Hansard: Voluntary Euthanasia Bill 2010, Davies
Author: admin
Published on: 23-September-2010
I rise today to speak on the Voluntary Euthanasia Bill 2010, a private members bill introduced by the Honorable Robin Chapple.
I understand that the Bill will allow a person to request a medical practitioner administer euthanasia.
The person must fit the following criteria to be considered:
· who has lived in WA for at least the previous three years consecutively
· is of sound mind
· is 21 years or over
· who can communicate his or her intentions
· who has a terminal illness that will cause death within 2 years; and
· is experiencing pain, suffering or debilitation that is considerable.
I understand that the Honourable Robin Chapple has taken considerable time to construct this Bill, and that he has consulted widely with his colleagues in the Parliament and the wider community.
There has been much comment on this issue in the community – I have been furnished with examples that would uphold both sides of this complex argument by my constituents and by people from far further afield.
I have taken the time to attend briefings that were hosted by the Hon Nick Goiran and the Hon Kate Doust.
I also took the opportunity to meet with Marshall Perron, a Member of the Northern Territory Parliament who supports the introduction of voluntary euthanasia.
I have discussed the issue with my family, my friends and my colleagues.
I have acquainted myself with the information available to the public on this debate – there is certainly no shortage of opinion on the matter.
I also took note of the 2nd Reading of the Bill when it was introduced by the Hon Robin Chapple.
I’d like to focus on the issues raised in the 2nd Reading, with a view to outlining my position and reasons for arriving at it.
I will not be supporting the Bill.
The Hon Robin Chapple set out five reasons as to why members should support the bill.
The first was due to a personal experience.
I don’t doubt that a majority of members will have a similar personal experience to recount to that of the Hon Robin Chapple’s.
Certainly, in my own family, there are similar experiences. It is impossible not to take these experiences into account, they colour our decision making processes.
I will not accept an argument that I am less compassionate or caring than those that support this Bill.
The second is related to compassion and challenging the notion that current societal norms suggest it is wrong to end that suffering through death.
What is a compassionate society? In my view, it is one that cares for the young, elderly, sick, infirm and vulnerable equally. It is one that affords an individual dignity and respect in illness and health.
The Hon Robin Chapple asked us to imagine a society where people like Christian Rossitor have no other option than to starve themselves to escape suffering.
This bill will not ease the suffering of people like Mr Rossitor. It does not apply to people with injury or illness like those that Mr Rossitor endured.
And it is this point that concerns me.
Using the argument of a compassionate society, surely we should accommodate the Mr Rossitor’s of the world. Is that the next step?
Do we as Members of Parliament, and representatives of the Western Australia population, start determining who is next on the list as ‘deserving’ the right end their suffering?
The Bill will do more than just provide a means for some people to chose to end their life painlessly.
It will sanction the right for some members of our society to end the life of another.
It will normalise ‘the right to take life’, even with the restrictions outlined in the bill.
It is my view that a compassionate society does not view the taking of life as normal, or take steps to sanction the act.
A compassionate society values and cares for those that are most vulnerable.
I concede that in some cases, people do not receive the care, or are afforded the dignity they deserve.
I would far rather we were discussing how we resource and support those that care for these people.
The third reason the Hon Robin Chapple spoke about was autonomy, that is, people’s right to control what they do with their life, including when and how that life will end.
Those supporting this bill may well contend that the end of a person’s life, as a personal choice, hurts no-one. I reject this statement and the implication that the choice and action of an individual affects no-one.
John Donne said ‘no “No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent.”
It refers to the human condition. We as humans need interaction with others. Trying to live alone, without association with other people is debilitating and self defeating. Whether we like others is not the point, we cannot do without them.
It may seem frivolous to quote poetry when debating such a serious topic.
I certainly don’t mean to make light of the suffering or pain that people experience who may see themselves as potential candidates for this option.
It does make the point though, that by and large, to varying degrees we rely on our family, friends and even strangers in every aspect of our life – this is no different in death.
The decision to die is not one that will be taken in isolation.
The bill requires that a host of people be consulted and included in the process, as part of the supposed safeguards to prevent abuse.
There will be family members to consult (or not consult, which will have impacts in of itself).
I understand this is not necessary in the legal sense of the bill, but in practice, you would assume that these decisions would not be taken unilaterally.
There will be friends and carers. These groups are the nucleus of most people’s lives.
In the event that a person is isolated, bereft of friends and family, there will be the medical staff and carers who will be part of the process.
It is flippant to say that the decision will not impact on anyone else – it has far reaching ramifications for all involved.
The fourth reason was insert regulation, safeguards and legal clarity into a practice that is already happening.
When a Parliament passes a law, it legitimises a practice. That may be stating the obvious, but it is good reason to think twice before we pass legislation that will change the perception and understanding of life and death in the community.
It will change the perception of the sick, the elderly, the disabled and the vulnerable.
There is also a risk that this is the thin edge of the wedge.
The bill as it stands states that only terminally ill people likely to die within the next two years and who are experiencing considerable pain, suffering or debilitation can be considered.
I spoke earlier of the experience of Mr Rossitor. This bill would not have assisted Mr Rossitor.
In introducing the bill we will be saying that society views one person’s pain and suffering as more important than someone else’s.
The briefing paper provided to all MPs from FamilyVoice Australia perhaps states this particular point more eloquently than I have:
Once society authorises physician-assisted suicide for competent, terminally ill patients experiencing unrelievable suffering, it will be difficult, if not impossible, to contain the option to such a limited group. Individuals who are not competent, who are not terminally ill, or who cannot self-administer lethal drugs will also seek the option of physician-assisted death, and no principled basis will exist to deny them this right. (Page 7, FamilyVoice briefing paper on the Voluntary Euthanasia Bill 2010).
Life may not be fair, but I don’t believe we should be introducing legislation that creates inequality.
The medical profession is very clear that their role, in cases where the end of a patient’s life is near, is to (and I quote extracts from an AMA Position Statement on the Role of the Medical Practitioner in End of Life Care, 2007):
· ensure the patient is always treated with respect, dignity, and compassion
· ensure that the patient is free from unnecessary suffering
· ensure that the patient’s goals and values for end of life care are respected
· empower patients and where appropriate, their family members and carers to participate in managing their treatment.
Could I stop for a moment and touch on a personal experience in relation to this last point. My grandfather passed away a number of years back.
I remember him from my childhood as a strong hulk of a man, the head of his family, a leader in his community who had the respect and love of his family. In his later years he was diagnosed with a illness that eventually took his life.
I considered it a great privilege to be part of the family that drew in around him to care for him in his last months.
In that time, a different relationship developed between him and his grandchildren, daughters-in-law and sons.
Where he was once robust he was vulnerable, where he was once thinking only of the next job to be done, he was reflective.
We had this same experience with my Nan. She succumbed to death having lived with multiple illnesses for many years.
I know that I am a better person having seen both these wonderful people in different stages of their lives.
I also know, through their experience, that the human body and mind can withstand much more than we ever think it can.
This gives me a strength to deal with challenges in my own life every day.
I realise that many may believe this is a selfish view, that having these people around for longer is for my benefit, not theirs.
I reject that on the premise that I spoke of earlier – our life, our actions, our decisions impact on many people.
In relation to the fourth reason provided by the Hon Robin Chapple, I believe we are setting a contradiction in legislation for the medical profession.
In legislating for voluntary euthanasia we are introducing an anomaly for Doctors and medical practitioners to grapple with.
They do not have this option so their efforts are focussed on the management of the patient’s well-being and end-of-life care.
The final reason given by the Member Robin Chapple, was that the public demands it, supports and Members that vote against it would be going against their constituency’s wishes.
My constituents, those living in the Agricultural Region, have taken this opportunity to write, email and phone my office.
I have received a vast number of contacts on this issue. That’s not surprising, death is a great equaliser – it eventually comes to everyone so everyone therefore has an opinion!
What I have learnt in my first year as a Member of this House, is that we have the privilege of delving into proposed legislation, of talking to experts and discussing the matter with key stakeholders.
This is an opportunity that is perhaps not afforded to every member of the public.
There is a vast difference between supporting a theory or an idea and then legislating for it.
Having taken the opportunity to consider this matter carefully, and having weighed the arguments on both sides, and acknowledging all those people from my electorate who took the time to contact me on the matter, I am convinced that the Voluntary Euthanasia Bill 2010 should not be supported by this House.
I will not be supporting the Bill.
