HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Second Parliament, Second Session (52-2)
2013-02-07 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

ENDING LIFE WITH DIGNITY BILL

Introduction and First Reading

The Hon. R.B. SUCH (Fisher) (10:33): 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) (10:34): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I will just explain the amended long title. Originally, it contained the words 'unbearable pain', but it has been changed to 'unbearably', and I have done that on the advice of a professor of law, leading medical specialists and others following a recent meeting. I indicate that the bill is also slightly modified from the draft I sent out to all members two weeks ago. The rest of the bill is now consistent with using that terminology of suffering unbearably, and that is in respect of the objects of the bill.

In regard to the witnessing, whereas previously all the witnesses and the doctors had to be in the same place at the same time, that prescription is changed so that you still need those people to witness, but they do not all have to be in the same place at exactly the same time. It was put to me that under the Consent and Palliative Care Act, which contained a similar provision, it was very difficult and often virtually unworkable to have all the doctors and all the witnesses in the same room at the same time; however, the involvement of the medical practitioners and the independent witnesses is still required.

This bill has been changed from the previous one, which I thought was a pretty good bill, in the sense that I think it deals with all the reasonable objections people have to voluntary euthanasia. I accept and respect that some people do not support or accept voluntary euthanasia for religious or other reasons, and I respect that—it is a person's right to do it. Likewise, no-one as a medical practitioner or patient can be compelled to be involved in this process unless they choose to do so. I think the very name 'voluntary euthanasia' suggests that it is a conscious, deliberate decision.

Whereas the other bill provided for an advisory committee, this one has a government board. Some people took it to mean that, with the new government board proposed in the bill, people would have to get permission from them. No, that is not the purpose of the government board. The board is to monitor the act to ensure that it is working as intended and expressed if it gets through parliament.

The board will have two medical practitioners nominated by the minister, two legal practitioners, a person nominated by the Palliative Care Council (and I believe they are going to consider that aspect at their next board meeting), one person nominated by the South Australian Voluntary Euthanasia Society, one nominated by the South Australian Council of Churches, and one nominated by Disability Services SA, and there is the usual provision that at least one must be a woman and one must be a man.

This bill, I believe, is as tight as it can be made; only last week, I have had a professor of law and others looking at it, as well as other very experienced legal practitioners and top medical specialists, and other people involved in palliative care have also been involved. I believe this bill is a very good bill and not, as some people suggest, a slippery slope. It only allows someone who is in a mental state, who is not suffering from clinical depression, to make a conscious decision that their pain is unbearable and that they want their life to end.

People have asked me, 'Why am I doing this?' Well, I am doing it for one simple reason: compassion for my fellow human beings who are suffering unbearably as a result of a terminal illness. Just to clarify matters, in the bill the wording 'terminal phase' has been deleted because you are either terminally ill or you are not. The advice of a professor of law and the specialists was that they thought it better just to say that it is a 'terminal illness', and I agree, so that is expressed in the bill.

Now, I will not transgress by getting into a bill that I intend to introduce in relation to palliative care. I do not know whether people realise it or not, but under that act it is possible to end a person's life without their consent and that is happening in South Australia right now. They are people in a coma, people in a vegetative state, and if a medical practitioner and the relative or guardian agrees, that person can have their life ended. Yet, they are people who have no say in it; they are in a coma. My bill is talking about people who do have a say; who want to end their life because they are in unbearable pain.

Now, we have had, sadly, a former member of the parliament who died in agony and when people visited he was asking for them to kill him because he was in so much agony. If we allowed animals to suffer in this way, you would be before the court quick smart, yet we have a situation in this state where individuals cannot make a conscious decision that their pain is so terrible that they cannot bear to live any longer.

Most people do not and would not want to avail themselves of voluntary euthanasia because palliative care caters for most people, but if practitioners are honest they will tell you it does not cater for everyone; it does not remove the pain for every patient. My estimation is that, under my bill, there may be a dozen people a year in South Australia; poor souls who are going to be in a situation where they may avail themselves of this. There is no compulsion of course. So, it is not opening the floodgates.

It is a very tight bill and it has been reinforced in the requirement of focusing on elements of depression; that is, you need a psychiatrist if there is any doubt about that. Not a psychologist, a psychiatrist who is a qualified medical practitioner as well. Some people say, 'Well, anyone dying will be depressed.' There is a difference between feeling down and being clinically depressed, and this bill takes that into account by requiring, if there is any suggestion of depression, that it be assessed by a qualified psychiatrist.

There is a requirement, obviously, for a detailed report to be made to the Coroner. There is the board to oversee the operation of the act. There are certificates that must be filled out. There is a very severe penalty for anyone who, in any way, does something contrary to the act. There is no way under this bill that you could have someone being euthanased contrary to their desire. Anyone who does that is engaging in murder and the law is quite clear about that.

As I said before, under the palliative care act, it is relatively easy to end someone's life currently for someone who is in a coma by withdrawing a ventilator or not giving them cardiac or pulmonary resuscitation. Under the palliative care act, you can actually starve someone to death or dehydrate them to death, which happened recently to a lad whose mother contacted me. It took three weeks for that person to die. Now that is involuntary euthanasia. That is euthanasia. That is killing someone without their consent. My bill has got nothing to do with killing people without their consent.

I believe in the right of the individual to choose. Some people say, 'Oh look, the Bible says thou shalt not kill.' The Bible says a lot of things and you can interpret the Bible in a lot of ways. I would say the main thrust, certainly of the New Testament, is about love and compassion. At the meeting I had recently to review this bill, clergy were there who strongly support what I am trying to do. I respect within the Catholic church, the Lutheran church, some of the other churches, Greek Orthodox, there is opposition to voluntary euthanasia. I respect that, but what I say to people who have strong views is, we are not and I am not trying to impose my view on you, but I ask you not to impose your religious view on others. You only have to look at some countries where some of the extreme religious groups try to do that. We do not want that here. People should have the right to choose. If they are in unbearable pain and they do not want to suffer anymore, they can have their life ended appropriately, either by themselves under medical supervision or by the doctor doing it under these prescribed conditions.

One member previously has raised the point that most of the public want this. We know that from news polls and if you are not sure, ask your electorate. I have asked my electorate and they support this. If you are not sure and you are in here to represent your electorate, ask them do they support what I am proposing which has a very strict provision.

Previously one member in here said the public want the death penalty but we do not listen to them, we do not do that. That is totally different. I am not aware that anyone actively seeks capital punishment; I have not seen any requests coming from individuals saying, 'I want to be hanged' or 'I want to be put in the electric chair.' It is an irrelevant argument. But the public do want this, and I know that from the gathering momentum in the community—from young people—there is now a very active youth group that has been set up to promote this avenue for people who want it, and there is a very active Christian group too.

There are a lot of Christians who say that this is completely in accord with their beliefs because they argue their god is a god of love, not a god of pain and suffering. I remember when we had the standing committee inquiry into this, a clergyman from the church said, 'Pain is good for people, it refines them.' What he meant was pain is good for someone else. Afterwards—and I have told this story before—a couple of the nuns from Mary Potter Hospice came up to me, put their arms on me and said, 'He's not in the real world; we deal with death every day and it's not black and white.' That is what these beautiful nuns said to me.

So let us not rely on the people who want to take a narrow view. Their god might be a cruel god but for many Christians their god is a god of love and compassion and they want that expressed in the way the law treats and allows people to make a choice. I would say to those people who say, 'Thou shalt not kill', how do you account for the fact that people have a will, they have a choice? If you argue that people do not have a will and do not have a choice, then you have completely undermined the whole basis of Christianity and nearly every religion on earth because if people do not have a choice, there cannot be a thing such as bad behaviour or inappropriate behaviour or sinful behaviour because you are not making a choice, you are just an automaton.

In essence, I ask members to look at this closely. I am happy to talk to them. I can get people who are passionate about this. One of the medical specialists who briefed me this week is a gynaecologist specialist. These are professional people who are dealing with death frequently and he said that, in his particular field, he sees women who are dying from a gynaecological cancer or something like that who are denied the chance to end their life because they have no dignity, they are so embarrassed—people wearing nappies who are just humiliated by their very existence and the fact that their pain is intolerable—so I make a plea to people.

I know this is not an easy issue, but I have done all I can with the advice of others to make this bill as tight as possible so there can be no abuse. No-one can go around killing people. You cannot benefit from an estate if you are a witness to this request, so the argument that people will be getting rid of rich relatives is nonsense.

I urge members to look closely at what this new bill contains. It has had very skilful drafting from parliamentary counsel who have spent a lot of time rejigging this bill and reworking it to create a new bill based on the best information and advice we can get. I believe this bill is the one that will deliver reasonable opportunity to those who are suffering unbearably, who cannot bear to live any longer and should be allowed to die in dignity, not in screaming agony for days and weeks on end. I urge members to seriously consider this bill and to ask their constituents if they have any doubt about whether they support it.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. S.W. Key.

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