Barry O'Sullivan (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Hansard source

I acknowledge the difficult contribution made then by Senator McKim. Can I say that I've had a similar experience, and I may or may not visit that as I make my contribution. Putting aside the fundamental, I suppose, premise of states' rights—which I do put aside in relation to this; I'm not going to submit either way on that—this is a very difficult subject, a very emotive subject, that will test us all as we make a contribution on the question of creating an environment where it's inevitable that territories in our country, in this case, will ultimately deal with assisted suicide legislation.

I've listened to the contributions of quite a number of the speakers during the course of the evening. I am fundamentally opposed to any act or omission on the part of anyone—and I'm talking from a humanity point of view—that contributes to the end of somebody's life. My fundamental position stems from the fact that I don't think humanity has evolved sufficiently to be able to manage this in a proper fashion. I'll touch on some of the examples of that as we go through.

If someone could create the perfect legislation, create the perfect environment that Senator McKim described, where people in these most extreme circumstances want to end their suffering, where palliative care and medical support can provide that, this would be an even more challenging question. But evidence suggests that we're yet to achieve that. Countries which have introduced assisted suicide legislation—using the term of the 'slippery slope'—have really failed to confine it to the original pure intent, if you like, of what they were endeavouring to do. I think it's important as we consider this that we draw on the position of the medical professionals who we will be asking to take on these very onerous tasks of making decisions from time to time, interpreting legislation, legal instruments and the like as they decide what they may do in a particular case. If we go first of all to the Australian Medical Association, its position is it opposes euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide. The AMA stated:

The AMA believes that doctors should not be involved in interventions that have as their primary intention the ending of a person's life.

That is a very powerful statement from the body that represents the physicians who we are going to ask to engage, eventually, as the territories make legislation in these assisted suicide events. In fact, of the World Medical Association's 109 members, 107 oppose euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide. In a statement, it says:

Physician-assisted suicide, like euthanasia, is unethical and must be condemned by the medical profession.

Without debating the emotive term 'unethical', it begs the question—here we have a world organisation that represents physicians and its position is to oppose legislation of this type.

The Hippocratic oath, written some 2½ thousand years ago, forms part of the ethos that has underpinned medical professionals and practitioners for centuries. It reads:

I will give no deadly medicine to any one if asked, nor suggest any such counsel; and in like manner I will not give to a woman a pessary to produce abortion.

Whilst the two things are completely different—the debates about abortion and euthanasia are completely different—the fact remains that at the very beginning it was suggested that assisting someone to take a life offended the original conventions set out to guide medical practitioners over time.

Like Senator McKim, I've had two personal experiences in this space—one my mother, and the other my wife. In both cases, I was burdened with making decisions that effectively ended their lives. In my mother's case, it was something more simple. She was 90 years of age, had suffered some injuries in a fall, and the physicians indicated quite clearly that she'd entered into a coma and was suffering from heart failure and that they had no prospect of returning my mother to the condition she had been in in the days leading up to that point. I had her medical power of attorney and, consequently, my instruction or guidance to the medical team was that they did not need to do anything to prolong her life. There was nothing involved in that that terminated my mother's life; that ended naturally.

My wife suffered from an aneurysm and, for the course of a day, was in a coma. On all the best advice we had upon which I relied, there was to be no return. My wife potentially could have lived, according to the medical practitioners, for literally years in that state. I accept Senator McKim's advice that events took place, and I don't intend to particularise them or go into the detail of conversations, but clearly during the course of that evening the administration of her medication, perhaps, promoted her departure earlier than nature would have ordered. I've got to tell you that in those circumstances family are in no position to be able to think clearly, and any legislation into the future would need to recognise in detail the fact that family, next of kin and loved ones, at a time when they need to be able to think clearly and make clear decisions, have no capacity to do that. So if we talk about the prospect of involuntary euthanasia—that's to say that the person is in no position themselves to make a contribution to what happens to them—we would need to be extremely careful around the environment that near and dear and loved ones find themselves in as they make that decision.

I'm opposed, and I have been on the record, to all matters of interference with life, knowing all of the case studies around abortions. You would think it strange for a retired detective who spent a lot of time studying serial killers in the United States to be opposed to capital punishment, but I am. Of course, I'm opposed to euthanasia, because there have been so many instances—it's impossible to write a law that is fluid enough and dynamic enough to be able to meet every circumstance we find ourselves in as these decisions are made, whether they are voluntary circumstances where the subject is contributing to the decision or, as was my case, and as it would appear in many cases, the decision is made involuntarily for the subject person.

I'm sure no-one from the chamber has been immune to some of the case studies that have been presented to us from Scandinavian countries. I've had my staff make sure that the case studies they bring to my attention have been well and truly verified; I don't want to rely upon Google searches about the failures of euthanasia or euthanasia policy. In those cases where I am satisfied and they are satisfied that we have applied the appropriate due diligence to use them as examples, some of it is disturbing and challenging. Of course we're at a complete disadvantage here because this chamber will make a decision about ceding the ability to other legislative chambers to create laws in these two territories around euthanasia without knowing any part of the detail of what might be present on their minds as they're exercised with the question.

In this particular case that I'd like to cite there was a young lady who was suffering from mental health problems. She had been diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder, and she was 29 years of age. This case has been verified in a documentary. She cited that she was 29 years old and she'd chosen to be voluntary euthanised. She said she'd chosen this because she had a lot of mental health issues and she suffered unbearably and hopelessly. She said, 'Every breath I take is torture.' This young woman was healthy except for the mental health issues and relatively in the prime of her life.

What challenges me, of course, as is true for most of us in this chamber—we've no doubt had experiences of people suffering from mental health disorders and post-traumatic stress disorders and, whilst I don't think they're ever completely cured, I have seen them get through their challenges and find themselves out on the other side, where they've gone on to live a wholesome life in many respects despite the challenges that have confronted them. I don't want to deal with the detail of prospective legislation and trying to guess what the territories might do, but what if we eventually had legislation developed that allowed euthanasia in that circumstance and in another circumstance where the law itself provides that if a child is an infant under three years of age then it's the decision of the parents? They'll make the decision if the child is between three years of age and 12 years of age in one country; I think it's Holland, but don't hold me to that. We've verified that this exists. Then the child can be engaged if they're capable of making a contribution to the decision.

The point I want to make, if nothing else from my contribution is remembered, is that we're about to make decisions here that will make this possible. It's not possible today, but it can be made possible. We have no knowledge of what the framework or the architecture of any legislation may be. I'd hate to think that at some time in the future we will reflect on our decision and indicate that we might have made a different decision had we known what the product of legislation was from the states.

We are all legislators. That's our day job. We look at legislation, we understand how it works and we understand how the moving parts connect and one thing impacts on another. I ask us all to consider: do we believe even we would have the capacity to develop a piece of legislation that was sufficiently dynamic to deal with all the circumstances? Twenty minutes doesn't allow us to cite the dangers around euthanasia. We're talking about, in some cases, instruments that are prepared by people when they are completely sane and are capable of making a contribution, citing circumstances in which they'd like to be euthanised when they might not be able to make a contribution. With the evolution of our lives, it may be that in their own mind, even though they're suffering from a condition that others might judge warrants euthanasia, they're in a place of peace. I've seen this with aged people who are infirm of mind but seem to be perfectly content. They don't seem to be distressed. I had the experience with aged relatives, and I know we all want to see them treated with dignity and die with dignity, but they don't seem to be distressed.

I would never like to see legislation that provided an opportunity for a next of kin or someone who had some power of attorney or medical attorney power with them to be making decisions. I don't want to make the case they could be abused, but indeed they could be. We have such advanced palliative care now that people are treated with great dignity and, in many cases—I suspect most cases, and certainly in my experience, apart from the two I have spoken about, there has been other circumstances—where the palliative care is of such an advanced state that they are not suffering from pain or discomfort. They may not be cognitive and they may not be engaging—they are certainly not walking the dog or eating much more than jelly—but they're not in distress; they are at peace.

I struggle with this question. I don't struggle with where I am—I know where I am—but I struggle with the question when I hear so many strong arguments made by so many people who themselves have had experiences that I haven't had—intelligent people like Senator McKim, whose real-life experiences have led him to want to support the prospect of euthanasia in this country. I'm afraid I can't make that journey. I won't allow myself to make that journey because I fear that there will be so many cases where the application of legislation could be corrupted, where there's human error and where, in certain circumstances, people take advantage of their power—and I talk there about involuntary euthanasia—and I really think that we need to proceed with great caution.

For what it's worth, my contribution is that we should leave the status quo. As a society, I don't think we're ready or advanced enough to create legislation dynamic enough. This will be yours and my only contribution to this question. If this is passed in this place, we'll no longer have carriage of this. We can do a Pontius Pilate and say it's no longer our responsibility, but this is our last chance. I urge colleagues to think very, very carefully. If you are not satisfied that the legislation will be dynamic enough to deal with each of the conditions then we should reject this legislation in this place.