Jim Molan (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

My contribution to this debate will be short, because many have spoken on this bill before me. They have spoken over a considerable time and much has been said. Neither aspect of this bill, territories rights or assisted suicide, are new. Both have been debated extensively, and it's my view that our debate here is not going to change the minds of our colleagues in the Senate, but is more about explaining to constituents why we will vote one way or the other. This is very important, despite the way that this bill has arrived in this place, because it considers a basic life-and-death situation. Because of the importance of what we are debating today, I consulted the medical community, including Dr Ian Haines—referred to by Senator Seselja—some in the psychiatric community and friends and family. Like so many of my colleagues and those of my age, I've experienced the death of my parents and my father-in-law. I've spoken to those who actually have a parent suffering terminal disease. I've been influenced by the writings of Professor David Kissane and Senator Seselja, who gave such a comprehensive speech only two speakers ago. As well, I've read as widely as I possibly can, as time permits, on the subject, and consulted, through its website, an organisation close to my heart, the Ethics Centre in Sydney.

To begin, I would like to address a number of background issues. The first concerns the Dutch example, which exemplifies the risk of what might be called 'normalisation'. In the Netherlands, there is an increased number of people being euthanised, with approximately 7,000 cases in 2017, up from 4,188 in 2012. There are real concerns around doctors overreaching in their mandate and euthanising people who're not able to consent or do not reach the required standards of consent. Recently, Dutch authorities have begun investigating four cases for improper euthanising, raising further concerns about the actions of doctors.

As well, there are risks of pressure on older Australians, including elements of elder abuse. There are already serious concerns around elder abuse in our society. The Australian Institute of Family Studies estimates that between two and 10 per cent of older Australians experience elder abuse in any given year, and the prevalence of neglect is possibly higher. Furthermore, the most common form of abuse is financial abuse where sons and daughters may attempt to inappropriately or illegally use or exploit the funds of their parents or grandparents. Euthanasia risks a further level of this type of abuse, as an older Australian who is in a financial abuse situation could potentially be euthanised in order for the abuser to achieve financial gain.

An important issue is the undermining of trust in doctors. Patients asking doctors to assist in suicide creates a contradiction for medical practitioners. In society, doctors exist as caregivers, with the idea of supporting or helping people. We go to the doctor because we trust in their training and in their aim to help us. It calls into question the integrity of doctors treating patients at a time when we are trying to increase faith in our medical system in the face of disinformation from other sources. We want our doctors to look after us and not to create any question around the chance of doctors doing harm.

There is a serious risk of exploitation of the system as well. There is also the chance that a determined individual may exploit any potential euthanasia system in order to end life when there are significant options to seek and receive treatment for illnesses. Mental health treatment has improved drastically over the last two decades, yet there is still so much more to be done. The risk is that those with mental illnesses will not be treated, and instead seek end-of-life treatment rather than the support and care that is becoming available in society. Such is the case of Aurelia Brouwers, a 29-year-old Dutch woman who took her own life with doctors' support in January. She had a number of mental illnesses, yet was allowed to take her own life with the support of physicians.

Finally, there is a major case that the standard of palliative care does need to be increased in some areas of this nation, because what is now possible with palliative care is that death can come with dignity. If that dignity is not present leading up to the time of death, there may be the case for upgrading the level of palliative care by governments in particular regions. Some members of the medical community who I consulted have told me that, given the standard of palliative care available in many places, they can guarantee that a patient can die with dignity. Other reports are that no more than two in every 100 palliative care patients would be in moderate or severe pain at the end of their life, which can be addressed through palliative sedation.

Many speakers say that this is not the area in which the Commonwealth should get involved and that the two territories should be given the right, like states, to make provisions for euthanasia. The populations of the ACT and the Northern Territory have both rejected statehood in the past, and, when they are states, they will certainly enjoy state rights. I wonder if it is the people of these states demanding these rights or the usual activists. In conclusion, I will vote against the private senator's bill, the order of the day today, titled Restoring Territory Rights (Assisted Suicide Legislation) Bill 2015, commonly known as the euthanasia bill, in its second reading debate.