Why the Rights of the Terminally Ill Bill must be opposed

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.