HANDLE WITH GREAT CARE
THE Legislative Council held marathon sessions this week to discuss the End-of-Life Choices (Voluntary Assisted Dying) Bill from independent Mersey MLC Mike Gaffney. During a 15-hour-long sitting, an emotional debate ensued late on Tuesday night amid discussion about whether a review should be done into what is occurring in other jurisdictions around access to VADlike processes for people aged under 18.
An amendment to remove that provision from the bill was won, meaning the review would no longer take place.
Among amendments made to the bill were that a five-person commission for VAD be established, instead of a single commissioner.
Eventually just after midnight on Wednesday, members of the upper house voted to adjourn the debate.
There were still additional clauses to go through on the proposed law that has divided opinion in Tasmania.
That discussion continued on Friday, but eventually the house decided to delay the final vote on the issue.
Ordinarily the Legislative Council in Tasmania spends most of its time cleaning up legislation that’s been rushed through the lower house.
But Mr Gaffney introduced this to the upper house as a private member’s bill.
It is the fourth attempt at enacting voluntary assisted dying laws in Tasmania, after bids failed in 2009, 2013 and 2017.
This is the first time it’s been introduced first to the Legislative Council. So it’s a significant move.
Most Tasmanians have very strong views on the issue of voluntary assisted dying.
And we’ve seen that debate played out in the letters and Talking Point pages of this paper.
For those who are either for or against the government legislating to allow terminally ill people to terminate their lives, the lengthy debate and delays may seem frustrating.
But this is not a simple legislative change to make.
It’s a complex piece of law that can have significant ramifications.
It is literally a matter of life and death. This legislation can lead to unintended consequences and the question of consent is a significant and complex one. In other jurisdictions concerns have been raised about the creeping expansion of powers available under the legislation.
It’s not to say that it can’t be passed but only that it needs to be handled very carefully and at no time should be rushed.
While there are significant, important and sometimes very personal and emotional arguments on both sides of the debate, given the way the bill has been introduced, it’s essential the MLCs in the upper house take their time to get this right.