia. Both have as their intention relief of pain and suffering, and both have as their consequence death. The moral jump, if that is what it is seen to be, has already occurred in this Assembly when it passed passive euthanasia. This legislation today is about voluntary choice in the terminal phase of a terminal illness to end one's life. That is for people who are dying already. This is important to remember. This proposal is not based on suffering or quality of life only. It is based on suffering in the terminal phase of a terminal illness.

Mr Temporary Deputy Speaker, as I said in my earlier speech, I have had many meetings with proponents and opponents of this legislation. I have heard both sides use the Netherlands data to support their arguments. I have heard tragic stories of people who, out of compassion, have tried to assist their loved ones to die - sometimes successfully, sometimes not. I ask members to think of just what that experience would be like. I have heard of botched attempts at suicide unassisted. I ask members to also think of how that must be, not only for the person who attempted to end their life unsuccessfully but also for their loved ones; and also for their loved ones even if it was successful - that they had to resort to that length to end what they saw as unbearable. Of course, we also know that patients are being euthanased by their doctors now anyway, without any legislation.

One of the proponents of the legislation for whom I have great respect is Dr Philip Nitschke. Dr Nitschke was in Canberra a couple of weeks ago. I found his reports of the cases in the Northern Territory, where he has assisted people to die in the terminal phase of a terminal illness, extremely moving. He spoke honestly of how stressful it was for him to assist these people to die. He spoke also of how one doctor eventually supported a request for euthanasia once he saw the condition of the patient.

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