Page 3669 - Week 12 - Tuesday, 21 November 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
It redrafts the provisions of the Medical Treatment Act that relate to directions people may make to withhold or withdraw medical treatment to them.
The provisions of this act that deal with powers of attorney and authorising the withholding or withdrawing of medical treatment are being removed because the Powers of Attorney Act, as it now is, deals with all types of powers of attorney, including those under which a person may authorise an attorney to withhold or withdraw medical treatment to the person. I understand that some terms in the bill are used to reflect current drafting style and also to be consistent with the Powers of Attorney Act which has just been passed—for example, the health directions.
The bill allows approved forms to be made. The Medical Treatment Act has the forms in its schedule. Also, there is in the bill an offence of dishonestly inducing the making or revoking of a direction which replaces the offence of obtaining a direction by fraud. The offence in the bill is consistent with criminal law policy. The opposition will be supporting this bill.
DR FOSKEY (Molonglo) (11.24): I understand that this bill is essentially an amendment to the Medical Treatment Act consequential upon the Powers of Attorney Act that we have just passed. I have been advised that this bill needed to be introduced because it amends a different act than the Powers of Attorney Act amends.
There is, however, an associated area of legislation which is in desperate need of development that these two bills draw attention to, namely, advance directives. In the mental health context, they are often referred to as Ulysses agreements, echoing the story of Ulysses with a sound mind having himself tied to the mast of his boat so that when he was later in the thrall of the sirens he would be unable to abandon his post and bring disaster upon himself and his fellow travellers.
Last year’s contentious amendment to the Mental Health (Treatment and Care) Act facilitating the involuntary administration of electroconvulsive shock therapy raised many concerns. As part of the discussions around that bill, the need for further work to be done on advance health directives was flagged and the government did report that it was undertaking that work with the sector at the time.
Similarly, in relation to the ongoing debate around dying with dignity, proponents have suggested to my office that more robust forms of advance directives might put their minds at ease, at least in part, and take some of the urgency for the legalisation of euthanasia from their campaign.
I would like to refer to some comments made last year by the retiring community advocate, Heather McGregor, in her final speech to an absolutely packed reception room in this place, with people spilling out the doors, when she suggested that the work of the community advocate, now the public advocate, would be much facilitated, indicating a number of instances that she had come across an advance directive being produced by somebody of sound mind and with concern for their relatives who would have forced upon them extremely difficult situations. I think that members will remember that at that time in America there was the case of a woman who had been young at the time of an accident but was of middle age by the time that her husband of the time was in a position
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .