Copyright © Government of South Australia 2002
All legislation herein is reproduced by permission but does not purport to be the official or authorised version. It is subject to Copyright. The Copyright Act, 1968 (Cth) permits certain reproduction and publication of South Australian legislation. In particular s. 182A of the Act enables a complete copy to be made by or on behalf of a particular person. For the reproduction or publication beyond that permitted by the Act, permission should be sought in writing from the South Australian Attorney-General's Department. Requests in the first instance should be addressed to the Attorney-General.

VOLUNTARY EUTHANASIA BILL

The Hon. R.B. SUCH (Fisher) obtained leave and introduced a bill for an act to provide for the administration of medical procedures to assist the death of a limited number of patients who are in the terminal phase of a terminal illness, who are suffering unbearable pain and who have expressed a desire for the procedures subject to appropriate safeguards; and for other purposes. Read a first time.

The Hon. R.B. SUCH: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

This is a very important measure and, I know, a controversial one for many people, as there are those in our community who do not agree with it because of religious or other strongly held views, and I respect those. In drafting this bill, (and it has significant differences from the bills that have been presented to parliament on behalf of the Hon. Sandra Kanck and by me in this place), it differs in significant ways. However, I still acknowledge the work done by not only the Hon. Sandra Kanck but also by people in the past, such as John Quirke and others, who sought to introduce a voluntary euthanasia bill into this house.

What this bill does is allow people who, within their own conscience and religious beliefs, agree with voluntary euthanasia. It does not require anyone to participate who has an objection, either as a patient or as a professional. No-one is required to be involved in any way, shape or form if they disagree with the principle or concept of voluntary euthana­sia. This bill is based on very tight safeguards. Some people say that you can never ensure that humans will not do something they should not; I agree—you cannot. You would be fooling yourself if you said that every law passed by this or any other parliament would always be perfect in its application; it will not be. However, I have sought to make this bill as tight as I possibly can, and I have had very good legal advice.

The reason the long title states `a limited number of patients' is that, in reality, this measure is limited to those who are in the terminal phase of a terminal illness. So, you could not access this provision simply because you were crippled and did not want to live. One chap contacted me who said that he was 30 and did not want to go on living. I said that my bill was not about that and that I was not in the business of people who just do not want to live. This is about people who are dying, who are in the final stage of a terminal illness and who are suffering unbearable pain. Most people do not suffer unbearable pain, but a small percentage of people do, and that is why the focus is on a limited number.

There are fantastic palliative care provisions today but, sadly, they do not cover every illness. Some people have illnesses such as motor neurone disease, which is a shocking­ly cruel disease, and people literally scream to be put out of their misery because of the pain of the disease. Some cancers of the head and bone can be extremely painful to the point where people are crying out to be, basically, killed. I do not believe that in a civilised society—one based on compassion, where the majority of people uphold the Christian concept of love and so on—we should allow these people (and there may be only 5, 6 or a dozen in South Australia) to suffer that unbearable pain if, according to their religious belief and conscience, they want to end their life.

This bill requires two independent medical practitioners to assess the patient, and it requires two independent witness­es. One of the safeguards I have put in is that any witness cannot benefit financially from the estate of the person who seeks voluntary euthanasia. The reason for that is that many people have said that, with voluntary euthanasia, people will be getting rid of relatives in order to get their hands on the estate. Under this bill, if you are an independent witness, you cannot benefit from the estate.

My bill does not provide for advance requests, so you cannot say, `If I become a vegetable, I want to be put down.' That was in the Dignity in Dying Bill, but it is not in mine. In my bill, you must be fully aware, and conscious of the decision you are making, to exercise a request for voluntary euthanasia. Some people are critical of that and say that I have made it very tight; I have done so deliberately because I believe that the people who are critical of this measure argue that on the ground of safeguards. I have had many debates with the Hon. Andrew Evans, who says that his objection is not religious but on the ground of safeguards. My challenge to him and to others is: if you do not think I have enough safeguards in here, they are not tight enough, or they are not the correct ones, you tell me what they are and I will put them in.

This bill also puts an additional person on the monitoring committee—a representative of the disability services sector. In the previous bill, the proposed voluntary euthanasia monitoring committee had people from the AMA, the Law Society, the Palliative Care Council, and so on. I have added someone from the disability sector as a representative. I was on the Social Development Committee that inquired into voluntary euthanasia, and that committee heard from various people. I recall one senior clergyman saying that pain was not necessarily a bad thing (I think that he was thinking of Daniel in the Old Testament). However, my view is that pain is not good. Some people may think it is good for someone else, but I do not think pain is good for anyone—not the sort of pain of people with motor neurone disease, bone cancer or cancer of the brain. I do not think that is the sort of pain we would want inflicted on anyone.

At the same time, shortly after that hearing, two of the wonderful nuns from Mary Potter Hospice came up to me, and one held me by the arm and said, `Look, we're in the real world. It's a grey area. It's not quite as black and white as you might have heard this morning.' I thought that was a very telling comment from the nuns who are caring for the dying in Mary Potter Hospice. It is a grey area. I acknowledge that within the churches—and it is principally those within the Catholic Church and the Lutheran Church who—

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson interjecting:

The Hon. R.B. SUCH: —and some of the fundamental­ists, yes, and the Greek Orthodox in particular—object to voluntary euthanasia. Some of them say, `Look, we don't have an objection if you stop artificially prolonging the life of the patient.' I am not quibbling with them about that. At the moment, we do have termination of life by medical practitioners. They will not go public because they do not want to be prosecuted. Why would a doctor come out and say, `Look, I helped end the life of the patient', because at the moment they could be subject to criminal prosecution? But it is a grey area, and I do not think it should be. I think it should be quite clear that, when you are dealing with something like the ending of a life, it should not be behind closed doors and it should not be a grey area. You can end a life by increasing the pain treatment level.

Ask any qualified medico, and they can tell you that they can bump up the pain relief to a point where the person is not likely to live. The same consequence (although they are doing it for a different purpose) can be done with chemotherapy. The chemotherapy could well kill the person also. People within some of the churches would argue that it comes down to intent, that the doctor is not trying to kill the patient by giving a high dose of painkiller, not trying to kill the patient by giving them additional chemotherapy. I am saying that the grey area that occurs now—wink-wink, nod-nod—is not good. It is not desirable for the practitioners, it is not desirable for the professionals, and it is not desirable for the public at large. It is not desirable for those poor souls who suffer in agony in their last days, weeks or months on this earth. I do not think that we should countenance a system where we allow people to die in agony.

I say to those—and I respect their views—who argue against voluntary euthanasia on the grounds of their Christian belief, where in Christianity is there some opposition to the notion of compassion or love for one's fellow human beings to reduce or eliminate their suffering?

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: There is a prohibition on killing in the Ten Commandments.

The Hon. R.B. SUCH: The Attorney talks about the Ten Commandments, but he could also reflect on a reasonable interpretation of the Bible, which is that there is a god of love, not just a god of anger and pain. This matter of personal choice to end one's life when the dignity has gone out of it is very important. The latest Newspoll of February this year revealed that 80 per cent of Australians support it. That means that a lot of people within the Catholic faith, the Lutheran faith and Assemblies of God must support it. If you do your arithmetic, I think the members of those faiths add up to more than 20 per cent in Australia. Of the population, 80 per cent supports the right to end their life if they are at a point where their pain cannot be treated and they are in absolute agony.

I know of recent cases—and I will not give their names—who have been absolutely traumatised by seeing a loved one in agony, in the last few weeks, screaming out and seeking to be put down. We put down animals because we are not allowed to let them suffer, but we allow humans to suffer. What a strange approach that is to the quality and dignity of life. There are many medical practitioners who support voluntary euthanasia, and there are many who do not. I was talking to one recently, a retired professor of gynaecology and obstetrics, and he said that he was not particularly focused on this issue until he found himself dealing with a lot of women who had cervical cancer, and the agony of these women changed his attitude. The Attorney-General in Western Australia, Mr McGinty, was moved to changed his attitude because of a lad in his 20s who died in agony in Western Australia. The lad's mother campaigned for a change in the law. They were moving to change the law so that professional people who were involved in ending a life could not be prosecuted, which is another way of achieving the same goal.

The measures in the bill that I have put before the house are very constrained in terms of who can access them. As I say, it might be only three, four or a dozen people in South Australia a year, but every one of those people is important to me, and I do not want to see anyone suffer unnecessarily. Life should be about dignity and quality: it should not be about pain and suffering. I believe strongly that individuals should have the right to decide if they have reached a point where the pain is unbearable. We are not talking about depressed people, we are not talking about people who may be crippled. We are talking about people who are terminally ill, who know they dying, and who choose to end their life in a dignified way.

In this bill I have built in a whole lot of safeguards which I think are very tight. The term `advanced request' is not in. The term `hopelessly ill' is not in here. It is specific to the terminal phase of a terminal illness and people suffering unbearable pain. It is not the term `hopelessly ill', which was in the previous bill which was introduced in the upper house and briefly here. I am not critical of those former attempts. I think that they were worthwhile. What we have at the moment is people travelling overseas to places such as Switzerland to exercise their right on their life because they cannot do it in South Australia. I commend the bill to the house.

Mrs GERAGHTY secured the adjournment of the debate.