Why the Rights of the Terminally Ill Bill must be opposed

The Christian Democratic Party strongly opposes the Rights of the Terminally Ill Bill introduced to the New South Wales Parliament by the Hon. Ian Cohen. The overview of the bill states:

The object of this Bill is to provide a legislative framework for the rights of the terminally ill persons to request and receive assistance to terminate their lives voluntarily. Under this framework, a terminally ill person may be assisted by a medical practitioner to administer a substance to himself or herself. If the terminally ill person is physically unable to administer the substance, the person can nominate a person to do this.

The Christian Democratic Party opposes this bill because we, and other honourable members, want to protect the people of New South Wales. I respect the sincerity of the Hon. Ian Cohen in introducing this bill, but I believe his sincerity is misguided. We need to protect the lives of all the citizens of New South Wales, especially the ill, the aged, those suffering pain, the poor, the uneducated, minorities, racial or religious groups, or those suffering from HIV-AIDS or other tragic illnesses. Voluntary consent may be given by a person, under coercion, by a doctor, by relatives or by other persons who may not be acting in good conscience. At such a time an ill person may think there is no other option but to allow someone to end their life.

The word "terminate" really means kill. Modern politically correct language often hides the significance of an act. For example, those killed in war are described as being part of a body count. This bill creates the jargon of "terminating" a person's life.

I shall read a letter written by Montana hospice physician Ira Byock and published in the New York Times Magazine on 21 July 1996. She wrote:

There is a legacy that reverberates beyond a last breath, depending on how, one way or another, those last days were faced. I treated a young man with AIDS who begged for me to help him die. His religiously fundamentalist family was appalled with him. So much was unspoken, unsettled.

Gradually the hospice team was able to bring them together, and to see that father gently bathing his son was nothing short of a miracle. Just think about that for a moment. It's all right there, the moment of truth. This man died in peace, and his family will always know they had loved him, something that wouldn't have happened if I or some other doctor had listened to his request to die.

That is why I emphasise the need to protect people even from making a decision that they think is correct at the time but which, in retrospect, they could regret. Also, we must face the fact that we are talking about legislation that will allow the administration of a lethal injection—that is, a poisonous injection. This is not a medical act to assist life or extend it; it is an act to end a person's life by the injection of a lethal substance into the bloodstream. We cannot avoid the fact that such an administration is similar to the manner in which some States of the United States of America execute prisoners.

The NSW Legislative Council and the other place have debated the principle of euthanasia. On 15 May 1997 a motion was moved in this House by the Hon. Elisabeth Kirby of the Australian Democrats. On the occasion of the introduction of the bill by the Hon. Elisabeth Kirby there was such strong feeling against the bill that a vote was taken on its first reading. When the honourable member moved, "That this bill be now read a first time" members of the Legislative Council divided on the question, and only four members voted in favour of the motion. They were the Hon. Alan Corbett, the Hon. Elisabeth Kirkby, the Hon. Ian Cohen and the Hon. Richard Jones. Thirty-four members voted against the motion. The opposing members included members of the Labor Party, the Liberal Party, the National Party, the Christian Democratic Party and so on. The vote – four for the motion and 34 against the motion – was a resounding defeat of the bill.

A similar vote was taken when the former member for Manly, Dr Macdonald, approached the euthanasia issue from another direction. His objective was to set up a euthanasia select committee. Obviously, he hoped that select committee would ultimately recommend the adoption of some form of voluntary euthanasia—or even euthanasia, because no-one knows what a committee may finally recommend. Obviously, that was the intention of the former member for Manly, who was a proponent of euthanasia.

When the Legislative Assembly came to vote on the question of whether the matter should be debated by the House, only three members of that place voted in favour of the motion. They were Dr Macdonald, Ms Clover Moore and Mr Windsor. Because I know Mr Windsor does not support euthanasia, I asked him later why he voted with the other two Independents. He said that they looked so lonely sitting there that he went across and sat with them. So only two members of the Legislative Assembly had real conviction in voting in favour of debating that bill.

The point I am making is that the matter of voluntary euthanasia has been ventilated and discussed in both Houses of the New South Wales Parliament, where the proponents have been resoundingly defeated in probably two of the strongest votes. Some may have forgotten that history, but people do not change their positions overnight. These are issues to which all honourable members give a great deal of thought. We normally maintain the position that we hold. We listen to the views of others, but we do not overnight lurch from the left to the right or from the right to the left on an issue.

The Christian Democratic Party believes that this bill would change the historic role of doctors. The role and purpose of doctors is to save life, not to take it. It is not even to assist in the taking of life, or assisting a person to take his or her own life, to suicide. Once that delicate balance in our society is upset, no-one really knows what the end result will be. Therefore, some who support the approach adopted by this bill may come to regret their support for it. I know that it is said that this legislation is necessary because media reports and surveys tell us that some doctors are in fact practicing a form of voluntary euthanasia. To me, that is an argument against the bill. If we were to open the door in a legislative way, would that form of voluntary euthanasia diminish? No, there would be more of it. Not only would the present form of alleged voluntary euthanasia be legal, but there would be illegal practise of further forms of euthanasia, although the real motives or actions would be concealed.

The point I make is that the bill would encourage further such acts by doctors. They could feel that the Parliament has given them a green light to proceed further in that direction. I have indicated that both Houses of the New South Wales Parliament have expressed their opposition to the move towards euthanasia. A number of authoritative and reputable parliamentary committees have done likewise. I have a letter from the New South Wales Society of Palliative Medicine dated 5 December 2001 in which the society indicates its opposition to the bill. I will not read the whole of the letter, but towards the end of it the society says:

In addition, we wish to recommend that the House of Lords Report of the Select Committee on Medical Ethics 1994 be closely examined by parliamentarians, in particular noting the Opinion of the Committee, paragraph 237. Recently in a UK case, this House of Lords recommendation was invoked and was upheld in the judgement delivered.

After intensive investigations, hearings and evidence from witnesses the House of Lords committee adopted the following conclusion in recommendation 237:

237. Ultimately, however, we do not believe that these arguments are sufficient reason to weaken society's prohibition of intentional killing. That prohibition is the cornerstone of law and of social relationships. It protects each one of us impartially, embodying the belief that all are equal. We do not wish that protection to be diminished and we therefore recommend that there should be no change in the law to permit euthanasia. We acknowledge that there are individual cases in which euthanasia may be seen by some to be appropriate. But individual cases cannot reasonably establish the foundation of a policy which would have such serious and widespread repercussions. Moreover dying is not only a personal or individual affair. The death of the person affects the lives of others, often in ways and to an extent which cannot be foreseen. We believe that the issue of euthanasia is one in which the interest of the individual cannot be separated from the interest of society as a whole.

The text of the recommendation is also set out in the letter from the New South Wales Society of Palliative Medicine, to which I have referred. The letter concludes as follows:

On behalf of the Society, I wish to express that we agree with the seriousness and importance of this issue and strongly oppose the legalisation of euthanasia in Australia.

I am pleased that the society has adopted that position and has referred to the decision of the House of Lords. The Canadian Senate also undertook an inquiry into this issue. In a report entitled "Report of the Special Senate Committee on Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide", dated June 1995, the following recommendations are made:

The Committee recommends non voluntary euthanasia remain a criminal offence.

The report also states:

The majority recommends voluntary euthanasia remain a criminal offence.

Another inquiry was conducted by the New York State Task Force on Life and the Law. The report is entitled "When Death Is Sought: Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia in the Medical Context" and is dated May 1994. The report states:

The members of the Task Force hold different views about the ethical acceptability of assisted suicide and euthanasia. Despite these differences, the Task Force members unanimously recommend that existing law should not be changed to permit these practices.

Despite members of the task force seeing some value in considering assisted suicide and euthanasia, to which I alluded earlier, when it came to a final decision they were unanimous in reporting that the laws should not be changed. Under the heading "The Social Risks of Legalization", the report also states:

The Task Force members unanimously concluded that legalizing assisted suicide and euthanasia would pose profound risks to many patients. For purposes of public debate, one can describe cases of assisted suicide in which all the recommended safeguards would be satisfied. But positing an "ideal" or "good" case is not sufficient for public policy, if it bears little relation to prevalence social and medical practices.

No matter how carefully any guidelines are framed, assisted suicide and euthanasia will be practiced [sic] through the prism of social inequality—a point I made earlier in my opening remarks— and bias that characterizes the delivery of services in all segments of our society, including health care.

In relation to this point, I believe that even the Greens should give further consideration to the provisions of the bill. After all, the Greens are one of the active advocates who support the poor and members of minority groups. I emphasise the following statement:

The practices will pose the greatest risks to those who are poor, elderly, members of a minority group, or without access to good medical care.

The next point is a matter of concern when economic considerations are taken into account:

The growing concern about health care costs increases the risks presented by legalizing assisted suicide and euthanasia. This cost consciousness will not be diminished, and may well be exacerbated, by health care reform.

Bear in mind that this report was produced in 1994. My view is reiterated in this report – namely, health officials may actively encourage voluntary euthanasia among aged people simply to free up hospital beds. We know that there is already great pressure in our hospitals system, as is evidenced by waiting lists, et cetera, and that there is an ongoing controversy surrounding what to do with sick or elderly people who, at this very moment, are being pushed to the edge of society through medical care and treatment they are receiving. This legislation opens up the possibility or the opportunity for pressure to be applied which in the long run could provide economic justification. I acknowledge that that would not be a view that the Hon. Ian Cohen or any of the Greens would promote; I am merely stating the dangers that the legislation may create at some time in the future. Other comments on this subject were produced by the Community Development Committee in report No. 6 entitled "Report on the Need for Legislation on Voluntary Euthanasia", a report of the Tasmanian Parliament dated 1998. The report states:

The Committee found that whilst individual cases may present a strong case for reform the obligation of the state to protect the right to life of all individuals equally could not be delivered by legislation that is based on subjective principles.

The committee went on to state that it did not consider the legalisation of voluntary euthanasia as an appropriate solution to abuses that may be occurring in the current system. In conclusion, based on those very well thought out reports that oppose voluntary euthanasia, the Christian Democratic Party opposes the bill.