MPs debating new voluntary euthanasia Bill in SA Parliament

ALLOWING voluntary euthanasia would be a slippery slope to mass killings like those carried out in Nazi Germany, an Opposition MP has suggested in Parliament.

ALLOWING voluntary euthanasia would be a slippery slope to mass killings like those carried out in Nazi Germany, an Opposition MP has suggested in Parliament.

MPs are debating a proposed law which would allow people with a medical condition experiencing “unbearable and hopeless suffering” to choose voluntary euthanasia under certain circumstances.

During a speech opposing the Bill, Liberal MP Adrian Pederick relayed a conversation he had with a woman about the issue which he said rang “alarm bells”.

“(She) challenged me on the Bill ... she said to me ‘How are we going to manage funding aged care into the future?’,” Mr Pederick said yesterday.

“I said to her if that is your reason for promoting voluntary euthanasia I cannot live with that. “This is the sort of thing that was done in the 40s in Nazi Germany.

“I just feel that comments like that lead us down a slippery slope.”

It was the second controversial contribution this week by a Liberal MP.

Yesterday the Member for Bright, David Speirs caused a stir after he unloaded on ‘lazy and overweight’ political advisers.

MPs will have a conscience vote on the voluntary euthanasia Bill.

Mr Pederick’s comments prompted an outburst from people watching the debate from the public gallery.

He was also rebuffed by party colleague and former Leader Isobel Redmond.

Ms Redmond, who supports the Bill, said concerns about future funding of aged care were not relevant to the debate.

“As a matter of theory, in some post-apocalyptic world I suppose you might have a government that says ‘We can’t afford to keep people in aged care and therefore we are going to call a halt to life at a certain age’,” she mused.

“I do not think that is anything to do with what is before us.

“We are talking about something that is entirely voluntary, not something that can ever be forced on an unwilling person.”

Liberal MP Isobel Redmond.

Liberal MP Adrian Pederick.

Ms Redmond said current laws allow people to “effectively starve to death” rather than provide them with the choice of euthanasia.

“I know for a fact that, in this state, it is an offence to treat a dog in that way ... yet my mother and many others like her have been in that situation,” she said.

The proposed Bill would require a person to undergo assessment by two doctors, and possibly a psychiatrist, before being able to choose voluntary euthanasia.

An independent witness would also have to certify that they had made their decision uninfluenced by others.

The person must have a diagnosis of a medical condition but it need not be terminal.

That element concerned Mr Pederick.

“I believe legislation like this, especially when you have a clause in there ‘whether terminal or not’ could mean people just present with a huge mental issue, not a physical one and are not coping with life and get past the psychiatrists and the doctors so they could have their life terminated,” he said.

Liberal frontbencher Rachel Sanderson said 80 per cent of people in her electorate of Adelaide supported the Bill.

However, she worried that the definition of “unbearable and hopeless suffering” may be too broad “for the community to accept”.

“The terminal phase of a terminal illness, for me, is very easy to understand what that is and to convince others that that would be suitable,” she said.

Liberal backbencher Vincent Tarzia said the majority of people he represented in the seat of Hartley opposed voluntary euthanasia.

He raised concerns that the laws could be abused.

“My fear is that, due to the thirst of some for money or power ... no matter how many safeguards we put in place, these safeguards and hurdles can still be evaded,” Mr Tarzia said.

“We will actually see more legal disputes regarding consent to die ... undue influence by family members or third parties and (in) the more extreme (circumstances), potential ... charges for manslaughter if things are wrong.

“I believe that by accepting this Bill in its current format some may take the view that some lives are worth less than others.

“I do not want ... the killing of people who are thought to be undesirable by some.”

The Bill requires anyone who wants to choose voluntary euthanasia to have lived in SA for six months before becoming eligible.

Labor backbencher and former nurse Nat Cook questioned that rule, saying interstate patients “should not have to suffer for six months”.

“Having been a nurse for nearly three decades, I would be lying if I said I had never been asked by a patient to help them end their life more quickly,” Ms Cook said.

Labor MP and former minister Paul Caica said there were already some medical professionals “showing compassion” in a patient’s late stages of illness.

“I might get into trouble with this, but they are doing the right thing and showing compassion, making sure that what they can do is ... increase the level of medication they are providing to make for a smoother, more timely and faster death,” Mr Caica said.

“They quite rightly would deny that is happening but I suspect it probably is and I congratulate those doctors.”

The Bill allows for a 48-hour so-called cooling-off period to ensure a person was sure about their decision.

A death by voluntary euthanasia would not be considered homicide or suicide and any insurance policies would be unaffected.

The underlying illness would be recorded as the cause of death on a death certificate.

The Bill is jointly supported by Labor MP Steph Key and Liberal MP Duncan McFetridge.

Follow @LaurenNovak