HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Second Parliament, Second Session (52-2)
2013-10-31 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

ENDING LIFE WITH DIGNITY (NO. 2) BILL

Introduction and First Reading

The Hon. R.B. SUCH (Fisher) (10:51): Obtained leave and introduced a bill for an act to provide for the administration of medical procedures to assist the death of a limited number of persons who are terminally ill, suffering unbearably and who have expressed a desire for the procedures subject to appropriate safeguards; and for other purposes. Read a first time.

Second Reading

The Hon. R.B. SUCH (Fisher) (10:51): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

This bill has some significant changes from the earlier version. I believe that earlier version was a good bill; even my opponents said it was 'very tight' (they were the words used by a member in another place), but following the detailed suggestions from the Law Society and others, I have had parliamentary counsel draw up what is a significantly modified bill. I would like to thank parliamentary counsel for the work they have done under a very tight time frame.

I am sure members would have received a copy of the Law Society's recommendations. The Law Society does not take a position for or against voluntary euthanasia, but I think they perform a very valuable role in relation to commenting on proposed legislation and making suggestions about the technical aspects of a bill. I think I have incorporated every single one of their suggestions.

I have also had a look at comments and material put out by the members for Taylor, Waite and Newland. It is up to them whether they support this sort of bill, but I took on board some of their suggestions about various issues. Since the earlier version of the bill was introduced this year, I have met with the head of the Uniting Church, I have met with the Professor of Palliative Care (Professor Maddocks), professors of law, medical specialists, medical oncologists, and an emeritus professor of medicine.

I have also met with a lot of other people, including Christians for Voluntary Euthanasia, the nurses group who support it, and people who do not support it. I have interacted intensively with people who are opposed to voluntary euthanasia, including the group HOPE. I think it is important, when putting forward an issue like this, that you interact with people who may have a different view, because I believe you can always learn by listening to and talking with others. What we have now is a bill, I believe, which is even better than the earlier one in the sense that, whilst the subject necessarily is a sad one, it is technically improved as a piece of legislation.

Members, in time, can obviously have a look at the changes themselves, but one of the issues raised before was the definition of a terminal illness. That has been amplified and clarified, in the sense that it has adopted part of the definition which is in the Palliative Care Act. The question of pain is a very difficult one to define, but I have put reference to that in the definitions. I have also broadened it out to involve not only at the specialist level of palliative care specialists but others (gerontologists and geriatricians) who can be involved as part of the process, if necessary.

The objects involve some clarification: it is not just an informed choice, it is a deliberate, reasoned and informed choice. There is protection in the legislation from victimisation in respect of people who do not want to be involved or who are involved. That was a provision that was recommended by the Law Society. There is a provision that the doctors examining the person must certify the person is terminally ill. That was not in the earlier vision; that is now in this version. There is a provision for the two doctors who are assessing the patient in terms of whether they are terminally ill, so if there is some disagreement they can call in a third medical practitioner.

In relation to the qualification in respect of the adult witnesses, there is a provision now that they must be of sound mind. I do not want to be flippant about this, but I have never quite understood what that term means, but lawyers seem to know what it means. There is a tightening up of the definition of relatives, because one of the issues that people have raised is whether relatives might see this as an opportunity to access funds or bring about the premature death of someone. That has been tightened up.

I have mentioned the fact that the medical practitioners have to certify that the person is terminally ill. If there is any variation of the request and that goes to the board that oversees this, then there are more specific requests about any changes in the nature of the request and greater clarification in respect of a revocation. So, if someone decides they do not want to go ahead, there are tighter provisions in respect of that.

In relation to people who are not complying with the board, there are some tighter provisions in relation to deliberately not contravening what the board wants. The publication of information has been modified to more explicitly refer to or take into account corporations who might do something. Parliamentary counsel tells me that the original definition would apply to a corporation, but the penalty for publishing something that they should not has been significantly increased for a corporation.

There has been some discussion about what is put on the death certificate. The reason why it is expressed in that way is to ensure that there is no legal liability against medical practitioners and others who are professionally involved, and it is to make sure insurance companies do not get out of their obligations by using the excuse that what was done was illegal, so that has been tightened up. The certificates have added clarification in respect of certifying that a person is terminally ill. and there are some other changes.

It is important legislation and it is important that we get it right. We are talking about the lives of individuals, and I am not going to canvass all of the issues for and against voluntary euthanasia. People ask me, 'Have you had personal experience of someone dying in a terrible way?' The answer is no. I think I explained that when my father was dying he asked for a cup of tea, and the hospital said he could not have it because he might choke. He was able to eat two large bags of FruChocs I brought him—he wolfed those down without choking on them. He said, 'I won't be here tomorrow,' and he was right about that.

I have spoken with Professor Maddocks and others in the palliative care area, and I am a great supporter of palliative care. It works for most people, but as a society we do not have death and dying right. I have spoken with doctors who have said they thought they would have their mother or father at home and allow them to die at home, but that has not always worked out well either. What this bill does is provide an option, and I believe that in South Australia there might be a dozen people a year, if that, who would access this. Even one of the palliative care experts, whom I will not name, said that on reflection he believed that if he were in a situation of agony and being terminally ill he would like to 'fly away'.

I think we are trying to grapple with this whole issue of death and dying. There have been some advances in palliative care, but it is not true that everyone can have their pain relieved; in most cases they can, but in some they cannot. Motor neurone disease is a shocking disease and results in an agonising death for many people, and some bone cancers are so painful that a person cannot even move or be moved. One of the medical oncologists I have spoken to who worked in the area of cancers affecting women said that their experience of dying—and this is what convinced him of the need—was so appalling: the degradation, the pain and suffering was at the point where they did not want even their relatives to come and see them in their final days.

We have to do better in terms of the whole issue of caring for the dying and the whole death process. Our society has not been able to come to grips with it in the way that it probably should. What I am putting forward here in this significantly revised bill is an option for those who want it. There are many people—very active groups, such as Christians for Voluntary Euthanasia, and young groups, such as SAVE-YA—who want to support this.

For people whose religious and personal convictions allow them, my view is let them have that choice—it is their life. No-one is having this imposed on them. It is up to the individual; let people make that choice, if that is what fits with their conscience. As I say, I have met with the heads of some of the Christian churches, and there are diverse views. The hierarchy of the Catholic church is generally opposed to it, as are the Lutheran church and the Greek Orthodox church, but within some of the other churches, such as the Uniting Church, there is much more support for it not only among the clergy but the laypeople as well.

I have had interesting discussions with theologians; one said that the reading that some people put on the Bible is wrong. What it really says is, 'Thou shalt not kill with malice.' In other words, you can kill in self-defence, and you can kill in other circumstances, but you are not to kill with malice. I am not a biblical scholar, but this person is. He claims that that is the true reading of the Bible: 'Thou shalt not kill with malice.'

I say: let people have the choice, if they want the choice and it fits with their conscience and their religious beliefs. Those who do not want to be involved are not compelled to be involved and are protected from being involved. I think I mentioned once before that when we had the Social Development Committee inquiry, we had a senior cleric saying, 'Pain is good for people; it refines the soul,' and all this. Straight afterwards, two lovely nuns from Mary Potter came up to me and said, 'He's not in the real world. We deal with death and dying every day and it's not a black-and-white issue.'

The community wants this. There is 80 per cent support for this. There is a poll report in Tuesday's Advertiser, which is consistent with the views of the wider community. Some people say that we do not do what the public wants. We know that; that is part of the problem in places like this: we do not do what the public wants. It is not really a conscience issue: it is an issue of representing what your people want.

There are things that I advocate for my people that I do not personally agree with. It is not my job to be in here pursuing my own agenda. I am in here (as all of us are) to represent my electorate. Every issue we debate should exercise our conscience, whether it is unemployment—that is a conscience issue, someone losing their job or someone losing their farm—the abuse of children, or whatever. They are all conscience issues. I hope members do not get bogged down with this issue of it being a conscience vote. It is an issue that has to be resolved in the interests of the public.

This is about allowing people to have their choice. That is why 100,000 young Australians have given their lives, so that we in this country can have some personal choice. One would hope that the people who have sadly died fighting for Australia in Afghanistan have not died in vain. They were trying to establish freedom there, and we should be able to exercise it here.

I ask members to look at this bill. I think it is a vastly improved model, even though the previous model, according to even the critics, was tight. Ultimately it comes down to whether or not you accept the principle of voluntary euthanasia.

Debate adjourned on motion of Mrs Geraghty.

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