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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 10 Hansard (24 September) . . Page.. 3184 ..

MR MOORE (continuing):

and I am sure that it is in the minds of all 17 members of this Assembly. At the opposite extreme, though, is the action taken by Dr Philip Nitschke in the Northern Territory when he assisted Bob Dent and three other people to die, recognising their choice. It is important to understand that the Federal legislation no longer allows this choice to be made within the Territories. However, it is clear that such an offence is not considered by our community to be as serious as the offence set out in section 17 of the Crimes Act, the abhorrent offence that I have just described. That is why I have proposed a series of graded offences in this particular piece of legislation.

The legislation being presented today applies only to the suicides of people of sound mind who have attained 18 years of age, who are in a terminal phase of a terminal illness and who are suffering severe pain and distress caused by the illness which the person regards as intolerable. There are new penalties. Where a person fits into this category but has not made a request to commit suicide and somebody assists them, then the penalty would be six years' gaol. This is not a light penalty. If the person has actually made the request and they are given assistance, then there would be a penalty of four years' gaol, unless that person is a health professional, in which case the Bill provides a penalty of two years.

Mr Speaker, these penalties reflect the different circumstances in which people find themselves. Quite clearly, where there has been no request made, the nature of the action on the part of the offender may well be seen as humanitarian; but the reality is that this choice should be with the individual, and any person who takes over that most vital of freedoms deserves a very serious penalty. There are different pressures on different members of the community in these sorts of circumstances. Where a health professional is involved - who may well be a nurse who has been working with the person for a long time - where the request has been made and the nurse provides assistance to die, there must be a different level of penalty. It is still an offence. However, it is clearly more acceptable than if the person is not a health professional. Thus, where the person is not a health professional, a four-year penalty applies; where the person is a health professional, such as a nurse, it is a two-year penalty. Remember that this is provided that the person making the request is already dying, is suffering unbearably and meets the other required circumstances set out in the legislation.

Where assistance is provided by a medical practitioner and the medical practitioner meets a series of standards set by the community, then clearly the penalty should be much less. To be specific, where the medical practitioner has certified in writing that the person is terminally ill and that the illness is causing severe pain and distress and then has that view confirmed by a second medical practitioner, where 72 hours have elapsed since the request was made, where the medical practitioner supervises the administration of a substance by a person or the patient administers it themselves, then such an action should be viewed differently from the "rusty razor blade" scenario or a non-health professional or nurse taking the action. In reflecting such community views, this Bill provides that, where the person takes the action himself or herself, having met the conditions, the penalty is set at three months' imprisonment, but, in any other case, at six months' imprisonment. It is worth noting, of course, that the penalties that I describe here are maximum penalties, as is the case in all criminal legislation.

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