House of Assembly Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3) 51 3 Parliament of South Australia House of Assembly published Grievance Debate Voluntary Euthanasia VOLUNTARY EUTHANASIA The Hon. S.W. KEY House of Assembly Ashford The Hon. S.W. KEY (Ashford) (15:34): Voluntary euthanasia is now a legal option in the Netherlands, Belgium, Oregon, Switzerland and Luxembourg, and Washington State now has doctor-assisted law. This law is called the Death with Dignity Act, following the Oregon initiative in 1994, and then, after a Supreme Court challenge, it was confirmed in 1997. The Washington Death with Dignity Act includes the following provisions and safeguards. The first is consulting a physician for medical confirmation of the diagnosis and for determination that the patient is competent in making an informed decision and acting voluntarily. If, in the opinion of the attending physician or the consulting physician, a patient may be suffering from a psychiatric or psychological disorder or depression causing impaired judgment, either physician shall refer the patient for counselling. Another safeguard is that at least 15 days must elapse between the patient's initial oral request and the writing of a prescription, and at least 48 hours must elapse between the date that the patient signs a written request and the writing of a prescription. So, in this case, the patient receives a prescription from a physician and is involved in their own voluntary euthanasia. That is a little different from some of the other places that I mentioned, particularly in Europe. There are also a number of provisions that I think need to be noted in this act. The act allows for an attending physician to prescribe medication to competent adults over 18 years to ensure a humane and dignified manner under prescribed conditions, with competency assessed by two physicians. It also allows for medication for self, not physician administration, as I mentioned earlier; and relies on fully informed patient consent following advice on all options, including hospice and health care. These provisions in the act apply only to terminally ill patients with a prognosis of less than six months to live, verified by two physicians. It includes strict health care provider responsibilities; it requires a residency requirement; it requires two medical opinions; it allows for appropriate counselling; and it requires that 15 days lapse between the initial oral request and the written request. Also, as I said, it requires a lapse of 48 hours between the written request signed by two independent witnesses. It allows for rescinding the decision at any time and in any manner and provides penalties in the event of coercion or concerns that are raised in this area. It includes reporting requirements, including copies of all prescriptions provided to the Department of Health, which publishes an annual report reviewing the act. It promotes, but is not reliant upon, the notification of a patient's next of kin. It provides immunity to the health care workers in respect of participation or non-participation in the act. It ensures that any provisions in a will, contract, insurance policy or any other agreement are not part of what influences the patient in making the decision under the act. I think we could learn well from the Oregon and the Washington State experience. However, my own view is that, where there is an ability for health professionals—physicians—who know the patient to assist them in participating in voluntary euthanasia, that is an option that I think should be available in South Australia. There are many people in this state and around Australia who agree with that point of view.