House of Assembly Fifty-Second Parliament, First Session (52-1) 52 1 Parliament of South Australia House of Assembly published Bills Criminal Law Consolidation (Medical Defences—End of Life Arrangements) Amendment Bill CRIMINAL LAW CONSOLIDATION (MEDICAL DEFENCES—END OF LIFE ARRANGEMENTS) AMENDMENT BILL Second Reading Second Reading Adjourned debate on second reading. (Continued from 19 May 2011.) Ms BEDFORD House of Assembly Florey Ms BEDFORD (Florey) (11:08): In response to insupportable suffering, when further treatment is clearly futile and death is near, it is a fact that many compassionate doctors currently do administer lethal doses of drugs in our hospitals and hospices. To quote former AMA president, Dr Brendan Nelson, 'Doctors who deny helping patients to die are either inexperienced or dishonest.' The law today requires doctors to shroud their actions and intentions in secrecy. There are no second opinions, nor is psychiatric examination required. There is no requirement for witnesses or open and frank discussion between patient and doctor about ending life, as it is not now within the law; therefore, many of these deaths are without specific patient consent. The shocking rate at which elderly Australians take their own lives, violently and alone, is testament to the need for law reform. The proposal before the house will bring honesty and openness to the end of life doctor-patient relationship. It does not legalise the actions of the treating doctor or assistant if they deliberately take someone's life. It simply provides a defence for the treating doctor who, through the same compassionate act now and at the request of a patient and in controlled circumstances, assists to end that person's life or assists them to do so themselves. I have received numerous submissions from people from all walks of life who mistakenly view this bill as the legalising of voluntary euthanasia and therefore oppose it on religious grounds. However, there have been many others who do understand what the amendment is planning to do and have expressed their unqualified support. Among them is one of my constituents, a Modbury North resident, Mr Lionel Fiegehen. Mr Fiegehen wrote to me about the circumstances around his late wife's recent passing and the difficulties facing her own medical practitioners who, despite her intolerable pain and suffering, were unwilling and unable, at her request, to put an end to that situation for fear of legal ramifications. He stated that his wife, a Catholic, felt the need to abandon her religious beliefs and even refused to see a priest at the end. He is deeply saddened that she should have passed away in this distressed state due to an outdated legal position. It is important to note that the defence will only be available if the doctor is the patient's treating doctor. The patient must be an adult of sound mind and suffering from an illness, injury or medical condition which is terminal and has made life intolerable. The patient must make a lucid request to the doctor to end their suffering and, hence, their life. Few may wish to exercise this right; however, I would rather this right exist so that a patient can discuss their feelings and participate in this treatment option decision. That is why I am giving the Criminal Law Consolidation (Medical Defences—End of Life Arrangements) Amendment Bill my support. Debate adjourned on motion of Mrs Geraghty.