House of Assembly Fifty-Third Parliament, First Session (53-1) 53 1 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) (15:55): I am very pleased to see that we are moving as a government on the advance care directives area. That legislation to me is really important. I know members in this house will understand what I mean, particularly if they provide a JP service, as to why we need to make sure that this is a simple process, and also a process where people can change their mind easily and get advice easily. So, congratulations to minister Snelling and the team in this area. As members would be aware, I am concerned with regard to adopting appropriate South Australian voluntary euthanasia legislation, and I was very pleased to recently receive information from an organisation I have been a member of for many years, the South Australian Voluntary Euthanasia Society. I imagine other members of the house would have received this information. They have advised that Quebec has passed a medical aid in dying bill, and I am advised: The new law, entitled 'An Act respecting end-of-life care' passed on Thursday 5^th June, 94 votes to 22. Choice for medical aid in dying will be lawful for adults suffering from incurable serious illness; in an advanced state of irreversible decline in capacity; and suffering from constant and unbearable physical or psychological pain which cannot be relieved in a manner the person deems tolerable. Quebec now becomes the 9^th jurisdiction to allow voluntary euthanasia, [of course] joining: Netherlands	Belgium		Luxemburg	Switzerland Oregon		Washington	Montana		Vermont Some of those provisions are a little bit different. Certainly, the one in Oregon is a patient-assisted-in-dying jurisdiction, but basically the principles of voluntary euthanasia are supported. I was also advised by SAVES that there is an organisation—and I must say, I looked up this organisation, Deputy Speaker, after showing you some of this information to make sure that it was a legitimate organisation—called the Society for Humanistic Judaism. This organisation seems to have a very progressive position on a number of issues—ones that I certainly support—particularly emphasising the need for people to have a choice, and also acknowledging that women should have control over their own bodies. I was very surprised but also very pleased to see that. It also has very interesting policies with regard to sexuality and transsexuality. There are a number of chapters for the Society for Humanistic Judaism, particularly in America, but it also has a global presence. Just recently, on 25 May this year, they adopted a resolution supporting physician-assisted death. Although I will not have time to read the whole article, what they say is: Each human being should have control over his or her own body and autonomy in matters of personal concern. So, that talks a little bit about what I said with regard to the choice issue. They continue: A competent adult diagnosed with a fatal disease that will cause unbearable pain and suffering has the right to die in a dignified and peaceful manner. This is a point that I did find particularly interesting: Government has no substantial, legitimate interest in prolonging the lingering, painful death of a terminally ill person who wants to die. Physician-assisted death, also called physician-assisted suicide, in which a physician, at the request of a terminally ill patient, provides the patient with a lethal dose of medication that the patient can take when he or she is ready, promotes dignity and autonomy. It is really interesting to read the whole article, but one of the other points I just wanted to raise that they raise is: Opposition to suicide on religious grounds cannot justify prohibition of physician-assisted death, failure to permit it, or penalties on physicians who participate in it. Separation of church and state is a cornerstone of our democracy.