Page 3210 - Week 11 - Wednesday, 21 September 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
refuse medical treatment; we added the words "even if it was considered vital to support their life". What we were talking about in that question is fairly obvious. On a ratio of seven to two, with 10 per cent unsure, people said that they support it. I will vote accordingly. I have some real concerns about some of the details of it. If members want to present amendments, I will look at those, and I may vote against them.
Amendment agreed to.
MR HUMPHRIES (11.38): Madam Speaker, I move:
Page 2, line 2, definition of "direction", omit "Part I", substitute "Part II".
The amendment is a very simple one. It corrects an obvious error in the original drafting of the Bill. I might make one observation in moving this amendment. The error was drawn to my attention by the ACT Right to Life Association. The submission that they prepared and circulated, I think, went to every member in this place. It is interesting that apparently neither Mr Moore nor any of the other proponents of the legislation actually read the submission. If they had, they would have seen the error. So, I suspect that some were of the view that it was not worth reading. However, I did read it and I picked up what is an obvious error when one looks at it.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 4
MR CONNOLLY (Attorney-General and Minister for Health) (11.39): I move:
Page 3, lines 1 and 2, paragraph (b), omit the paragraph, substitute the following paragraph:
"(b) to ensure the right of patients to receive relief from pain and suffering to the maximum extent that is reasonable in the circumstances.".
This is probably the most substantive of the amendments. The courts say that in seeking to interpret this legislation and looking at the outcome of the Bill - assuming that it is passed and becomes law - you are entitled to look at the Assembly debates and any committee reports that preceded the Assembly debates. It should be abundantly clear to anyone doing that that this is not a law that authorises active euthanasia. However, given the sensitive nature of the subject and the concerns in the community, the Government did feel that it was appropriate to make it even clearer and, with an abundance of caution, to provide a clear provision to ensure that the requirement for pain relief is qualified.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .