Page 3196 - Week 11 - Wednesday, 21 September 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
That will continue to be done. It was signed by Dr Warwick Neville, who appeared on behalf of the Australian Catholic Bishops Conference with Bishop Power in front of the committee. In fact it was a delegated responsibility. It was not Bishop Power who made the comments to the committee. I apologise for the extent to which that may have been misleading or has caused the bishop some discomfort. I have spoken with him and I have sent a copy of that letter to him. I would say, though, that it still is the person he delegated it to and the response that we got, which was why I was left with the impression that it was supported by the Catholic bishop. As I say, I think that did need clarification. I thought it important to clarify that.
Mr Stevenson: And his current view?
MR MOORE: The bishop's current view was set out in the Canberra Times last Friday, 16 September. From my discussions with Bishop Power, he does not like the term "passive euthanasia". He has some concern. I think it was mainly an issue of semantics. The issue of allowing people to have withdrawal of life support systems is not opposed by the bishop, but he certainly does raise the question of whether this is necessary and where the driving force behind wanting to do this is. They are questions we have had from a number of members of this Assembly. Of course, we can ask exactly the same questions about any number of pieces of legislation. Where is the community call for move-on powers? Where is the community call for changes to payroll tax and so on? That is simply a non-argument. When we see a need for something to be rectified we take it on.
Madam Speaker, I find it interesting that a number of members in the Assembly have so vehemently opposed this Bill and read into it things that simply are not there, such as my view of the Right to Life approach to it and some of the issues raised by Rita Marker. If it is such a bad Bill, if it is going to do such terrible things as you suggest, then the equivalent Bills in Victoria and South Australia would already have done that sort of damage. They have not, because they have not been used that way.
This Bill is not intended in any way to provide for active euthanasia. When I look at clause 22, which is the most controversial of the clauses in this piece of legislation, it seems to me that as it stands it would not facilitate active euthanasia, especially if you take into account the amendment circulated by the Attorney-General, which I have some reservations about. I must say that I have some reservations about it, but I will accept it in order to clarify the issue. That amendment reads:
to ensure the right of patients to receive relief from pain and suffering to the maximum extent that is reasonable in the circumstances.
That is a standard legislative phrase, and that certainly should ease the mind of anybody who thinks that this might be used in a backdoor way to attain active euthanasia. It is not intended that way, it was never intended that way, and I believe that it will not be used in that way. Certainly, it will be clarified by this amendment.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .