Is the Bill as proposed, ‘a simplistic reaction and a threat to the ethical basis of our society’? Two comments indicate that this is so. See Current Practices (Part 4- Incidental Matters), of the “Report on the Dying with Dignity Bill 2009″ pages 39, 40.
But before noting these comments, the Report sets out the pro-euthanasia/patient assisted suicide (PAS) argument that compassion be a valid motive, “The law as it currently stands does not take into consideration compassion as a motive nor the consent of the patient if assistance is given by a medical practioner to end the life of a person suffering a terminal illness.”
And secondly, the Report notes that the pro-euthanasia/PAS advocates declare that legislation should legitimise current practice: “Surveys in 1997 and 2001 of medical practioners show that active euthanasia was occuring in Australia and in such circumstances it is argued that the leglisation would provide a regulated environment that would afford protection to both medical practioners and patients.”
However, “The proposed Legislation of such incidents of active euthanasia was critised by some as a simplistic reaction and a threat to the ethical basis of our society by others.”
We know that there are doctors killing their patients; we do not know what the motivations are. That is one of the really problematic issues here…the fact that we have this happening tells us there is an issue that needs to be addressed. The question is what do we do next? And I am suggesting that it would be a serious mistake and a severe oversimplification to suggest that what we do is simply legalise the problematic behavior. In fact if we did I would suggest that we would be pushing the real problem under the carpet because the real problem will require a much broader and more complex set of arrangements in order to address it….There isn’t going to be one single solution, and physician assisted suicide is certainly not the silver bullet that will solve this problem. – Prof. Jeff Malpas (Transcript 31/8/09 p. 19 & 20)
More-over, “It was also argued that the legalisation of voluntary euthanasia would compromise the ethical and legal foundations of our society.”
…what you are being asked to do as a parliament is to change the fundamental principle within Tasmania….that it is wrong to use lethal, deadly force against a person who is not harming or attempting to harm you. This Bill is designed to modify that principle and it does so in relation to the Criminal Code. What you are being asked to do is to go beyond what parliament now does…You are being asked to change the Criminal Code in relation to a specific profession – and it is ironic that I don’t think the profession is very much in favour of it – so that they will be allowed to use lethal force against a person who is not themselves using deadly force against them. – Prof. Michael Tate (Transcript 10/8/09 p.15)
