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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 2 Hansard (26 February) . . Page.. 440 ..

MR HIRD (continuing):

It would have been more appropriate if Mr Moore had deferred presentation of this Bill until after the Senate's deliberations. I can only assume, Mr Speaker, that, by tabling the Bill now, Mr Moore is once again trying to write himself into the ACT record books with an exercise in political grandstanding. If that is what he wants, then I might be persuaded to change my stand and vote to have the Bill introduced for a trial period, if Mr Moore is willing to submit to being the first "victim" of his legislation!

Seriously, Mr Speaker, I do not believe that this parliament should be putting itself in a position where it is seen to be playing God - and that is what we are talking about here. Euthanasia raises serious religious, ethical and legal questions, as indicated by Mr Kaine. The treatment of the sick is a matter which ought to be resolved between the patient, his or her family, and their doctor. Doctors have an obligation to relieve pain, to keep their patients comfortable and, above all, to preserve life wherever possible. It is not for us, as a parliament, to be condoning doctor-assisted suicide. In an age when technology and the development of drugs are creating incredible breakthroughs in medical science, there is almost daily hope that diseases that a decade ago were considered incurable can be treated successfully. This proposed legislation, Mr Speaker, is just the thin end of the wedge. We should be asking ourselves: Where does it end?

The risks are too great. The lives of people are precious. The lives of people who are not competent to request lethal medication could be put at risk. Their request may not be truly voluntary. This Bill is certainly not just about people who are terminally ill being allowed to legally end their lives. Mr Speaker, you will recall that earlier this week the Standing Committee on Scrutiny of Bills and Subordinate Legislation identified flaws in the Bill itself. In particular, that committee drew the attention of the house to the provisions for witnesses under section 7, in paragraph 11(d). I am also concerned, Mr Speaker, in respect of patients in aged persons nursing homes. I know that a number of people in the community and some of my colleagues in this house are also concerned about those patients in that sort of situation.

Every adult in Australia has the legal right to decide whether or not they will allow themselves to undergo medical treatment. They have the same right to reject treatment. But what happens when a person is unable to make those decisions - when that person is no longer mentally capable of making decisions of this magnitude? Is it fair to ask family members to become substitute decision-makers? This Bill, if passed, will allow that situation to develop. There is always the danger that relatives, feeling the pressure of rising health care costs, coupled with the agony of seeing loved ones suffer, will be tempted to take advantage of this proposed legislation.

It is also interesting, Mr Speaker, that society today does not allow capital punishment for hardened criminals who commit murder and the like; yet we are trying, through the Moore Bill, to bring in the ability to do away with the very people that we care for in the family circle. I believe that, inevitably, such decisions, by virtue of the fact that we are all only human, will be regretted. Under Mr Moore's legislation, it will be too late. Mr Speaker, I do not know about other members of this parliament; but I, sure as hell, do not want to be the one that enables that to happen. Consequently, I will be recording my vote against this Bill.

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