Mr Ferguson said this was his strong personal view and noted that the Parliamentary Liberal Party had adopted a conscience vote position on the matter.

“Mr McKim is trying to create the impression that people are not being allowed choices in their treatment. Current systems do give people choice. Medical interventions can be withdrawn.

“What Mr McKim is really talking about here is not ‘dying with dignity’ – it’s assisted suicide.

“The term ‘dying with dignity’ has long been associated with palliative care, pain management and compassionate end-of-life care. Sadly, this new debate is being held when there are unaddressed gaps in Tasmania’s palliative care services – including the availability of dedicated, publicly funded, palliative care beds in Northern Tasmania.

“This week is Palliative Care Week (24-30 May; www.palliativecare.org.au). It’s quite disgusting that Mr McKim is shamelessly hijacking Palliative Care Week with a bill quite contrary to the policies and values of Palliative Care Australia.

“I know that many palliative care practitioners feel upstaged and disappointed that their opportunity to advocate for better services and support has been taken from them.”

“Instead of advocating for improved palliative places and services he’s opened an ill-conceived debate on assisted suicide.

“Surely that is at the heart of many peoples’ fears – that instead of improved health services this is all going to be about dying quickly and not being a burden. There is simply no avoiding the difficult fact that dying is a normal but distressing part of the human experience of life.

“People like me who have a strong belief in the sanctity of life will always fight harder for improved health services.

“I have no problem with medically-sanctioned withdrawal of interventions when life is being artificially and painfully prolonged by medicines and machines. However, this is current medical practice and involves family discussion.

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.