Why the Rights of the Terminally Ill Bill must be opposed

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: