Parliament needs to step up

Surely nobody believes that the court ruling on the Lucretia Seales case is the end of the issue.

Justice David Collins has not passed any ruling on the sanctity of life, the ethics of treating the terminally ill, or the clinical capacities to do so.

He was invited to conclude that he could, and should, grant legal protection to the terminally ill lawyer’s doctor to help her die when she chose.

He declined to do so because he found that if this was something Parliament would countenance, then it needs to say so.

How right he is. This is a matter for the people who make our laws to address squarely, which they have yet to do.

Seales’ legal team contended that the legally sanctioned assistance of her doctor to help her end her own suffering was her right under the Bill of Rights.

That was drawing too long a bow. It’s entirely to Collins’ credit that he was prepared to break the bad news to Seales that her case would fail before his finding was ready to be made public, but in time for her to know before she died, of natural causes. It would have been terribly inappropriate to withhold even an unwelcome decision from a woman who died, as she lived, as someone who honestly assessed, and where necessary confronted, the realities around her.

The issue, with all its complexities, now lands with a mighty whump on the steps of Parliament.

The question is less whether Parliament reacts than how. This wasn’t something that was conspicuously on the Government’s agenda, but the case for change does have its champions within the House.

What’s more, public polling does suggest impetus for change.

Rather than drafting legislation at this stage, it appears that the downstream alternative of a select committee inquiry will be undertaken.

If so, the committee members will face issues that reach deep into individual rights and the ethics of the nation.

It’s time for an honest examination of the issues.

Much as palliative care has improved, the fact remains that the terminally ill can suffer severely and not just physically, but mentally and emotionally.

The warnings from the antieuthanasia lobby that the ill may feel enormous pressure are not fanciful, but speak surely to a need for protection and support rather than either a prohibition of end-oflife assistance or a denial of its legitimacy in some circumstances.