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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1995 Week 9 Hansard (22 November) . . Page.. 2248 ..

MR OSBORNE (continuing):

Mr Speaker. I agree that the individual should have more control and that practitioners should have less. The question is: How do we promote the individual's choice? I have heard some people say that, for the individual, choosing death should be a bit like choosing a career. You decide how you want to die, where you want to die and at what time you want to die and it will not have an adverse effect on other people's autonomy.

The reality, Mr Speaker, is that they simply misunderstand the nature of human choice. Human choice is not a simple matter of "I want this; I want that". I wonder what type of world it would be if that were the case. If we look at our own lives, Mr Speaker, I would imagine that we would all like to change things. We would all like better jobs. I know that I would. Perhaps we would like to be rich and famous. I am sure that Mr Hird would like to be more handsome. There are things we would like to choose; but the reality, Mr Speaker, is that society influences our choice. It constrains our choice and it puts us into positions we do not necessarily want to be in.

Mr Speaker, the terminally ill, the people at the forefront of this whole debate, are not at the height of their powers as many of us are. They are languishing in positions where they feel that things are out of their control. These people are dependent on the medical care they receive and on the support of relatives and friends. There is no doubt that they are in a very vulnerable position. Simple things like someone refusing to visit a sick person can be the difference between wanting to fight and wanting to give up, between having a life worth living and having a life they want to end. This legislation enables relatives, for whatever reason, to think that the person should just let go.

Mr Speaker, to deny people the sorts of things that make life worth living in the late stages is not giving them an autonomous choice, but under this legislation it could and probably will happen. Pro-euthanasia people will say that I am not being compassionate by denying people the right to take this option. People who take this line often reduce it all to the physical level. Obviously, that is part of it. However, compassion is about walking side by side with people and trying to eliminate the problems, whether they be physical, emotional or spiritual. Being compassionate does not mean eliminating the person.

The next point I want to get onto, Mr Speaker, is the notion that the best death is the pain-free one. You choose the time and place and how you would like it to be done. I can already see the subtle manipulation that could result from this type of somewhat distorted social norm about what is a good death. Here we have people who are intensely vulnerable, people who are very dependent on their relatives or their doctors for support and on the community for good quality care. They are being presented with a model that says, "A good death is as soon as possible, thank you very much, and please hurry up. We have someone waiting outside for the bed" or perhaps, "We need to sell your house to pay off our own mortgage". I know it sounds far fetched, Mr Speaker; but, as I have said before, it is a terribly sad thing about human nature.

Mr Moore: Nor is it in the legislation.

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