The Voluntary Assisted Dying Bill was passed in the NSW Legislative Council last night after an extensive debate by 20 votes to 17.
“Next Wednesday, May 18, it will move to the next stage, the debate on proposed amendments. So there will be a debate on the amendments, and each amendment will be voted on one by one, followed by a vote on the third or final reading,” said Labor MP Greg Donnelly, who voted against the bill.
Sydney’s Catholic Archbishop Anthony Fisher regretted passing a “kill bill”.
“It’s unbelievable that the same NSW parliament that put our lives on hold for more than two years to protect the most vulnerable has now passed a bill punishing their murder,” he said in a statement.
“This ‘kill bill’ divides us into two classes: those whose lives are protected by the state through health care, social services, and law enforcement, and those whose deaths are facilitated because their lives are considered ‘not worth living’. ‘. life.’ It is a dramatic departure from Parliament’s solemn obligation to pass laws for the good of its citizens and to protect the weak.”
“I fear the dying themselves… who may feel more than ever that they are considered a ‘burden’ to others and ‘better off dead.” – Anthony Fisher.
Fisher said he feared the bill’s dehumanizing effects on the health industry, where killing people could become more cost-effective or efficient.
“For families too, I fear that this bill will harm family life, create tensions where it takes a long time for someone to die, and pressure everyone to ‘rush’. And I fear the dying who will be told by this bill that our parliament no longer sees their lives as inalienable, and who will feel more than ever as a ‘burden’ to others and ‘better dead’.”
As amendments to the bill are being drafted next week, he called on all MPs in the Senate, even those who support VAD’s principle, to “support reasonable amendments to provide limited protection for the most vulnerable and ensure that faith-based providers of medical services and aged care can continue to offer a choice to residents who do not wish to be associated in any way with this deadly regime. Forcing Catholic or other religious service providers to conduct euthanasia on their premises seriously attacks religious freedom.”
Labor MP Tara Moriarty, who claimed to be Catholic, gave a heartfelt speech saying she wanted to live in a society where protecting, supporting, and uplifting our most vulnerable was paramount.
“I still can’t get to a point where it’s acceptable in principle to make voluntary assisted dying into law.” – Tara Moriarty.
She said in part: “There has been a lot of discussions and focus on ensuring protection for people who cannot be coerced or pressured into taking this course. It’s something I’ve put a lot of thought into. I have heard the arguments put forward during the debate, and I think the bill offers sufficient guarantees. I recognize that much work has been done to implement those safeguards. I’ve thought a lot about it, but I still can’t get to a point where it’s morally acceptable to make voluntary death assistance into law. My greater and ongoing concern is more focused on something that we can’t necessarily legislate, which is how a person will feel at their most vulnerable point in life.
“I continue to worry about people who feel that being cared for at their worst burdens those around them. They may feel that death, or the choice of death, is a valid or better option than trying to fight for as long as possible. To me, no security or law can be provided to make anyone feel any different in that situation. I can only conclude in my conscience that the best way to make room for someone not to act on that feeling is not to support enacting a law that makes it acceptable for them to choose to end life. Every life is important. Every life is worth it. I know that everyone on both sides of this debate believes that. I understand that death happens to all of us, and some in a kinder way than others, but I cannot support creating a situation where we as a community support people to make an active decision to end their lives or hasten their death.”
Liberal MP Chris Rath delivered his inaugural address on Tuesday and said his Christian faith had guided him in his opposition to the VAD bill.
“The Voluntary Assisted Dying Bill establishes state-sanctioned murders. Positive action to end life is being taken, a decision that has irreversible consequences and is legally unprecedented in New South Wales. The bill, therefore, aims to ensure that the state does not penalize inappropriate deaths or the result of undue influence. This is of particular concern to my conscience. I am convinced that no amount of protection can protect elderly, isolated, or disabled patients from being influenced, even minor ones, to end their lives. A party close to the person eligible for voluntary death assistance could propose or encourage its use, either for personal or financial benefit, and be the deciding factor in a vulnerable person’s decision to provide voluntary assistance to death. The dying,” he told the room.
“I am convinced that no amount of protection can protect elderly, isolated or disabled patients from being influenced, even minor ones, to end their lives.” – Chris Rath.
While he appreciated the intent of provisions in the bill to guard against coercion, he believed they were not strong enough to defend vulnerable people.
“Even with the bill’s proposal to identify pressure or coercion guidelines and aids for physicians, it will be impossible to detect such an influence in patients who are falsely convinced that the decision to die voluntarily with help from others is their own decision. Health factors further complicate this. One has to ask whether a physician can properly identify pressure or coercion when their patient can communicate only in gestures. The bill allows the terminally ill to choose voluntary assisted dying, even through motions, as proposed in Section 19(3)(b).
“The bill offers those who suffer and who will die just as surely as medicine can judge the opportunity to leave earlier on their terms.” – Adam Searle.
Summarizing the views of the bill’s proponents, Labor MP Adam Searle said there was no credible evidence from jurisdictions offering voluntary death assistance that the law would cause the elderly, the sick, and the dying to feel pressured to volunteer for VAD. against their will, as argued by Damien Tudehope.
“He suggested that the elderly and frail should proactively decide not to use VAD daily. Honorable Members, this argument stems from the view that passing the law will fundamentally change our society and the pact between its citizens, moving it towards an open, purposeful society where life will be arrogantly set aside. When it is no longer deemed useful by us, others “or even the state,” as stated by former Deputy Prime Minister John Anderson and quoted by the Hon. Damien Tudehope.
“While I understand that philosophical position and approach, I do not share it. Most of this House has indicated in this debate that they do not share that opinion either. The bill offers those who suffer and who will die as surely as medicine can judge the opportunity to leave earlier on their terms before suffering what they consider an unacceptable quality of life, but only if it is their choice. The choice of a government agency, relative, or angel of death to care for them.”
