Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .
Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 2 Hansard (26 February) . . Page.. 503 ..
MS McRAE (continuing):
So, we come down to the two fundamental questions that we are all facing today, that have to be faced as individuals when we choose to vote on this Bill. The first is the choice that individuals should have in terms of their own lives, how they choose to live them, how they choose to face a terminal illness and how they choose to deal with that suffering. The other is whether we have the right. So, one is the question of whether we do have that choice and should be allowed that choice of dealing with a terminal illness by seeking to end it more readily than the normal course of events may allow. The other, very fundamental question is: Do we have the right to ask someone else to facilitate that quick end? That, of course, is the most difficult of the questions, because we are asking of someone else something that I have described before as the most profound act of sympathy, the most profound act of giving, that I could ever imagine.
My answer is that people do have the right. People are infinitely varied in their individuality, in their response to death and suffering, in their response to other human beings and in their response to life. In accepting that individuality and that complexity and myriad of differences, I believe that I should grant people that right to seek death when they are in a situation of intolerable suffering at the end of a terminal illness. That then instantly implies that I give people the right to help that individual face that end. That is not given lightly.
I think that Mr Moore has considered this deeply, and the Bill, inasmuch as responsible legislators can ever put it in place, deals with that, so that the person who is actually involved in that final act of grace for another individual does it in circumstances where it is quite clear that that is the mutual contract between those people; that it is, in actuality, fulfilling the wish of someone else. I think that that cannot be underestimated as a gift, that we can give those assurances to people who are going to be facing the end of their terminal illness. As I have said before, I believe that the mere enactment of this, the mere actuality of that legislation being there and enabling this end to be faced in this way, will mean that a lot of people will not choose that option. Because it is there, it is not so fearful. They know that, if the worst comes to the worst, the option will be there, and so the will to fight can stay all that longer. People can test themselves all that longer.
I do not accept in any way that we are opening floodgates or any of the nonsense that has accompanied this debate. I think we are coming down to these two fundamental questions - do we give individuals the right to determine it for themselves, when at the end of a terminal illness they have reached a point where they can tolerate no more suffering, on their own terms, for their own reasons; and are we able to enable another individual to facilitate that end under very specific and careful circumstances?
I believe that I can say yes to both of those questions in clear conscience. But I think what this debate has done for the community and for us all in the years during which it has been going on has been to raise some very serious questions about our collective attitude to life and death. We have to rethink the overwhelming pressure we put on doctors to perform heroic acts and some of our dishonesty in terms of facing death and suffering. I think, if this debate does nothing else, it should give us a platform to look at all of those issues, to strengthen the hand of palliative care, and to come at an honest appraisal of our attitudes to life and death and the rights of individuals to choose their going in their own way. I commend the Bill to the Assembly.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .