VOLUNTARY EUTHANASIA BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 31 May 2007. Page 240.)

Mrs REDMOND (Heysen) (11:20): I rise to speak today still in two minds about my position on this bill, but I think it is important to put my thoughts on the record in relation to it. I note that the bill has been on the table since 31 May when it was introduced. It does not seem to have had any further debate since then, and it seems to me appropriate that we should at least progress the bill somewhat by the end of the year.

The honourable member has put in place what he described—and I would agree—as a fairly tight regime. First, it needs to be pointed out that he is talking about something which is absolutely voluntary. It does not require or anticipate the participation of any person in voluntary euthanasia—and we will discuss shortly what one might mean by that. Neither the person wanting some relief nor a professional would be required to participate under this bill.

I am aware that a large majority of the community, when asked the simple question whether they support voluntary euthanasia, would say they do, yet this parliament seems to have consistently had a problem addressing the issue and, much to the frustration of many in the community, coming to a reasonable position on it.

The member for Fisher's bill is limited to those who are in the terminal phase of a terminal illness and who are suffering unbearable pain. It requires that two independent medical practitioners assess the patient and two independent witnesses; and those witnesses cannot be people who might ultimately gain any financial advantage from the demise of the person who is making the request.

It anticipates that the request must be from the person who wants to end their life, and, because of the nature of the way it is proposed, that person, basically, needs to be in full possession of their faculties, to be in a position where, if they were getting medical treatment, for instance, they would be able to give informed consent to that treatment. So, it anticipates someone being fully aware and competent to ask for their life to be ended.

It is at that point, I guess, where I have some divergence in how best to progress the issue with what is proposed by the member for Fisher. His bill specifically does not allow for what is called an advance directive, that is, the request for certain things to occur when one gets to a position where you cannot do anything more yourself and you may not have the mental capacity to take a decision for yourself.

I note that, in fact, we already have in this state an act called the Consent to Medical Treatment and Palliative Care Act 1995, and that already allows a limited level of advance directive, and, in particular, I want to refer to the objects of that act, which are in section 3:

...to allow persons of or over the age of 16 years to decide freely for themselves on an informed basis whether or not to undergo medical treatment; and

to allow persons of or over the age of 18 years to make anticipatory decisions about medical treatment—

that is, an advance directive—

and to provide for the administration of emergency medical treatment in certain circumstances...

The bill also provides for:

...medical powers of attorney under which those who desire to do so may appoint agents to make decisions about their medical treatment when they are unable to make such decisions for themselves; and.

to allow for the provision of palliative care, in accordance with proper standards, to people who are dying and protect them from medical treatment that is intrusive, burdensome and futile.

In fact, it talks about in the definitions 'life sustaining measures', which are defined as:

...medical treatment that supplants or maintains the operation of vital bodily functions that are temporarily or permanently incapable of independent operation, and includes assisted ventilation, artificial nutrition and hydration and cardiopulmonary resuscitation.

The key provision is in section 7, which provides:

A person over the age of 18 years may, while of sound mind, give a direction under this section about the medical treatment that they want, or do not want, if he or she is at some future time—

(a) in the terminal phase of a terminal illness, or in a persistent vegetative state; and

(b) incapable of making decisions about medical treatment when the question of administering the treatment arises.

It then sets out some forms, and says if a person has given such a directive they are then taken to have consented to medical treatment, or interference, in accordance with what their directive says.

So, we already have this provision, and it would have seemed to me to be more logical, in terms of the next incremental step, to simply say, 'Now I want to not just be able to give a direction that says that I do not want to be on a life support system but I want to be able to give a direction that says that I actually want someone to be allowed to give me a needle to end my life if I get to that same point, if I am in a permanent vegetative state,' whereas the member for Fisher's bill actually requires that I be of sound mind, and, in fact, to some extent I think there is a bit of a contradiction in the concept of the bill before us, in as much as, if you have to be in unbearable pain, is that by definition going to prevent you from being in a mentally fit state to reach the conclusions that the bill requires you to reach?

Like most people, I come to this issue from a very personal perspective, and the reason for my particular position on the way I think we should have gone, and that is with a more incremental step, is that my mother passed away with Alzheimer's, just as I was elected to this place; in fact, I did the eulogy at her funeral two weeks before I did my maiden speech, and to this day I regret not having had the ability to thank my parents at my maiden speech because that wound was still so raw. But having watched her pass away with Alzheimer's, and my grandmother before her—and, indeed, I am in the firing line for it unless they have some medical breakthrough in the next few years, but—

Ms Portolesi: Early onset?

Mrs REDMOND: Yes, I have already got early onset; thanks, Grace. But having watched what happened with my mum—she actually because of a fractured hip had surgery and that sent the dementia into a tailspin, and she spent the last three years of her life in a nursing home. But she had a great quality of life really. She was still able to enjoy music, enjoy touch, enjoy sunlight, enjoy having her great-grandchildren placed in her arms—there were a whole lot of things that she could enjoy. But towards the end the Alzheimer's progressed and the strokes affected her brain more and more. She was off with the pixies, in the vernacular, for the last three years; she did not know who I was, or any other member of the family.

But in the last three weeks that was where I think we should have been able to do something more as a family. I am one of five children and we were all gathered at her bedside. In those last three weeks she couldn't eat, she couldn't walk, and she became incontinent—which would have mortified my dear mother. She had no quality of life, and no prospect of improving. When she had the stroke that paralysed her throat so that she couldn't eat any more she was already down to 36 kilos. It strikes me as inhumane in the extreme to then say that this person has to starve to death.

That is effectively what happened. There are actually cases where the RSPCA has prosecuted people for treating their animals in that way, and yet our system insists that we have that circumstance, where she must have been under 30 kilos. Every plate of her skull was visible to us. She was literally just a skeleton with some flesh. She had no quality of life, no capacity to communicate, no capacity to enjoy anything, and yet we require her to starve to death. To me that seems to be wrong. It seems to me, therefore, that we do need to move on this issue.

As I said, I have some hesitation about the particular direction in which the member for Fisher's bill wants to go, but I do support the idea that we do move towards some incremental step to allow us to be more humane in our treatment of people at the end of their lives, when there is no quality of life and no prospect for any improvement for the future. So, with those few words, I indicate my support. As the member for Fisher said, I could move to amend it, and I may well do so, but I do think it is important that we move this debate on, and I support the bill.

Mr VENNING (Schubert) (11:30): Representing Lutherans in my area, this area is very difficult for me, as I also lost both my parents from this. I listen to my electorate. The Lutherans are very strong on this message, but I am certainly very interested to see what this bill will do. I will certainly consider it.

Debate adjourned.