VOLUNTARY ASSISTED DYING BILL 2019

Committee

Resumed from 28 November. The Deputy Chair of Committees (Hon Matthew Swinbourn) in the chair; Hon Stephen Dawson (Minister for Environment) in charge of the bill.

Comments and speeches from various members

Hon ADELE FARINA: I am more than happy to move mine. I just wanted to make sure that everyone had finished that line of questioning. I move —

Page 36, after line 23 — To insert —

(2A) At the time of prescribing a voluntary assisted dying substance for the patient, the coordinating practitioner must inform the patient about the following matters —

(a)  the schedule 4 and/or schedule 8 poisons constituting the prescribed substance;

(b)  the method by which the prescribed substance is to be self-administered;

(c)  how to prepare and self-administer the prescribed substance;

(d)  the expected effects of ingesting the prescribed substance;

(e)  the expected time to death after ingestion;

(f)  the potential risks of self-administrating the prescribed substance.

Comments and speeches from various members

Hon ALISON XAMON: I rise to indicate that notwithstanding the assurances given by the minister around clauses 68 and 71, I will support Hon Adele Farina’s proposed amendment. I see that this value-adds to the provisions within clauses 68 and 71. As I read them, they refer generally to how to administer it and provide parameters around how the substance is to be treated, but they do not go into detail about the risks that may be inherent if the substance is not administered properly. This issue is of concern to me. I am not opposed to self-administration. If anything, I prefer self-administration to somebody else administering the substance because we can be assured that this is the will of the person who is availing themselves of this. But I think it is really critical that that person have every single piece of information available to them so that we do not run the risk of mishap. Notwithstanding that, of course, obligations apply, and often, critical information may be missed or overlooked. In this case, the implications of that could be quite dire. It is really important to prescribe this. I do not think that this takes away from anything in the bill. It simply prescribes best practice that we expect to be incorporated within this process.

Comments and speeches from various members

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Comments and speeches from various members

Hon RICK MAZZA: I move —

Page 37, lines 3 to 18 — To delete the lines and substitute —

(4A) The administering practitioner for the patient is authorised to —

(a)  receive the prescribed substance from an authorised supplier; and

(b)  possess the prescribed substance for the purpose of supplying it to the patient; and

(c)  supply the prescribed substance to the patient immediately before the patient is ready to self-administer the prescribed substance if the administering practitioner is satisfied at the time of supply that —

(i) the patient has decision-making capacity in relation to voluntary assisted dying; and

(ii) the patient is acting voluntarily and without coercion; and

(iii) the patient’s request for access to voluntary assisted dying is enduring. The patient is authorised to —

(a)  receive the prescribed substance from the administering practitioner for the patient immediately before the patient is ready to self-administer the prescribed substance; and

(b)  possess the prescribed substance for the purpose of preparing and self-administering it; and

(c)  prepare the prescribed substance; and

(d)  in the presence of the administering practitioner for the patient and a witness, self-administer the prescribed substance.

Comments and speeches from various members

Hon ALISON XAMON: I indicate that I am generally torn about this amendment, because it picks up a lot of issues that go to the core of this issue. I absolutely recognise that in an ideal world, people should be able to determine the time they want to die. They should be able to have the people around them they want, and if they wish to do that privately and in a particular setting, that should be the way it is. The difficulty I have is that we are talking about a process of the state assisting in that death. As such, we have an obligation in this place not simply to create laws based on ideal scenarios, but also to foresee where things can go wrong and try to look at the best way to address that. I am genuinely concerned about the possibility of a bad reaction and someone not being there to assist. I am particularly concerned about the impact that could have on any children present. That could be extraordinarily traumatic, and it is an issue that weighs heavily on my mind. I also remain concerned about the issue of genuine consent. An idea I am attracted to is that by having someone who is independent present, there are checks and balances to determine that there is genuine consent and someone has not been coerced at the very last minute.

I have another concern, which is about protection for the families. A lot of members here talk about their experiences with what I hear as only functional families. That is great; I am really glad. Not everyone has the experience of a functional family. One of the things I do know is that when there are issues around money, wills and death, all the emotions and all the greed come out. All we have to do is go to our courts any day of the week and we will find there are disputes around estates among people who should love each either and be on the same side, but it tears families apart. I am attracted to the idea that an independent person being present will, frankly, lessen the likelihood of people being accused of murder, of having participated in the murder of a loved one. I see it as protection for the family to have, if you like, a witness present. Having said all that, I am really concerned also about the prospect of the independent witness turning up to facilitate and address all these issues, but the person who is availing themselves of the voluntary assisted dying process says, “Actually, I really don’t want to go now.” I would hate the presence of an independent person to be any sort of pressure on someone when they might want another five hours or even five days and have said, “I’ve changed my mind. I really am not ready to go yet; I want to stay.”

I am also very concerned that people’s capacity to access VAD will be limited by the availability of practitioners who can assist. I understand this is particularly an issue for people in the regions, but also I recognise it might be an issue just in terms of appropriate times or even places.

These matters are all weighing heavily on my mind. I am not sure that the amendment as it is drafted can address all my concerns. I am still conflicted about this. I stress again that it is my preference that people self-administer; that is far preferable to having someone administer the substance. However, we need to make sure we get the balance right so that things do not go wrong. I am not sure that the bill unamended will achieve that, but I am not sure that the amendment in front of us can fully address the other concerns I have about access to that independent support.

Comments and speeches from various members

Division

Amendment put and a division taken, the Deputy Chair (Hon Matthew Swinbourn) casting his vote with the noes, with the following result —

Ayes (13)

Noes (21)

Amendment thus negatived.

Comments and speeches from various members

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again, pursuant to standing orders.

 

Portfolio Category: 
Parliamentary Type: