CRIMINAL LAW CONSOLIDATION (MEDICAL DEFENCES—END OF LIFE ARRANGEMENTS) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 23 June 2011.)

Mr PICCOLO (Light) (11:10): I would like to make a small contribution to this debate. There are a couple of general comments I would like to make first and then follow up with some specific comments regarding the bill itself. One of the things which has interested me in this debate (not only this issue but other issues) is some discussion about who has the right to actually make a contribution to the debate; who has the right to express an opinion about the matter. There is interesting commentary in the media about the role of churches and other faith groups and whether they have a legitimate right to make a contribution to this debate, and that they should not get involved in politics—that is the allegation.

I have a considerable difficulty in a liberal democracy when we start saying that certain people can make a contribution to a debate but others have to be excluded because the view being expressed may not be the popular view or the common view or a view which is helpful to the debate. This has happened not only with this issue but with other issues. The first thing I would like to say is that my view is that everybody has a right to contribute to the debate. Those people who are saying that churches should keep out of it I think are wrong. I may not agree with all that is being said by various parties but they certainly have a right to make a contribution to this important discussion, and any other discussion.

Interestingly, though, I find that the people who say that the churches should not have a say are often the people who are the loudest about protecting their right to have a say on other matters; yet they want to prevent other people from making a contribution to the discussion. By 'churches' I mean any churches, whether it is the church I belong to (the Catholic Church) or any other faith group. My view is that if they have a position or a view about a matter they have a right not only to express it but, in fact, I think they have an obligation to express it to provide input into any discussion.

The second issue of a general nature is that there has been some discussion in the public realm as to whether it should be a conscience vote or a party vote. The curious thing I found was that in some things I have read it was said that it should not be a conscience vote because people should just follow public opinion and MPs should be doing what the community tells them to do. It is interesting that, on the one hand, we have a body of people who say, 'Every issue should be a conscience vote and, as a result, we actually get a better democracy.'

The inconsistency here is that when a particular group think a conscience vote will help their particular view they will ask for a conscience vote; when they think a particular group may have a view which does not help, they will not ask for a conscience vote. I must confess, I am not clear which votes should be conscience votes and which should not. I have often debated that within my own party because so often I am not clear as to which issues have a greater element of conscience than others—but that is a discussion for another day.

However, I think it is important that the parties have declared it a conscience vote and we now have an opportunity to express our personal views on this matter. A very strong sentiment in the debate on this bill has been that the overall majority of people have expressed through opinion polls and surveys that we should support voluntary euthanasia. While it is true in a democracy that public opinion should be taken into account, and should have an input into decisions we make, if we were honest with ourselves, if you were to use popular opinion on every issue, there would be a lot of issues we do not agree with, for example, the death penalty.

There is still a lot of public opinion about the death penalty but we do not support that, so I think using popular opinion as the only basis for decision-making is flawed, and we as MPs, or any decision-makers, have an obligation to take into account all factors and make what is right for society as a whole, not only at this point in time but also what is right for society in the longer term. Public or popular opinion in many countries has led to some disastrous decisions where all nations have suffered.

Getting back to this debate itself, there are a couple of things I would like to mention. First of all, to some extent it has been portrayed by those who oppose this proposal, that it is essentially a euthanasia bill or a doctor-assisted suicide bill. As I read and understand it, the bill is not that at all. My understanding of this bill is that it does not in any way expand the overall concept which is put out by the voluntary euthanasia people of the so-called 'right to die' or 'to die with dignity'. This bill does not do that at all.

I have expressed privately, and I am happy to express publicly now, that I would have not supported the alternative bill which was here before, which sought to expand the right to die. I would have had difficulties with the bill for a couple of reasons: firstly, I think that setting up some sort of public mechanism to resolve what is a very private matter would be the wrong way to go. We see this in America where people go to court to prevent those sort of actions, and what is a very private matter between a patient, their families and a doctor should not become a public spectacle.

My concern was that the bills which have come before us—which try for very good reasons, and are well intended—would potentially set up a system which would bring into the public domain people's situations which should be private between themselves, within their family, and also with their doctor. This proposal does not expand in any way the concept of the right to die and does not in any way sanction or give a right for doctor-assisted suicide and certainly not voluntary euthanasia.

I am relying here on some work done by Professor Colleen Cartwright, Professor for Ageing at Southern Cross University, who has spoken very eloquently on this matter of what we do in terms of public policy when people are near to the end of their life, particularly people with illnesses which are not curable and, secondly, the role of doctors in ensuring that they have a dignified life while they are alive and how we manage the issue around pain.

One of the leading principles that Professor Cartwright talks about is the principle of double effect. The principle of double effect goes back to St Thomas Aquinas, a well-known Catholic and theologian who had to tackle moral decisions or correct decisions at the time. Essentially, the principle states that, if you have a primary purpose for an action but may have a secondary effect not intended as an effect, there may be a moral basis or a strong case for taking that action. For example, if a doctor's primary reason to provide a patient with medication is to alleviate pain, and if an unintended, unplanned effect is that a person may end their life, the principle put by St Thomas Aquinas suggests that that action would still be moral and correct. That is important, because doctors have an obligation to ease the pain of people who are obviously ill and towards the end of their life. In fact, they have a moral obligation to make sure that people do not suffer.

The question arises: how do we on the one hand protect doctors who are acting ethically and morally in their everyday work? Secondly, how do we not extend the principle of the right to die, which I have mentioned I have a problem with. I think this bill as it stands does seek to achieve that balance and, as a result, I am likely to support it. I am not sure what amendments are intended at this point in time, but I would certainly be open to supporting this bill, because I think it does two things: first, it does not expand the concept of right to die; and, secondly, it does provide some framework for those doctors who need to care for patients who are dying.

The Hon. S.W. KEY (Ashford) (11:21): I thank members for their contributions in this house. We have had different and I think important contributions from the members for Morialta, Waite, Newland, West Torrens, Taylor, Reynell, Mawson, Florey, Fisher, Morphett and, most recently, the member for Light. I would like to thank my colleagues for their contributions.

The member for Light mentioned that it is my intention, should this bill get past the second reading, as it did last time, to move some amendments. I need to tell the house that those amendments are based on negotiations and discussions that I have had with the Australian Medical Association. We have not agreed on every single issue, and I am very happy to elaborate on that if we get to the committee stage. However, it is important to say that I have done my best, with the assistance of parliamentary counsel, to reflect most of the amendments that the AMA thought were important, particularly in relation to their members and this very important issue of medical defence.

I will emphasis for the last time in this debate that this bill seeks to provide a medical defence for a medical practitioner should he or she be charged with manslaughter, murder or assisting in suicide after receiving a request from a patient who is at the end of their life. I urge members in this house to support the second reading.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1 passed.

Progress reported; committee to sit again.