HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Second Parliament, First Session (52-1)
2010-07-01 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

VOLUNTARY EUTHANASIA BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 24 June 2010.)

The Hon. S.W. KEY (Ashford) (10:51): The Voluntary Euthanasia Bill 2010 allows voluntary euthanasia for a limited number of people in very restricted circumstances: competent adults who are in the terminal phase of a terminal illness and who are suffering unbearable pain. In view of the differing and deeply held views on voluntary euthanasia, historically, each party—certainly the Liberal Party and the Australian Labor Party—has granted its members of parliament a conscience vote when an issue has been raised through a private member's bill. This bill, too, is likely to be a conscience vote.

The following outlines the current legislative position in South Australia. Under the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935, it is not an offence to commit or attempt to commit suicide; however, a person who aids, abets or counsels the suicide of another is guilty of an offence. While the Consent to Medical Treatment and Palliative Care Act 1995 does not support euthanasia—as specified very clearly—neither does it advocate that anyone should be allowed to suffer.

The act allows for individuals to express anticipatory refusals of medical treatment under prescribed circumstances. It enables a person over 18 and of sound mind to decide in advance and commit in writing the type of medical treatment they do or do not want in the future if they are in a terminal phase of illness, a persistent vegetative state or incapable of making decisions about medical treatment.

The act ensures that a refusal of life-saving medical treatment does not amount to an attempt to commit suicide. It specifically prohibits administering medical treatment for the purpose of causing death or assisting the suicide of another. Medical practitioners and those administering treatment under medical supervision are protected from civil and criminal liability if they administer treatment to relieve pain and distress, even though the incidental effect of the treatment is to hasten death.

Many models have been discussed for voluntary euthanasia. I have had the opportunity to talk to doctors and civil servants who have been involved in administering voluntary euthanasia in the Netherlands. During my most recent opportunity to do that, it was interesting that I received not only a briefing but also a regional euthanasia review committee report 2006 from the Netherlands government.

I want to outline some of the issues in that report. It seems to me that, while most of the population say that they support a provision or a choice of voluntary euthanasia, part of the difficulty with introducing legislation—and I certainly have to commend Dr Such on his efforts to try to bring this matter before parliament and introduce legislation to enable the choice of voluntary euthanasia—has been not only the drafting of the legislation but also how that legislation would work in reality. I guess this is in stark contrast with what we have been trying to do in South Australia.

Certainly, the Hon. Sandra Kanck (former member of the Legislative Council), the Hon. Anne Levy (former Labor member of the Legislative Council) and, more recently, the Hon. Mark Parnell in the other place, have tried to introduce legislation that they think will satisfy some of the concerns that people have with regard to euthanasia but which will also, I think, make the practical administration of that particular legislation fairly difficult.

In stark contrast, when you talk to people in the Netherlands who are either regional doctors who have assisted people to commit suicide or have actually made sure that they have acceded to their wishes of proceeding with voluntary euthanasia, the actual discussion is between the person and the doctor. There is not a bureaucratic system surrounding the choice of voluntary euthanasia. It also seems that in the Netherlands, and to a certain extent in Oregon, where assisted suicide is available, the power actually lies with the person who is making that choice, not other people, not public servants, not a whole medical team, and not people who are in the family, who wish someone to exit early. So a lot of the hysteria about having the choice of voluntary euthanasia is dispelled.

As I said, I have before me a report from 2006. The health system in the Netherlands is broken up into regions, and for the period January 2006 to 31 December 2006, there were 1,765 cases of euthanasia. 132 of these cases were assisted suicide, and 26 cases involved the combination of both. In 1,692 cases the notifying physician was a general practitioner, in 151 cases the medical specialist working in a hospital, and in 80 cases a physician working in a nursing home. So as you can see, like South Australia, there are different cases of where people end their life, some in hospital, some in nursing homes, some in care places.

The statistics for the Netherlands say that 1,528 cases were people who died at home, 145 cases in hospital, 79 cases in a nursing home, 79 cases in a care home, and 92 cases elsewhere, either a hospice or the home of a relative. The conditions that were involved in that year were: 1,656 people had cancer, 55 people had cardiovascular disease, 105 neurological disorders, 58 pulmonary disorders other than cancer, 45 other conditions, and combinations of conditions 6 people. So again we can see that, certainly in the Netherlands, there is a number of different illnesses that people have had, and these are the decisions that they have made at the end of life.

So, in summary, with the short period of time I have to speak on this very important issue, I support the legislation that is being presented to us today by Dr Such and commend him on his ongoing work in this area, but do have major concerns about whether this legislation, if it did become an act, would work in a practical way, and would protect the choice of the person concerned, not anybody else, to actually exercise that choice in a way that was not going to be really difficult and bureaucratic and then make it maybe not happen because of those steps being put in place.

Debate adjourned on motion of Dr McFetridge.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT