COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE REPORT ON THE NEED FOR LEGISLATION ON VOLUNTARY EUTHANASIA (1998)
Full report here
FINDINGS OF THE COMMITTEE
1. The Committee found that whilst many of the moral arguments put by both sides of the debate were persuasive, a determination of the need for legalisation on voluntary euthanasia cannot be made on the basis of a subjective moral choice.
2. The Committee found that the polarised character of the moral debate for and against voluntary euthanasia limited its utility as a determinant for legal reform. Euthanasia legislation would have to be based on a general principle that treated all individuals equally.
3. Anecdotal evidence presented to the Committee identified a need for patients’ rights to be affirmed. The Committee found that in some cases patients had difficulty ensuring that their wishes would be respected in regard to their medical treatment when they became incompetent.
4. The Committee found that whilst individual cases may present a strong case for reform the obligation of the state to protect the right to life of all individuals equally could not be delivered by legislation that is based on subjective principles.
5. The Committee found that there is evidence to suggest that abuses of the current prohibition on active voluntary euthanasia do occur and Tasmania may not be immune to such abuses.
6. The Committee does not consider the legalisation of voluntary euthanasia as an appropriate solution to abuses that may be occurring in the current system.
7. The Committee found that the codification of voluntary euthanasia legislation could not adequately provide the necessary safeguards against abuse.
8. The Committee found that common law rights exist for a competent patient to refuse any medical treatment, including life-sustaining treatment. Likewise legal recognition is given to a competent patient’s anticipatory consent in the form of an advance directive or through an advocate in the event of becoming incompetent.
9. The Committee found that a doctor was not legally culpable for manslaughter or murder if his intent in withholding or withdrawing medical treatment from a patient who subsequently died was to relieve the patient of the burden of futile treatment in accordance with prudent medical treatment. Likewise the administration of sedative and analgesic drugs to terminally ill patients for the relief of pain and suffering even when it is foreseeable that such action will shorten life is not illegal whilst the intent is to provide palliation and not to deliberately kill the patient.
10. The Committee found that the legalisation of voluntary euthanasia would pose a serious threat to the more vulnerable members of society and that the obligation of the state to protect all its members equally outweighs the individual’s freedom to choose voluntary euthanasia.
11. From the evidence presented the Committee found that in the majority of cases palliative care was able to provide optimum care for suffering patients.
12. The Committee recognises that in a small percentage of cases palliative care is ineffective in relieving all pain, however whilst regrettable this is not sufficient cause to legalise voluntary euthanasia.
13. The Committee found that there is a need for greater resources to expand and improve the quality of palliative care services.
14. There was a demonstrated need for increased education on several levels to improve the delivery and efficacy of palliative care.
- To provide for greater public awareness of the services available and their benefits;
- To familiarise general practitioners with the availability of specialist palliative care and encourage them to access it for their patients; and
- To provide greater palliative care training for health care workers in under-graduate and postgraduate settings.
