Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Hansard source

I am pleased to contribute to this debate. I never thought that I would ever stand up in this place and say that I agree with most of what Senator Macdonald outlined in his contribution. I also tend to agree with Senator Leyonhjelm with the issues that he raised, but probably not from the same philosophical basis.

Certainly, with this issue of restoring the territory rights, let me go first to the issue that Senator Macdonald finished on, which is the rights of the territories. I think what happened with the removal and the intervention by the Howard government into what was an issue that was debated democratically in the Northern Territory was not an act of democracy. It really was an act of ideological and some religious approaches on the legislation that was determined in the Northern Territory.

I think the territories should have rights. They should have rights to certainly deal with this issue of euthanasia. I note the name of the bill that Senator Leyonhjelm put up is the 'assisted suicide legislation'. I have some argument with that because I think there is a difference between suicide and euthanasia. Suicide, as I understand it, is the act of intentionally taking one's life. The definition of euthanasia, as I understand it, is the deliberate ending of the life of a person suffering from an incurable disease, so I think there are two completely different propositions here. Apart from the inclusion of suicide in this bill, I think it is a bill that should be supported.

I want to also indicate my strong support for palliative care. People are dying and we are spending money to assist people to die with some dignity through palliative care, which is appropriate. But I think you end up getting into a situation where there is some difference between the argument of positive or active euthanasia and negative or passive euthanasia. Palliative care does end up, in many cases, in euthanasia. That is the reality. It then becomes an issue of timing. How much pain and how much suffering should an individual go through?

I do not think you can take away this other argument about the effects on family of a person dying. It is quite horrendous to watch a loved one die a long, painful death. I have been unfortunate enough, as most people have, to witness loved ones and friends die long, excruciatingly painful deaths. I will not name names, but I had a very close friend of mine who died. He was a senior union official who had a full life ahead of him. He was about six foot two, weighed about 18 stone and was full of life. He was a great guy and he ended up with mesothelioma. Anyone who has ever seen someone die of mesothelioma would, I think, understand why I say there has to be some way of dealing with this agonising death that people go through. I spoke to him the day before he died. The bravery of people in this situation is unbelievable, but the death is so excruciatingly bad for people in that position. I witnessed this. He was a friend of mine who came to Australia from Scotland a couple of months after I did. I served my apprenticeship with this guy. He was not someone who I ever thought I would witness lying in Saint Vincent's Hospital in Sydney in a nappy, not knowing where he was and having no control of his bowels or anything. He was dosed up on morphine and still in pain. His family watched this day after day. I just do not think it is what humanity should be about.

Senator Day talked about sacrificial love. People here would know I am not religious. I am an atheist. But I do not think the concept of sacrificial love means that you should stand by and watch excruciating pain, excruciating agony and a death that does no good for either the individual who is dying or their family around them. I want to indicate that, if that is what people are arguing that it is about, from my concept and understanding of religion, I do not think that is what religion should be about. Senator Day argued that people comfort people with tender loving care. It does not matter if you are religious or nonreligious; surely, comfort and tender loving care is something you provide to your family or to anyone who you see in this terrible situation.

I do not think assisted death or euthanasia is killing in the concept that has been proposed here. I just do not believe that for a minute. I think every life is precious. You do not have to be religious to understand how precious it is to be alive. I accept that, but I think there is an argument and a proven proposition that you can relieve suffering and allow people to die with dignity. Senator Day dismissed this concept of dying with dignity. I think it is a very strong concept. I think it is a very powerful concept. I certainly would not like to die a death like three of my friends have done—one from pancreatic cancer and two from mesothelioma—and go through what they and their families did. That is why I support a proposition that under certain circumstances with appropriate checks and balances there is a way the suffering of individuals and their families can be alleviated through euthanasia.

I will not go through all the details of the law in Belgium or the laws in some states in the United States. Suffice it to say that there are checks and balances on this. I do not see that this would be about money-grubbing families out to put their parents down so that they can get access to the family fortune. I just think that is an overstated and naive proposition.

We need to be a community that cares about each other. If we are a community that cares about each other, we should care about how people die. We should care about the suffering of people who have mesothelioma, pancreatic cancer, other cancers or other diseases.

An issue was raised about a young woman in Belgium being killed—I think that was the word that was used—because she had anorexia. I have had a quick look at that. The Belgian law says that a minor can request euthanasia for a terminal illness. If they are an unemancipated minor—that means they still rely on their parents—then their parents have a say in what happens. They have to be suffering from an unbearable and untreatable somatic and psychiatric disorder for this request to be granted. These are not psychiatric disorders on their own; they are psychiatric disorders that arise from the unbearable death that the individual is going through. So I think we need to be careful when we run these arguments up.

I strongly support the legislation. I will be arguing strongly in the future, if I get an opportunity, that people should have the right to determine a dignified death and not be lying in a nappy with no control over their body and no understanding of what is happening to them. If someone says they want to put an end to that then they should be allowed to put an end to that under certain controlled circumstances. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.