Page 661 - Week 02 - Thursday, 18 February 2016
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
with research projects. For example, this can be the administration of a new drug that is being trialled. It is effectively still at a research stage. It has been approved by a human ethics committee and it may have the impact of improving the health and the medical condition of the person who receives it.
Because, at the moment, it is considered to still be at the research phase, under our existing law people with impaired decision-making capacity would be denied the potential benefits of that. But this change is designed to allow those people who have given to their attorney the power to make decisions about medical treatment to make decisions about the use of research in the context of that medical treatment. I think that is a reasonable approach to adopt.
It is worth highlighting that there are safeguards to protect a person being considered for participation in medical research, including a requirement that the research has to have been approved by a human research ethics committee and it must have potential to result in a benefit that outweighs any potential risk. In addition, when considering a person’s participation in that research the decision-maker must give effect to the person’s wishes as far as they can be worked out. This includes giving effect to a statement in a health direction that the person does not want to participate in medical research as the bill now requires all substitute decision makers to comply with health directions.
MR RATTENBURY (Molonglo) (5.05): I will not be supporting Mr Hanson’s amendment today although I very much appreciate the letter that he sent the other day outlining the position that he was taking and the reasons for it. I also have read the attorney’s response based on the advice the attorney received. I think that on balance—and I have thought about this quite carefully because it does raise important ethical and moral issues about the appropriateness of treatment and the power of attorney that somebody should be given—the very premise of the legislation is to enable people to access treatments or for their attorney to do that on their behalf. To put the restriction in place that Mr Hanson seeks I think would deny some people, potentially, access.
I have looked very carefully at the protections that are built into the legislation and I think there are quite strong and clear protections that apply to this legislation, no matter whether it is prospective or retrospective, to take Mr Hanson’s frame on it. I think those protections are strong in either case. On that basis I am reluctant to preclude people from potentially accessing this.
To reassure Mr Hanson, as he sought to make a point of it, my office did call his office this morning and leave a message. I am sorry that that was not passed on to him through his own internal communication channels but we will always endeavour to respond in a timely manner.
Question put:
That Mr Hanson’s amendment be agreed to.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video