HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Second Parliament, First Session (52-1)
2010-11-24 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

CONSENT TO MEDICAL TREATMENT AND PALLIATIVE CARE (END OF LIFE ARRANGEMENTS) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 10 November 2010.)

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO (17:15): As I have on previous occasions, more recently late last year, I indicate that I cannot support legislating the voluntary act of euthanasia. My reasons for not supporting it have not changed either. Above all, I believe it is not good legislation, from a legal point of view, to have on any statute book because I see it fraught with danger.

As this matter is one of conscience for Labor members, I am able to make a personal judgment rather than one based on my party ideology. How the numbers ultimately fall will obviously determine the outcome, as is the case with all legislation before us.

I again acknowledge the very many people who have contacted my office, putting both sides of the story. Whilst I do not agree with very many of them, I nonetheless respect their right to disagree with me. I also acknowledge that the member for Ashford, in the other place, and the Hon. Mark Parnell, hold their views with all sincerity.

In his second reading speech, the Hon. Mark Parnell said that this bill is, in its most basic respects, similar to the one that we debated last year. I note that the Hon. Mark Parnell also believes that this version of his legislation is different from last year's because he has included what he believes to be some sound safeguards. I disagree that he has done that, and one wonders what would have happened if this parliament were to have passed his previous legislation, seeing that he now has included what he believes to be some sound safeguards.

I do not agree with the objects of the bill, in that it allows voluntary active euthanasia for certain adult persons who have an illness, injury or other terminal illness condition, other than a mental illness, that irreversibly impairs the person's quality of life, so that life has become intolerable to that person.

I will probably refer on several occasions throughout my contribution to the forum that was held on Wednesday 10 November, organised by the Hon. Dennis Hood and the member for Newland, in the other place. The forum speakers were Dr Daniel Thomas, a cancer specialist in the Royal Adelaide Hospital; Emeritus Professor Ian Maddocks, Professor of Palliative Medicine from Flinders University; Dr Gregory Pyke, Director of Southern Cross Bioethics Institute; and Ms Elizabeth Keam, the former director of the Mary Potter Hospice.

Professor Maddocks shared the same concerns in relation to those objects of the bill before us: first, that clinicians can cater very well with palliative care services for those in the terminal stage of a terminal illness and have the ability to control even severe pain. In relation to an illness, injury or other medical condition, other than a mental illness, that irreversibly impairs a person's quality of life so that life has become intolerable to that person, he is of the view that this is a courageous extension beyond terminal illness.

As we all know, people die in so very many different ways and circumstances. Of course, no one size fits all. People die an individual death, as they have lived an individual life. I say that, surely when one does not die an immediate unexpected death, it should be one of the few times in life where we do not need to have another piece of legislation involved. Shouldn't we want it to be personal and private with one's doctor and family, or at least a matter of trust between patient and doctor, and not have to involve another legal framework for the request and administration of voluntary euthanasia?

We are fortunate in this state that people can already make an advance directive as to their future medical treatment and palliative care. The safeguard in our present Consent to Medical Treatment and Palliative Care Act means that the direction given must relate to a terminal phase of a terminal illness, or permanent vegetative state, and it must also be documented on the prescribed form.

I wrote most of these notes some time ago and my next comments were along the following lines: why wouldn't those who are advocating this legislation already be taking advantage of the safeguard? I was about to actually print my notes the other week when an email came through from the Hon. Mark Parnell, telling us he would be moving an amendment to remove from the bill the proposed new section 36—Advance requests. He now recognises that our current act does cover such advance requests and makes the use of voluntary euthanasia in these circumstances redundant.

I also know that elderly people who present at an emergency department in a serious state or who suffer a serious setback in hospital are already now requested whether they wish to be resuscitated on subsequent relapses. Recognising the futility of ongoing treatment in some circumstances, their families are also asked, and it is quite common for family members to have medical power of attorney. Also, people can refuse medical treatment in particular circumstances now. There are circumstances now when a doctor will discuss with a patient and family the futility of continuing to administer further treatment.

