Alex Antic (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise this morning to voice my opposition to the Restoring Territory Rights Bill. While this bill is couched in terms of the restoration of rights to the territories, what it really is, in truth, is a new voluntary assisted dying bill. This debate is one that is, of course, emotionally charged. For those who oppose this concept of voluntary assisted dying, for those who wish to see this in the light that it really should be and for those that are concerned about the suffering of those who are in terminal pain, I hear all of those arguments. You don't have to necessarily be a religious person to oppose euthanasia. You just need to understand the facts. I think it is helpful to understand where this leads.

Far from being indifferent to the suffering of others, opponents of euthanasia oppose it for a variety of ethical reasons as well as because of the deteriorative impact of euthanasia on our society. Despite the mangling of words that we see, it has to be looked upon as a form of suicide. Whenever we're discussing whether euthanasia should be legal, we're discussing whether suicide—or, more specifically, a medical professional assisting someone with that suicide—should be legal. One of the fundamental tenets of any society is that we respect human life. And this can't be the answer to suffering, whether it be mental, physical or both. That's why the federal governments of both colours and persuasions have spent $11 billion on funding mental health services over the years.

To support this on the one hand and advocate for suicide prevention on the other seems entirely hypocritical to me. Surely in either case it's a terrible outcome for individuals and for society, particularly when we want to prevent this in either occasion to the best we can, because we want to affirm life whatever the circumstances are. But the underlying ethos has to be remembered, and that is that some lives just aren't any longer worth living. If we in this place send that message, then ultimately it devalues the lives of citizens rather than cultivating a sense of meaning and morality.

Practically speaking, the message that this is a way out leads to an increase in the demand. That's just a fact. To quote a recent peer-reviewed study conducted by the Anscombe Bioethics Centre in Oxford, England:

Introducing EAS—

That is, euthanasia—

is followed by considerable increases in suicide (inclusive of assisted suicide) … There is no reduction in non-assisted suicide relative to the most similar non-EAS neighbour—

where euthanasia isn't practised—

and, in some cases, there is a relative and/or an absolute increase in non-assisted suicide.

Another peer-reviewed study for the Southern Medical Journal by the same author focused specifically on the United States. It concluded:

Legalizing PAS—

That is, euthanasia—

has been associated with an increased rate of total suicides relative to other states and no decrease in nonassisted suicides.

This at least needs to give us cause to pause before going down a road that will certainly legalise the so-called right to die.

Proponents will often mock those who are opponents for making this slippery slope argument, even though the slippery slope quickly becomes evident each single time, as it has in international jurisdictions where euthanasia is legal and, closer to home, in Victoria, where it's only been legal since 2019. Sadly 175 people were euthanised in Victoria by the end of 2021, which was an enormous increase from the 49 deaths the previous year. The data supports the conclusion that euthanasia is related to an increase in these suicides, in general, whether they're assisted or not. So I ask the question: is this what the public really wants? With laws that have an instructive effect on the morality of society—where that is part of their purpose, to uphold and enforce morality—it makes sense that those rates would increase when any government or any legislative body signals that this is the way to proceed.

The Commonwealth power that was used to ban euthanasia in the territories was, in my view, a good and just use of a Commonwealth authority as it protected vulnerable Australians—the sick, the elderly, the mentally ill—by preventing the territories from legalising voluntary assisted suicide. This restriction should, in my view, remain in place. If we do in fact care about reducing the number of suicides in Australia, the demonstrable proof is there. As I said, the slippery-slope effect is very, very real. We've seen this in the Netherlands, where children as young as 12 now can access these services. More and more Dutch citizens are opting for euthanasia due to psychological disorders such as depression. These are just facts. Again, is this something the people of the territories really want, that the people of Australia really want? Is that a picture of a flourishing society or is it indicative of one that is going down the wrong path?

Part of the problem is that euthanasia legislation is predicated on the concept of suffering, which we all understand and we all sympathise with, and that's difficult to define. So, being open to its being interpreted liberally by others is always a problem in these legislative dilemmas. To quote an associate professor on the board of Palliative Care Australia:

I am concerned we are too caught up with our "right" to die, while not investing in the system that helps us live as well as possible before we die.

And more Australians die in pain because of the lack of access to palliative care, not because of palliative care. Good-quality palliative care obviously can't work for everyone—I accept that—just as heart surgery can't work for 100 per cent of people. But, for the majority, palliative care is an experience that is essential in those terrible circumstances—and we've all been through those, I would say.

Having the option of voluntary assisted suicide means that people who would not otherwise consider it feel the pressure to do so, fearing that they'd be a burden on their loved ones, rather than simply expecting that they would be cared for, as is their right. There are terrible and very real stories of elderly people being neglected by family members so that they will choose suicide sooner. The Left of politics may dismiss these stories, but they do happen, and they are terribly tragic, as many of these stories are.

I want to conclude my remarks about this bill by saying, finally, that one can't address the topic without noting the way in which euthanasia fundamentally changes the doctor-patient relationship. The Ancient Greek Hippocratic oath, still a document—until recently—fundamental to the importance of Western practice of medicine, reads:

I will do no harm or injustice to them. Neither will I administer a poison to anybody when asked to do so, nor will I suggest such a course.

And:

Into whatsoever houses I enter, I will enter to help the sick, and I will abstain from all intentional wrong-doing and harm.

We would like to think that as a society we are more enlightened than the Ancient Greeks regarding medical ethics. The dignity of the sick and the suffering and our obligation to help and comfort them has to be a paramount concern that cannot be forgotten. I think the answer to the question is clear, and it's for these reasons that I oppose the bill.