Page 3507 - Week 12 - Wednesday, 12 October 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Madam Speaker, the amendment simply adds to the provision that a person be informed of alternative treatment provisions that they ought to be informed of the consequences of having that treatment and also the consequences of remaining untreated. Mr Connolly gave the example of somebody who wished to refuse a blood transfusion. In such a case there are clearly consequences of remaining untreated. To clarify that, I thought it appropriate to move this amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
MR HUMPHRIES (11.28), by leave: Madam Speaker, I move:
Page 4, line 18, after "informed", insert:
", by a health professional other than the medical practitioner primarily responsible for the care of the person.".
Madam Speaker, clause 10, as it stands at the moment, provides that before complying with a direction a health professional has to take reasonable steps to ensure that the patient is informed about a number of things - the nature of the illness, the alternative forms of treatment, and the consequences of remaining untreated. Now Mr Moore seeks to add a paragraph. There is obviously sensitivity about the way in which this relationship between a patient and, generally, a doctor will work. It will be important to establish in these cases that a patient has indeed made an informed decision about the way in which he or she wishes to be treated. It is extremely important in these circumstances to avoid a situation where it could be said that possibly the doctor treating the patient inveigled or influenced an individual to make a decision which was convenient to that doctor, for example.
I suggest through my amendment that we strengthen the protections available in this legislation by inserting a provision that requires that step - to inform a person about the consequences of their action - to be taken by a health professional other than the medical practitioner primarily responsible for the care of the person, so that it is possible in a sense for two opinions to be obtained by that person before they take that step. Generally, of course, the doctor primarily responsible for treatment will be taking the step of advising his patient about what the consequences of this particular direction might be. In turn, a second person will have to come in and give separate independent advice about that matter. This is equivalent to a situation where, for example, a lawyer advises a client about a benefit in a will that would benefit that lawyer. I know that it is a slightly different situation, but in those circumstances the present law provides that a second person has to come in and advise the testator about the nature of that particular gift, and a second person has to be involved in making the advice clearly independent and acceptable.
Madam Speaker, we have at least the same obligation to provide that independence in this case here. It would not significantly weaken the thrust of the legislation. It would not make it difficult for a person to impart that instruction or direction to the people giving them medical treatment. But it would mean that an additional step would have to be taken to ensure that a person was properly and independently informed of the consequences of their action. For that reason, I think this amendment is warranted.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .