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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 11 Hansard (5 November) . . Page.. 3664 ..

MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):

Mr Moore's interjection a moment ago, I think, discloses what this is really all about. This is about euthanasia, rather than about mere pain relief. The doctors you are referring to, I am sure, were the doctors who were administering those drugs in order to bring about death as a primary objective.

Mr Moore: Dr Brendan Nelson is one of those doctors who oppose euthanasia. He has openly said on many occasions that he has administered an overdose in this way.

MR HUMPHRIES: That may well be. That does not cut any mustard with me, I have to say. As I say, I am not prepared to support that provision at this stage. I might say, however, that the Government presently has out for public discussion an issues paper entitled "Consent to Medical Treatment in the ACT". Included in that paper is discussion of the provisions of this very section of the Medical Treatment Act, and I would be very keen to see what comments are made by medical practitioners in the ACT about the present operation of section 23. If there are comments by medical practitioners that support some revision of that provision, then I would be happy to revisit this issue.

I indicated before that the one thing Mr Moore has on the table today which I will support is the provisions in clauses 5, 7 and 8 of the Bill. Clause 5 deals with removing the requirement for a current condition to be the basis for a direction about removing future treatment, for argument's sake. I do not think it is reasonable to say that if I presently have cancer, which is likely to lead to intense pain, I can specify the treatment I will receive for that condition at some point in the future; but that if I have a complication arising from cancer, a different disease which cuts in at some point in the future and which has exactly the same impact on my lifestyle and my belief about where I should be at that point in time, I cannot issue a direction of that kind. That does not seem reasonable. So, I will certainly support the provision there.

I will make one final observation quickly. Debates about euthanasia are the sorts of debates which have characterised the ACT Legislative Assembly in the eyes of many citizens of this Territory and many people outside the ACT. This is what people imagine we spend almost all day discussing.

Mr Berry: And heroin trials.

MR HUMPHRIES: And heroin trials; euthanasia and heroin are the two big ones. Here we have a debate going on and there are only two members in the public gallery. It is rather interesting, I have to say.

MRS LITTLEWOOD (4.47): I rise this afternoon to talk to these three Bills. Firstly, I will be supporting the Euthanasia Referendum Bill. I appreciate and fully accept the arguments that have been put against it because of the cost involved. Even though I accept that as a valid argument, my conscience will not allow me to not support this. I have mentioned, and I am on record as saying, that I support a referendum on this particular issue and I believe that is a very appropriate way of going. I, therefore, will not shrink from that.

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