Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

None . . Page.. 1526 ..

Mr Osborne: That is hearsay.

MR MOORE: They were the exact words from a speech delivered by Senator Herron, talking about himself as a doctor. The interjection from Mr Osborne that it is hearsay could not be further from the truth.

Mr Osborne: About the nun.

MR MOORE: Mr Osborne indicates that his hearsay interjection was about the nun. Indeed, that may be the case. My interest is the view of a medical practitioner about the action that he is taking. He then goes on to say that he is against euthanasia and that doctors are not trained to kill. We realise that the disease was already killing the patient, but it appears that this kind of hypocrisy is rampant in the medical profession. They are trained to treat the sick, to help the patient in any way that they can as medical professionals and, hopefully, to respect that patient's wishes.

A good and compassionate doctor is also trained to help people to die. Whilst I have some empathy for those who help suffering patients to die, the difficulty that I have with accepting the current situation is that it is totally inequitable. Those who are smart enough, rich enough, informed enough or privileged enough to search out a sympathetic doctor who is prepared to break the law can receive help. Others are told that they must continue to suffer because it is against the law to meet their requests. Perhaps that example from Senator Herron, a medical practitioner, will assist members to understand the double attitude of doctors in dealing with this sort of legislation. It is not about whether or not they think that people should be assisted to have their life ended. It is about power; it is about who should make the decision.

Let me be very clear about what this legislation is about. It is only about the right of a patient, who is in a terminal phase of a terminal illness; where that condition has been verified by two independent doctors; where the patient is over 18 years of age; where all other forms of treatment and palliative care options have been made known to the patient; where the patient has been asked whether he or she wants to see a religious minister. Provided a cooling-off period has occurred, provided no-one involved in witnessing the decision has anything to gain from this decision and provided the doctor is satisfied that the request was made voluntarily and not under duress of any kind, then, and only then, can the request be made. The doctor is under no compulsion whatsoever to comply with the request.

Mr Kaine raised this issue when I tabled the draft legislation about a month ago. Whilst the advice from Parliamentary Counsel was that this protection was in place, I felt that it was not clear enough. It has now been clarified in the legislation; so, there is absolutely no doubt that the medical practitioner or nurse need not be involved in it, because they, too, have a right to make their own choices. All that is required of a doctor who does not want to comply is that he or she hand over the medical records of the patient to the doctor who can comply. No nurse need be involved. Although nurses are inextricably involved in passive euthanasia - the withdrawal of treatment - they are not required to be involved in active voluntary euthanasia.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .