House of Assembly Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3) 51 3 Parliament of South Australia House of Assembly published Bills Voluntary Euthanasia Bill VOLUNTARY EUTHANASIA BILL Introduction and First Reading Introduction and First Reading The Hon. R.B. SUCH House of Assembly Fisher The Hon. R.B. SUCH (Fisher) (10:34): Obtained leave and introduced a bill for an act to provide for the administration of medical procedures to assist the death of a limited number of patients who are in the terminal phase of a terminal illness, who are suffering unbearable pain and who have expressed a desire for the procedures subject to appropriate safeguards; and for other purposes. Read a first time. Second Reading Second Reading The Hon. R.B. SUCH House of Assembly Fisher The Hon. R.B. SUCH (Fisher) (10:35): I move: That this bill be now read a second time. Members will recall that I introduced this bill prior to the prorogation of parliament, hence the need for me to reintroduce it. I will not go through all the arguments I have raised before in this house. My bill is not a bill which allows people to end their life without having regard to appropriate safeguards. It is a very tight, strict bill in terms of its application. People who want to avail themselves of this have to be in a terminal phase of a terminal illness, so it is not for people who are depressed or in any other category such as that. It is for those people who are suffering unbearable pain. Contrary to what some people believe, a small percentage of people suffer unbearable pain and do not get adequate pain relief. Most people do, but some people do not. There are some cancers, including bone cancer, and some diseases, including motor neurone disease, where people suffer excruciating pain and often ask those around them to end their life. This bill recognises that there are people who for various reasons do not support voluntary euthanasia and do not want to be involved in it. There is no compulsion to be involved either as a patient or a professional—neither there should be. There are checks and balances in this bill in regard to being properly assessed. It is not in the category of what some people would see as a licence to end someone's life—it is anything but that. Surveys show that about 81 per cent of Australians support this type of measure. Naturally, some people have variations. Some want an easier approach and some do not want voluntary euthanasia at all. This is a considered, balanced approach to a very serious issue which confronts a lot of people and which is happening at present behind closed doors. The reality is that many medical professionals bring about the death of a person at present. It can be done under the guise of increased pain relief, but the outcome and the intention is the same; that is, to end a life. Some members may have been on the Social Development Committee which looked at this issue. Members on that committee are aware that there are people, not only in the Catholic faith but also in the Lutheran faith, who do not agree with this—and I respect their view. I also ask them to allow those for whom it is in accord with their conscience and religious belief to have this option if they are in a terminal phase of a terminal illness. Many people with strong Christian beliefs support this measure. They are not limited to one particular religious faith or denomination. There are many people, not just in the Uniting Church. I have been contacted by Baptist ministers and people in various denominations who strongly support this measure and believe that it is in accord with their belief in a loving God, not a God who wants to see people experience pain. The Social Development Committee heard evidence from a senior cleric from a particular denomination, who indicated that pain was good because it had a purpose. My view is that if someone is saying that pain is good, they mean pain for someone else, not for their own situation. I say to members that I hope it never happens to them or any of their loved ones, but at present in South Australia a person must allow a loved one to die in a situation in which we would not allow a dog—and, if they did, they would be prosecuted in court. The RSPCA and the government would prosecute them in court if they did to an animal what we allow to happen to human beings. As I say, it is only a very small number. In South Australia it might be 10 or 12 a year, but those people are just as important as anyone else and they have a right not to endure unbearable pain and suffering in the last stage of their life. I am a lover of life. I think the privilege of life is fantastic and should be enjoyed to the full, but we have to be realistic. There are people who are in a position where they cannot and are unable to tolerate the pain. Even the modern opiates and so on cannot remove the pain totally—and I have mentioned a couple of illnesses where that can occur. I put to members: this is a very considered approach. It is a moderate approach. It is not the beginning of a slippery slide. It does not allow people, for example, to claim against an estate if they are involved in this process. The argument that someone wants to get rid of a relative to claim their estate is just not allowed under this bill. You cannot; you are disqualified if you seek to do that. It has safeguards in terms of being checked for being depressed and checks to ensure that you are in that situation of unbearable pain. I had someone contact my office who said that he was disappointed with my approach because it was too restrictive. My view is that it should be restrictive, it should be tightly controlled and there should be a panel—namely, the monitoring committee—which oversees it, with its members coming from various sections of the community, including—and this is listed on page 9 of the bill—the medical association, the Law Society, the Palliative Care Council, the Voluntary Euthanasia Society, the Council of Churches and Disability Services. There is a monitoring committee, as well as the safeguards that are built into this measure. This is not in the same category as what is advocated by Philip Nitschke. This is not the same provision as exists, for example, in Switzerland where they have two different approaches. This is a very much more conservative approach, and it should be because we are talking about a life. We are talking about something that is very special and precious, and we should not create a situation where, for the wrong reason, people can take advantage of a law. I ask members to consider this bill seriously. I want to put it to a vote as soon as I possibly can under the standing orders. I think we have had long enough to discuss it. We have gone from a situation in this house when, I think it was in 1995, the John Quirke bill, members would not even allow it to be discussed. Whether or not I agree with someone about a measure brought forward in the parliament, I believe they should always have the right to have it debated and discussed. A denial of that is a denial of the democratic process. I think we have come a long way. I think there is strong public support for this. Others have sought to introduce measures—the Hon. Sandra Kanck. I think Jennifer Cashmore was one of the original ones to seek to do this and then, ultimately, she supported the palliative care bill. Not as an alternative, I do not believe, but she was a strong supporter of that. I think people have come to understand that this is something that an overwhelming majority of the community wants. The latest survey was in January of this year, published in the Murdoch press, 81 per cent supporting this measure. This bill is not the same as the Sandra Kanck bill—and that is no criticism of Sandra. This is a different bill. It is a very tight bill and it has all the necessary safeguards in it. It is not the same as the Dignity in Dying Bill and it is not the same as other measures which have been put up elsewhere. I ask members for their support. If we can save one person from having an agonising death, then I think we can all be justly proud of that. I commend the bill to the house. Debate adjourned on motion of Ms Breuer.