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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 11 Hansard (5 November) . . Page.. 3663 ..

Mr Moore: I will answer that.

MR HUMPHRIES: Mr Moore will have an answer to that, but I have to say I am a little concerned about that arrangement.

Clause 7 provides for immunity from suit for a medical practitioner. That operates, among other things, to exempt the medical practitioner from Parts III and VIII of the Crimes Act. Again, there is an anomaly. A medical practitioner and the person who assists the medical practitioner would be liable only under the provisions of this Bill; they could not be prosecuted under the Crimes Act. They could be prosecuted only under this Bill. A nurse who assists the medical practitioner would also be liable only under the Bill, although she or he would be liable to a maximum penalty of two years' imprisonment in these circumstances. A person other than a nurse who assists - say, a pharmacist who provides the drug - would be subject to a maximum penalty of four years' imprisonment. By comparison, the doctor might receive an infringement notice and pay a small fine. That anomaly troubles me, I have to say.

Mr Moore: I will accept an amendment.

MR HUMPHRIES: You will accept an amendment? I do not think an amendment is going to solve this particular problem, Mr Moore. I suppose my overriding concern about this Bill is that it does provide very lenient penalties for what remains a criminal offence involving death, or what has been until now, at least, a criminal offence involving death. I think the use of that kind of penalty in such cases could lead to the perception in some people that the law itself was being brought into disrepute. It is using a technical way of dealing with a highly charged issue which I think would give some people real doubt about whether the law was being appropriately administered. So, I do not propose to support the Crimes (Assisted Suicide) Bill.

The Medical Treatment (Amendment) Bill is a different kettle of fish again, and I can indicate to the house that at least at this stage I do not support clauses 4 and 7 of that Bill, but I think clauses 5, 6 and 8 are reasonable. There are two objects of the Bill. One is to remove the provision that relief from pain and suffering has to be "to the maximum extent that is reasonable in the circumstances". The other object is to provide for removal of the requirement that a person make a direction in respect of a current condition rather than a condition that might accrue in the future. I fear that, without the objective test provided for in section 23 of the principal Act, we could see doctors administering pain-killing drugs in such large quantities that they kill their patients because they subjectively believe that that is appropriate to relieve pain and suffering for that patient.

Mr Moore: It is what happens very regularly in Australia right this minute, Gary.

MR HUMPHRIES: It may happen regularly in Australia, but I do not think that makes it right. My view at this stage is that the test ought to have an objective element in it; it ought to be clear that another doctor in the same circumstances would take the same view, or at least people generally would say, "That amount of pain relief is reasonable in those circumstances".

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