Page 663 - Week 02 - Thursday, 18 February 2016
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
The second act being amended is the Health Records (Privacy and Access) Act. The amendments bring the definitions in the Health Records (Privacy and Access) Act—the HRA—in line with the definitions of “carer”, “child”, “young person” and “guardian” in other legislation. The amendments also clarify the application of the HRA to records held by the Health Services Commissioner. For example, one clause inserts a new section to clarify the application of the legislation to health records held by the Health Services Commissioner. New section 10(4A) allows the Health Services Commissioner to refer a request for a health record received by the HSC to the health service provider. The amendments to this act are generally sensible and non-controversial.
The final act being amended is the Civil Law (Wrongs) Act 2002. Currently, section 3 of the act provides that a person—a “good Samaritan” is the definition—who gives assistance to another person who is injured or in need of emergency medical assistance does not incur personal civil liability. However, currently this protection is lost if the person rendering assistance is significantly affected by a recreational drug.
Under current law, if the administration of naloxone in a particular instance is successful, the life and personal security of the drug-affected person is enhanced, and that is a good thing. However, currently, whether or not the administration of the drug is successful, there is a possibility that a person will in some way be injured or killed by a drug-affected person administering the naloxone. In these circumstances legal action might be brought against the good Samaritan. That is, if someone who is potentially affected by an opioid, by heroin, tries to administer naloxone to save someone’s life, and that person dies or is significantly injured as a result, they would no longer be given the protections of the good Samaritan provisions.
This bill protects a good Samaritan who administers the drug known as naloxone if they do so honestly and without recklessness to a person apparently suffering from an overdose of an opioid drug with the intention of resuscitating the person. The bill applies even if the good Samaritan’s capacity to exercise appropriate care and skill was, at the time of administering the drug, impaired by the recreational drug.
Clearly, when people are suffering from an overdose they may be doing so in the presence of somebody who is using a drug. We do not want to have a situation where lives that could have been saved are not because people are not prepared to administer naloxone because they know that they are under the influence of a similar drug.
There are some legal impacts on individual rights. These have been raised by the scrutiny committee, and I note them. But, on balance, these impacts on rights are offset by the health outcomes—potentially life-saving outcomes—that could be expected.
The ACT Law Society has advised that the proposed amendment is supported as it is a sensible proposal. As such, the opposition will support the passage of the bill. I thank the staff from the Health Directorate who have put these measures together. I note their presence in the gallery today. The opposition always support sensible legislation that is for the betterment of ACT residents.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video