If I may I will quote from a pastoral letter from September this year to the Christian faithful from the Bishop of the Diocese of Port Pirie, Gregory O'Kelly SJ, concerning the sacredness of life in a secular society:

There sometimes can be confusion about what Catholics understand by the word euthanasia. The church teaches that we are bound to take the ordinary medical means to preserve our God-given lives. We are not bound to take extraordinary means. So, life support can be withdrawn when it is seen to be futile, and any continuation of treatment is merely prolonging the act of dying. For people suffering from cancer there can be treatments of a surgical nature or a drug regime that is simply beyond what might be described as ordinary medical practice, and hence no obligation to undergo them.

Bishop O'Kelly goes on to talk about palliative care and makes the point that the church would always urge proper palliative care as the means to honour the lives of our loved ones. In relation to our aged, he makes the same observation I remember making in my contribution last year. Euthanasia puts enormous pressure on the frail aged to do away with themselves in order to lessen the distress they believe they are causing their family. People come to aged care homes in order to be cared for and not to have their lives terminated before time.

I had reason to visit Port Pirie recently and know of Bishop O'Kelly's commitment to the aged in his diocese. It matters little that I have quoted from correspondence from a Catholic bishop as I have received similar correspondence from other Christian churches. I make the comment, however, that it might not just be Catholics who may be confused about end of life issues: it may well be very many other people as well, and hence we get the poll results we see. A similar letter from His Grace the Most Reverend Philip Wilson, Archbishop of Adelaide, has also been provided to all in the Catholic community.

I also would like to quote from a recent letter—and I am sure all of us have received it—from a medical clinician, Dr Lucia Migliore:

It should also be recognised and acknowledged that there are limitations to medicine. There are times when a specific treatment is futile (i.e. does not work to benefit a patient) and thus should not be instituted. There are also times when treatments pose great burdens on parents. It is also legitimate to not institute or even withdraw such treatments. This is not the equivalent to euthanasia because in the above scenarios it is the treatments that are problematic, not the patient, which euthanasia suggests. The intention is care of the patient and not direct killing.

I also reject the issue of double effect because, to me, paramount is the intention to assist in pain relief in the terminal phase of an illness. We are not talking about a criminal act but about administering pain relief. To borrow some words that I read somewhere in the information I had (I think it was Professor Colleen Cartwright, Foundation Professor of Aged Services at Southern Cross University), 'The patient dies because of their illness, not because of the doctor.'

It was good to hear both Dr Daniel Thomas and Professor Maddocks also reaffirm the sentiment that we should be grateful to those clinicians who work with their patients and very often their families at the end of life. They do it as part of their job every day and do not receive accolades for their service. Mrs Keam rightly made the comment at the forum that the work of clinicians is largely hidden from society. In circumstances when death does not come suddenly, we are talking about nature—and I stress the word 'nature'—taking its course at the end of life. It may not be as quick and beautifully administratively packaged as legislation for voluntary active euthanasia, but I think we all know life is not like that.

News Weekly has been running a series of articles on the euthanasia debate and the view that palliative care is the answer to euthanasia. I think it worthwhile reading onto the record Mr Muehlenberg's comments from 16 October this year. It is called 'Palliative care the answer to euthanasia'. He states:

Palliative care is one of the great overlooked issues in the euthanasia debate. What the terminally ill want and need is pain relief, not an end to life. While suffering certainly exists, so too does substantial hope for healing and wellbeing. This is what palliative care is all about.

He goes on to say:

The World Health Organisation defines palliative care as 'the active total care of patients whose disease is not responsive to curative treatment'. It says: 'Control of pain, of other symptoms, and of psychological, social and spiritual problems, is paramount. The goal of palliative care is achievement of the best quality of life for patients and their family.

It goes on to say:

Although relatively new, palliative care has made tremendous advances in recent years…But palliative care, if used, can now relieve suffering in the majority of cases. As even a pro euthanasia doctor in Holland, Dr Pieter Admiraal, has admitted, 'Essentially all pain can be controlled…euthanasia for pain relief is unethical.'

A well-known Australian cancer sufferer, Dr Ian Gawler has said:

In many years of working with people facing death I have never been confronted by a situation where the urge to provide ongoing compassionate care was outweighed by the pragmatic need for a prematurely induced death.

There has been fervour like no other time in relation to this issue in the media. We have seen more polls on this matter recently than any other time. Excluding the most important election day poll, I would ask: why would we as politicians take too much notice of polls on specific matters, they can be a great means of people to vent everything from their current frustration to racism, to their perceived sense of justice and punishment?

We would all acknowledge that how a question is asked and how much is asked can give you different responses. I would put it that, if we were to follow polls, we would still have capital punishment for some crimes. We do not do that anymore because we are a humane and civilised society that does not purposefully take the life of another living human being—we do rightly place a high value on the sanctity of human life.

I am also certain that another reason why capital punishment was abandoned in Australia was surely because of the concern that one could not always be 100 per cent certain whether the person convicted had perpetrated the crime. What if the convicted person was really innocent? Police and the courts do occasionally get it wrong—we see examples of wrong convictions brought to our attention from time to time.

If this legislation were to pass, even with the new safeguards, can it always be guaranteed it is what the patient wanted? What if somebody is lonely and full of fear at what is likely to happen at the end of their life as the illness progresses and, more importantly, is able to hide their depression? At different times I have seen reported between one-third and a half of those euthanased in the Netherlands and Belgium did not request euthanasia. Those figures were confirmed at the forum that I have been referring to.

What I am worried about is the elderly at a vulnerable time in their life not wanting to be a bother to their families. They could be made to feel they should exit the world before their time when we have legislation that actually could allow them to do so. I noticed those sentiments were also expressed in a media release from the Care Not Killing organisation from the UK.

Many countries have seen the possibility of this legislation becoming law and we have seen many a select committee along the way. In their media release of April 2006, they quoted the chair of the 1994 Lords select committee on euthanasia when he said:

We concluded that it was virtually impossible to ensure that all acts of euthanasia were truly voluntary and that any liberalisation of the law in the UK could not be abused. We were also concerned that vulnerable people—the elderly, the lonely, sick or distressed—would feel pressure, whether real or imagined, to request early death.

It was not an issue that was exercising my mind in 1994, but to me it would appear that nothing has changed. The media release goes on to state:

Opinion polls showing public support for euthanasia are unreliable. Most polls are based on simple yes/no answers and are not based on detailed understanding of the issues involved or the attendant risks of abuse.

It may be incongruous to some, not the least me, but I quote from a New South Wales Council for Civil Liberties background paper on the death penalty in Australia and overseas, which is dated March 2005. It states:

The state should not have power of life and death over its citizens...It was the view of Sir Owen Dixon, Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia, that the state should not pay people to kill its own citizens.

The then chief justice made those comments in 2004. I hasten to add that there is no comparison between those who are responsible for executing the wishes of the court in relation to capital punishment and those medical practitioners who, under this proposed new legislation, would assist in voluntary active euthanasia.

On another level, we should ask ourselves: if this legislation were to become law, wouldn't the state be asked to ensure equality under that law and ensure that everyone has access to whatever means of medication or service is used for voluntary active euthanasia? In short, it would be publicly funded through Medicare. If I can borrow those words again: the state should not pay people to kill its own citizens. I probably do not need to point out that a quick end is also cheaper than palliative care. My advice is also that the majority of the medical profession are not comfortable with or behind this legislation. So, one should ask why we are seeking the assistance of those who take the Hippocratic Oath.

Whilst I am aware that most states have introduced, or are about to introduce, voluntary active euthanasia legislation, most recently in Western Australia, we have seen voluntary active euthanasia legislation being resoundingly defeated. I know that I will sleep better at night knowing that, if someone is in the terminal phase and dying of their illness, in this state people have the opportunity now, under the Consent to Medical Treatment and Palliative Care Act 1995, to make an advanced directive regarding their medical treatment if they so wish. Even if they have not done so, the care we provide in this state, with palliative care, clinician support and, where available, the support of their families, ensures that the overwhelming majority of people die pain free.

As pointed out by one of the forum members I have referred to (Mrs Elizabeth Keam, the former director of the Mary Potter Hospice), when we talk about pain, it is not just physical pain that can worry people at the end of their life: it is frailty, fatigue and depression. The comment was made by Professor Maddocks that 'sometimes, when it is physical pain, the act of medication to induce sleep will often give the patient a reprieve to enable them to continue with a renewed hope'.

I believe that, if patients are not in the terminal phase of a terminal illness but seek an earlier exit to life, that is not something the state should be involved in—and by that I do not mean that we should be turning a blind eye. As legislators, we can promote and lobby for greater resources to go to palliative care for in-patients and out-patients and to respite care and mental health, to name but a few—all actions that are more difficult than simply casting a vote for this legislation when the time comes. In the same vein, I would like to read onto the record some notes provided to members by Professor Maddocks. At the conclusion of his remarks, under the heading 'My hope', he says:

The discussions regarding euthanasia that were begun in this parliament about 25 years ago, led not to legislation approving assisted dying for a few individuals with a terminal illness, but to innovations in and support for palliative care which has been most salutary and effective in South Australia. But more needs to be done. In particular, the advocacy for good basic palliative care for the elderly needs to extend more strongly to our general public and to the staff of our aged care institutions. Old persons are still dying miserably in hospitals and nursing homes in this State, still being given treatments they do not want nor need, struggling on with discomfort when they would be happy to stop. The answer is not to kill them, as this legislation might permit, but to bring them effective comfort through compassionate and skilled palliative care, letting them die in peace. And their families need to understand this, when they would, I believe, have more sympathy and support for care rather than a desperate hope for cure.

My hope is that the current parliamentary debate will proceed as it did formerly, and bring into place better palliative care for a wider range of individuals than can now access it.

In relation to polls, which we have heard a lot about recently, I would also like to bring to the chamber's attention the view of Mr Ralph Bonig, the President of the South Australian Law Society. He commented in his column in The Advertiser on Monday 25 October this year:

In order to obtain an accurate, representative view of the general population it would be more appropriate for a referendum to be held so that Parliament can have a clear mandate. If a majority of the vote supports the introduction of voluntary euthanasia then issues such as the appropriate safeguards are matters that Parliament can properly debate.

I have to admit that I am not always a fan of holding a referendum, but at least it would allow both sides of the story to be put to the people, to see an informed debate and, more importantly, to remove confusion as to what is already available for those at the end of life.

I would like to mention a few other strong messages that I took away from the forum that was organised by the Hon. Dennis Hood and the member for Newland in the other place, apart from what has already been placed on record by the Hon. Dennis Hood that all major medical bodies are opposed to this legislation. What we have seen in those countries that have legalised voluntary active euthanasia is a culture shift—a shift not to accept best treatment available but to accept euthanasia.

Professor Maddocks and Dr Thomas both made the point that the ability to control pain is the best it has ever been. Dr Thomas talked about the erosion of trust between patient and doctor that could occur and the fact that there may well be some clinicians who would see it as an easy solution, in particular in relation to cost, when euthanasia is cheaper than the best treatment available.

In the caucus yesterday the Minister for Health, the Hon. John Hill, advised that he was tabling some advice obtained from the Department of Health which further cements in my mind how poor is the legislation that we have before us. Minister Hill is quoted in today's paper, as follows:

The Minister said advice obtained through the Health Department had indicated various shortcomings in the proposed legislation. 'It points out there are some ambiguities and there is a lack of definition in a range of places,' he said. 'I think that the model they are proposing is unnecessarily bureaucratic.'

He then told parliament that he had asked parliamentary counsel to draft an alternative amendment, which he then tabled. He advised his chamber that he would ask the Department of Health to review his amendment and its practical implications.

Further, this morning, the Hon. Mark Parnell emailed us all with another amendment. So here we are debating, as we have many times before, an important social issue, and what we appear to have in both chambers is an evolving piece of legislation, authorised by three members of parliament. It hardly should give any of us any confidence to support this legislation.

One could go on and on with this legislation. The Right to Life went to the trouble of getting a legal opinion from Melbourne QC Nicholas Green, who picked up on what a significant shift it would be in the law of homicide and the authority of a medical practitioner, probably not dissimilar to the point I made about not legislating for the state to be involved in voluntary active euthanasia.

I ask those in this chamber who still have not made up their mind to think carefully about casting their vote for legislation that can never be guaranteed to have sufficient safeguards. If I could make one final comment, Dr Daniel Thomas said something to the forum which I think astounded all of us. He believed that around 6 per cent of his patients who had their treatment withdrawn for all the right reasons then went on to make a level of recovery. I would say that, clearly, the human body and the human spirit can still surprise us. I believe voluntary active euthanasia should have no place on the statute books of this state.

The Hon. T.J. STEPHENS (17:41): My contribution will be brief. I have spoken on this issue a couple of times already. I have not changed my position at all. In my last contribution I spoke about how, sadly, I had witnessed my father's demise, which was an incredibly harrowing experience, and I still look at that and know that my position has not changed. I respect other members' opinions and I respect that everyone in this chamber is genuine in their belief, but I put it on the record that I am continuing to oppose this particular measure.

The Hon. J.M. GAZZOLA (17:41): I too will be brief and, like the Hon. Terry Stephens, my position has not changed on the euthanasia bills. The bill repeats the processes that began with the Dignity in Dying Bill in 2002 and then the Consent to Medical Treatment (Voluntary Euthanasia) Amendment Bill 2009. With regard to the present bill, I thank all who have written to me or contacted my office with their thoughts on this important matter, however, my thoughts on this issue have not changed and I will be supporting the bill.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER (17:42): I last spoke on the matter of euthanasia in this place on 28 October 2009, and I refer anyone who is interested to the Hansard for my opinion on this issue. It has not changed in that time and I will be supporting this bill. There are a couple of comments I might repeat from my Hansard speech at this stage when we are talking about the issue of religion and religious leaders having an opinion, which of course is quite valuable, but it is worth no more than anybody else's opinion. I would like to read into the record what I said back then:

This issue even crosses the religious divide, with 85 per cent of people in a 2007 Newspoll survey who indicated that they supported voluntary euthanasia identifying themselves as Christian. I note that result with interest; it seems that the vast majority of self-professed Christians know very clearly where they stand on this issue, notwithstanding what religious leaders might be saying about it.

I think people, in the state of South Australia at the very least, have made up their minds on where they stand on this issue; there are not that many who do not have an opinion, and the opinion polls seem to be consistent. Whilst I take the Hon. Ms Zollo's views about opinion polls and that we do not legislate on the basis of opinion polls, they certainly can be informative. People know what they think on this issue and have expressed that to all of us, I expect, through their contact with our offices.

I repeat what I said on that night of Wednesday 28 October. It does not really matter, in a sense, what my personal view is on this issue; for me the question is this: do I have the right to impose my ethical position on this issue on others who may or may not share that view, or should I allow individuals to make their own choice? I believe very firmly that in matters of this nature, for people who are suffering terribly with no hope of recovery, let them have the dignity to decide for themselves. For this reason back then, and for this reason tonight, I support the bill of the Hon. Mr Parnell.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO (Minister for State/Local Government Relations, Minister for the Status of Women, Minister for Consumer Affairs, Minister for Government Enterprises, Minister for the City of Adelaide) (17:44): I too rise to support this most important bill. I have spoken on a number of occasions in this place on voluntary euthanasia, and my arguments and views are well documented and, therefore, I will not repeat all of those arguments and debate here tonight, except to make a few major points. It is a position that most Australians support. Most Australians support voluntary euthanasia and I think it is quite insulting to suggest that those people are simply confused. It does reflect a general view and no doubt some of those views are better informed than others but, nevertheless, to dismiss that by simply saying that they are confused is insulting.

My position is fundamentally that of choice. I do not seek to impose my views about voluntary euthanasia on other people. I believe that people should have the right to die with dignity if they are terminally ill. I absolutely respect the values and ideals of other people who may seek not to choose to participate in voluntary euthanasia—that is their right. I am not too sure whether I would but I am very grateful not to have been faced with such a ghastly personal consequence. I am not sure whether I would, in fact, make the decision to pursue voluntary euthanasia for myself. However, I seek to have the choice to do so if I desire.

We know that this practice already occurs. There has been research and other documentation showing that health care professionals participate in illegal activities and that it has gone on for a long time. We are leaving those professionals at risk because the practices continue and they participate in those practices out of a deep sense of humanity. I believe that this legislation will help protect those health care professionals.

I have also put on record in this place before that, as a former health care professional, I have certainly witnessed firsthand the limitations of palliative care and the pharmacological developments around analgesia and other methods of pain relief and acknowledge that they are limited. Although it is some time since I have practised clinically and I know that there have been advances in those areas, nevertheless, I have remained reasonably well informed, and there are still significant limitations in those areas.

I have also received many letters and emails from members of the public putting forward a range of different views and opinions. I have read all of those arguments but I have not received anything that has persuaded me from my views on this, and so my views remain firm. I believe that the legislation and other legislative frameworks contain sound safeguards that provide protection for those people who wish to participate in euthanasia, health care professionals and other family members. I think that those measures provide a sound set of protections and a degree of transparency which, as I said, is currently sadly lacking.

We know that these things are occurring and there is no accountability and no transparency. I believe it is a dangerous practice not only for patients but for health care professionals who, having such a strong sense of duty, participate in those activities. I believe very strongly that individuals have the right to die with dignity, and I believe that this bill assists towards that measure.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY (Leader of the Opposition) (17:50): As members could well recall, last year, before the election, when we debated the Hon. Mark Parnell's last bill in regard to voluntary euthanasia, I think the expectation of everybody that night was that I would maintain my previous position of being a supporter. Members would also remember that the debate we held that particular night was between the death of my mother and her funeral, so that was also a bit of a difficult time for me personally and I thank members for their support and offers of condolence at that time too. I certainly do appreciate that.

Having said that, I did vote against the measures that were proposed in the last bill. I have given a lot of consideration to my position since then, especially on this particular piece of legislation that we are dealing with this evening. I make some general comments that, with a conscience vote, from the Liberal Party's perspective, I think you have to be, wherever possible, 100 per cent certain that what you are doing is the right thing. I do not quite know how other parties work internally, but certainly in the Liberal Party, if there is an issue that is being debated as a party issue, you might not be absolutely personally 100 per cent comfortable with it, but the body of information and collective wisdom, which is substantial in the Liberal Party, often gives people some comfort if they are not 100 per cent happy themselves. However, with a conscience vote, I think you do actually have to be very comfortable that what you are doing is the right thing.

It has also been said that, those of us who are under the age of 75, or not elderly, may not be in a position to make these decisions. I remember my colleague, and reasonably good friend, the Hon. Diana Laidlaw, when she was here in this place, saying to me, 'If ever I am incontinent, I would like to be euthanased.' As members know, I was a supporter of the measures at that time. I put it to her one afternoon that, if she still enjoyed in 30 years' time everything she enjoyed in her life then—and she was a cigarette smoker at the time—such as a cigarette, a glass of wine, her love of the arts and of her nieces and nephews (and probably grand-nieces and nephews), and the only problem in her life was that she suffered some incontinence, she really should be very careful about saying something at the age of 50 that would determine what she would like to have happen at a later point in her life.

I think that is why so many people in the community have a narrow view of the circumstances they might see themselves in and say, 'Well, I certainly wouldn't want that position' or 'I wouldn't want to have to endure that particular set of circumstances, so yes, I would be in favour of euthanasia.' They may also have had a family member with such an experience, so it is a very narrow perspective.

Members opposite have spoken of the opinion polls about this issue, and I think that is why the approval rating in the community is as high as is often stated. I think people are coming from a narrow perspective. It becomes increasingly difficult when you try to put that in legislation. I think it was the Hon. Anne Levy who introduced a bill many years ago; then of course, in 2002, the Hon. Sandra Kanck had a bill; the member for Fisher, Dr Bob Such, has had a bill; the Hon. Mark Parnell had a bill last parliament; and now we have the Parnell/Key bill.

I am a bit surprised at the evolution of these attempts. Even at the last minute, we are seeing amendments proposed to this bill. I know that with the legislative process, people say that you do not always get it right, it is a bit of an evolutionary thing and if things do not work we can come back to the parliament, but I am a little bit surprised that we are seeing further amendments proposed very late in the journey of this particular piece of legislation.

I have had a number of discussions—and I do not think the Hon. Mark Parnell will mind me saying that one of the discussions I had with him this afternoon was an attempt, perhaps even by way of amendment, to narrow this down even further. I raised the issue that the Hon. Diana Laidlaw made that comment about the advance directives, and I am pleased that the Hon. Mark Parnell has seen fit to have that removed by way of amendment.

Even with my own mother, who said she did not wish to be in the nursing home that she finally ended up in, when she was unable to communicate with us due to severe dementia, we had no way of telling whether that was still her wish. While it might have been, from my perspective, a pretty ordinary place she was in as far as her own personal mental capacity, we had no idea whether she still enjoyed watching the birds in the trees, the sun getting up, the television and all of the things that were commonplace life in the nursing home—I do not know. That is why I have always had difficulty with the advance directive, so I was pleased when the Hon. Mark Parnell proposed some amendments to remove that.

Late this morning the Hon. Mark Parnell was talking to me about some possible amendments to narrow it down even further. I have not seen it written down, but—I will try an explain what he said—to narrow this down to be only available to those people who are suffering a terminal illness and who are in the final phases of a terminal illness, again, is very narrow. He made the comment to me that 'it would be good to get something up'. I think that is the wrong way to come at this legislation, to say, 'Well, we've got to try and get something up,' because it has to be right. You do not want to get it up for the sake of getting it up. Of course, in that situation, the woman—and I always forget her surname.

The Hon. J.M.A. Lensink: Jo Shearer.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: Jo Shearer. Thanks. My colleague, the Hon. Michelle Lensink reminded me. Those were her circumstances. I have a tremendous amount of sympathy for the circumstances that Jo Shearer faced when Mary Gallnor took me to meet her eight or nine years ago.

If the legislation was narrowed down to the point where it is only somebody who is in the final phases of a terminal illness who will have that option, then the people suffering in the situation that Jo Shearer was in would not be in the final phase of a terminal illness. I suspect that would then not be a satisfactory outcome for people such as Jo Shearer and others who are either desperately ill or hopelessly ill—I cannot remember the exact term. I see all of these amendments being proposed and suggested to narrow down the scope of the legislation as an attempt to get something across the line, and I do not think that is the way we should be approaching this. We should not be legislating or making a law that just gets something over the line.

If you look at what happens today to people that are in the final phases of a terminal illness—sadly, my father-in-law last year, my father, Terry's father; there have been a whole range of them and we all have personal experiences—I think the system still works very well. The Hon. Gail Gago talked about health professionals who are working outside the law and perhaps breaking the law. At the end of the day, I think the system works very well. We have health professionals (doctors, nurses, etc.) who are providing excellent care for people who are very ill and in the final phases of a terminal illness. I think the system works well to provide those people with some comfort and, in most cases, an exit from this life that is comfortable and reasonably dignified.

So, I am sure that members can tell from my comments that I will not be supporting the bill as we see it before us tonight. I do want to thank all the people who have contacted my office. I think this time the emails have probably been more prolific than last time, and certainly a lot of standard letters have come in: I think I received about 60, all in the same-shaped envelope, on the same day last week. People have taken the time to write an envelope, although in that case they did not stick a stamp on them, because they were lodged internally within Parliament House. People have taken the time to contact me by email or by post, and I thank them for that.

I have not had a chance to read every bit of correspondence, but I have read a lot of it, and there is a diverse range of views from people drawing on their own personal experiences. As usual, that body of people is pretty evenly divided on what they would like us to do. I would like to put on the record that I thank them for making their views known to me. It is important that we as legislators get that information. I thank them, but indicate that I will not be supporting the legislation tonight.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. B.V. Finnigan.

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