Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .
Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 6 Hansard (18 June) . . Page.. 2013 ..
MR STANHOPE
(continuing):There is, of course, the contrary position, or the other position Mr Pryor and the obstetricians at John James might have asked me to put myself in-and indeed it is the position I have put myself in. I have put myself in the position of parents who had a child who was significantly, comprehensively and catastrophically disabled at birth-a child who suffered massive brain damage at birth, who has no quality of life at all and no capacity to sustain their life, as a result of the negligent act of the obstetrician delivering that child.
I have put myself in the position of those parents. I have put myself in the position of that family. I have imagined the circumstances of that family in 24 years time. Why did not Mr Pryor suggest that we put ourselves in the position of the family-of the baby catastrophically injured, disabled absolutely-with no capacity to live an independent life?
Mr Stefaniak
: They could sue immediately-and they would sue immediately.MR STANHOPE
: They do not sue immediately!Mr Stefaniak
: You don't need 24 years for that.MR STANHOPE
: Point me to one case where a family in that situation sued immediately. It does not happen. Why should you impose that on those parents? Why should you say to them, "You must decide within three years the nature of the legal challenge you will make. You have a catastrophically injured child-a child injured as a result of the gross negligence of an obstetrician."You want me to put myself in the situation of the family of the obstetrician, but you don't, for one second, think about the situation of the family of the child who was catastrophically injured at birth.
There are two sides to this issue-that is the point I have been making. There are two positions and this government is balancing the two positions. We are seeking to ensure that medical practitioners have the capacity to practise and to serve the community in the excellent way in which they do. We don't deny that-despite the exchange of unpleasantries between the AMA and me. We know what that is-it is a bit of argy-bargy. It is unpleasant; it is unfortunate; and we always regret these things in hindsight.
Let's get the argument into some balance. Let's put ourselves, in 24 years time, in the position of the parents and the brothers and sisters of the person who was catastrophically injured at birth-at the moment of delivery-as a result of the gross negligence and incompetence of an obstetrician.
I am happy to answer that question from Dr Pryor because that is precisely the position I put myself in. I said, "What is fair to that child? What is fair to the family?"I am prepared to say that perhaps my heart did not go out quite as much to the family of the obstetrician as it went out to the family of the catastrophically injured baby. I am fair enough to admit that. I will fess up-I will cop that. I did think a little bit more about the needs of that child.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .