Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .
Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 11 Hansard (5 November) . . Page.. 3674 ..
Clauses 1 to 3, by leave, taken together, and agreed to.
Clause 4
MR MOORE (5.24): Mr Speaker, let me just clarify for members that clauses 4 and 7 are the two clauses by which I seek to ensure that an individual has the ability to determine their own level of pain relief and that it does not transfer from the medical practitioner to the doctor. Certainly, I recognise, from Mr Humphries's speech earlier, that he would be likely to oppose both clauses 4 and 7, although he would be supporting clauses 5, 6 and 8. For those members who see this as a back door to active euthanasia, I argue that it is not. But again for those members who see this as a back door to active euthanasia, you would probably seek to oppose clauses 4 and 7. I think that just clarifies the situation, Mr Speaker.
MR BERRY (Leader of the Opposition) (5.25): Mr Speaker, I was just going to respond briefly by speaking to this issue and to some comments that Mr Moore made in the in-principle debate when he gave those of us who have a different view from him a bit of a serve about imposing our view on others. The fact of the matter is that the right of this Assembly has been taken away by another legislature and nothing that we do can change that. To lecture us, and me in particular, from the pulpit of righteousness on the issue of euthanasia is a little much.
Having made that comment and relieved myself of those few words, in relation to this clause and clause 7, I believe that these words that you seek to remove were put in there to ensure that there was a test for the reasonable actions of a medical professional in the context of the Medical Treatment Act. I will not be supporting their removal. They provide a protection not only to the patients but also to the medical practitioner, and they should be left there.
MR WHITECROSS (5.26): Mr Speaker, I just wanted to rise briefly to say that I am proposing to oppose this clause. I think that one possible interpretation of the deletion of this clause is that it would make no difference because professionals like doctors would still have imposed on them by courts a reasonableness test in relation to the administration of pain relief, regardless of what the patient said. I am sure a court, in considering the possible adverse consequences of administering the pain relief, would take into account whether or not the medical practitioner had acted reasonably in administering the pain relief requested by a patient. After all, a patient is not a medical practitioner; a medical practitioner is.
Mr Speaker, if, however, this would allow for the possibility of patients requesting pain relief in excess of what might be considered reasonable and would provide some defence for the doctor against any suggestion that the amount of pain relief was unreasonable, then my concern is that it opens up the possibility for patients to seek termination of life without the kinds of safeguards which were in the euthanasia Bills which this house has
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .