Ward Mike: Death with Dignity Bill — First Reading 
Ward Mike: Death with Dignity Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:610;Page:7487] 
MIKE WARD (Green) 
: 
 While I will largely speak in favour of the Death with Dignity Bill I want to make it clear that the Greens do not have a party position. Views range from the strongly supportive to the belief that it is inherently and ethically wrong to kill another human being even for the alleviation of suffering as this bill proposes. Some believe that the prohibition on the intentional killing of another person is the cornerstone of our ethical moral and medical codes as well as of our law and social relationships and that it would be dangerous to weaken our prohibition on intentional killing or weaken the fundamental moral ethical and legal values that underpin that prohibition. They believe that it would undermine our respect for the sanctity of life and blur the line between lawful and unlawful death. 
While acknowledging that people yearn for a peaceful and easy death without prolonged suffering and want to be able to decide on the manner of their death they believe that those arguments are not sufficient reason to weaken society’s prohibition on intentional killing especially when palliative care has advanced to the point where the vast majority of people do not need to suffer unbearably and when patients can already decline lifesaving treatments if they wish. They point out that inquiries into voluntary euthanasia in the United Kingdom Canada New York and Tasmania all reached the conclusion that it was not possible to frame adequate safeguards against non-voluntary euthanasia in law and decided against voluntary euthanasia. 
I share the belief that life is important but it is interesting that we tolerate the debilitating effects on the quality of life of poverty loneliness and disability yet should someone look like dying we start to take care. We must ensure appropriate palliative care but we should take all other possible steps to ensure that people want to go on living. But if in spite of all our efforts a person still wishes to die the issue is whether that person should be able to choose to die. If we believe that there are any circumstances where that is a reasonable choice we must make it possible for people to make the decision and carry out their wishes supported by the medical profession and the people they care about. As the law stands deciding to die and involving anyone else in the process—that is having someone else help a person to die having friends and family around as that person dies and having someone knowingly provide the means for a person to die—subjects helpers and witnesses to the likelihood of criminal action. 
As the law stands people are unlikely to seek the kind of counselling that might persuade them that they have other choices. They are unlikely to discuss their plans with family or friends because of the legal and emotional trauma and the risks that involving others may pose. As the law stands even if a person is able to take his or her own life dying must be a lonely prospect. It is unlikely to be death with dignity. Families in these circumstances are deprived perhaps of the opportunity to make their farewells and left with the thought that maybe there was something more they could have done or circumstances they could have avoided. 
There are risks. Some of the risks exist now. As the law stands people may choose to die simply because their care is inadequate. Bringing the issue out into the open and discussing it is likely to draw attention to their needs and ensure that the pain is controlled etc. If taking one’s own life becomes possible will the elderly feel obliged not to become a burden on their families and shuffle off before their time? I cannot deny that that is a concern but it is not a new concern. It is an indictment on where we have come to as a society that our elderly should ever feel that they are a waste of space and a burden. If folk who feel like that and are contemplating ending their own lives have their motives subjected to the scrutiny that this bill provides and have their concerns allayed that will have been a worthy outcome. 
This bill is about voluntary euthanasia and putting in place the independent safeguards necessary to protect both the dying and their families. I suspect that most people will continue to cling to life with all the tenacity that human beings have always exhibited but perhaps it is time to acknowledge that life is a terminal condition and time that we put as much attention compassion and energy into the quality of our dying as we do into keeping people alive long after they have ceased to value the quality of that living. 
This is one of those issues on which it is appropriate to have a decision by referendum but that does not negate the role of Parliament or the public through the select committee process to frame legislation that addresses the fears and concerns of the proponents as well as the opponents of voluntary euthanasia. How and when we die is an uncomfortable issue for most of us but that should not undermine our compassion for those who have accepted their own mortality and who would choose to die with dignity in the presence of the people they care about.