Territory's Rights Of The Terminally Act example essay topic

Experience shows that few people really understand what "Euthanasia" is. Euthanasia is not turning off respirators or life support machines. Turning off respirators and life support machines is merely recognizing that only intrusive medicine is keeping a person alive. Taking away that intrusive treatment, the person dies naturally. On the contrary, euthanasia is the deliberate causing of a patients premature death. For example, a doctor gives a lethal injection to a patient, or someone hooks up a face mask and tubing to a canister of carbon monoxide and then instructs the suicidal person on how to push the lever so that they will be gassed to death.

For all practical purposes any distinction between euthanasia and assisted suicide have been abandoned today. Arguments for Can quickly and humanely end a patients suffering Can help to shorten grief and suffering of patient's family Would help others face death if they could die with dignity Arguments against There are many pain killing drugs which can help the patient die naturally with dignity A patient might not be able to make a rational decision or might change their mind but be incapable of telling the doctors Old people may feel they are a nuisance to others and go for euthanasia People may recover If there were better facilities to care for the dying there would be less need for euthanasia Life is a gift from God and only God should take that away Euthanasia in Australia (pre-1995) In the last decade or so several Australian states and territories have taken action aimed at guaranteeing the right of adult patients of sound mind to direct that extraordinary measures to prolong life be stopped. South Australia passed the Natural Death Act in 1983, Victoria the Medical Treatment Act in 1988, the Northern Territory the Natural Death Act in 1988 and the Australian Capital Territory passed the Medical Treatment Act in 1994. NSW issued "interim guidelines" in 1993. Laws affecting Euthanasia Euthanasia laws are complex and differ from State to State in Australia. The States and Territories, rather than the Commonwealth mainly administer criminal law in Australia.

The civil law relating to medical treatment and contract law is relevant. The States of Victoria and South Australia and the Northern Territory have enacted legislation concerning medical treatment. A Medical Treatment Bill based on the Victorian Act was rejected by the Tasmanian Parliament and the New South Wales government scrapped an earlier proposal to enact legislation based on the South Australia Natural Death Act. Despite the existence of codes in some States and Territories, the laws relating to murder and manslaughter are similar throughout Australia. Euthanasia is a criminal offence in each Australian jurisdiction (except for the Northern Territory at one stage). Suicide, the intentional taking of ones life is no longer an offence in any Australian jurisdiction except attempted suicide is an offence in the Northern Territory.

However it is an offence in all Australian jurisdictions to assist or encourage another to commit or attempt to commit suicide. Law Concerning Medical Treatment Every competent patient has the right to refuse medical treatment provided they don't do so with the intention of committing suicide. Such a right has been long recognised by the common law. Up until recently it was generally accepted that except as provided in statutes or where treatment is sanctioned by a court, an adult person's consent is necessary for an surgery or other medical treatment on that person. The law had recognised that a surgeon may perform an urgent operation on an unconscious patient who could consent, but this can have some risk of civil action for the doctor. The Rights of the Terminally Act 1995 (NT) On the 25th May 1995 the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly passed the RTI Act by 15 votes to 10.

The legislation originated as a private member's bill introduced into the Northern Territory Legislation Assembly on 22nd February 1995 by the then chief minister of the Northern Territory, Marshall Perron. The RTI Act allows a doctor to accede to a request from a terminally ill, competent adult patient for assistance in ending the patient's life if specified conditions are satisfied. A doctor who provides such assistance in compliance with this legislation is immune from any civil or criminal action and from any discipline action, provided the doctor has acted in good faith and without negligence. This includes all the other people who have any thing to do with the death of the patient. If a doctor does choose to comply with a patient's request under the RTI Act, the doctor may prescribe a lethal substance or administering the lethal substance to the patient. The RTI Act authorises both so-called 'physician-assisted suicide' and so-called 'active voluntary euthanasia'.

The passage of this legislation made the Northern Territory the first and the only jurisdiction in the world to enact legislation that expressly allows doctors to engage in both physician-assisted suicide and active voluntary euthanasia. The RTI Act and regulations made under the legislation came into effect on 1st July 1996. In it's current form, the legislation incorporates amendments passed on 20th February 1996 relating to the number and qualifications of the doctors who must assess a patient requesting assistance under the legislation, and relating to the interpreter provisions of the legislation. At the time of writing, four people are known to have used the RTI Act to obtain a doctor's assistance to end their lives. Legal Attacks on the Rights of the Terminally Act 1995 (NT) There have been a number of attempts to overturn or otherwise invalidate the RTI Act since the legislation was passed by the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly. Opponents of the legislation argued that the governor-general of Australia should exercise his powers under the Northern Territory Act 1978 (Cth) and disallow the legislation.

The governor-general could have done this within six months of the assent to the legislation by the Administrator of the Northern Territory which occurred on 16th June 1995. The governor-general did not use these powers to disallow the legislation. There were attempts in the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly in February, March and August 1996 to repel the RTI Act but all these attempts failed. The Andrew's Bill The Euthanasia Laws Bill 1996 (the Andrews Bill), was introduced into the Federal House of Representatives on 9th September 1996 by Kevin Andrews, a liberal back bencher from Victoria. It passed by a vote of 88 to 35. The Andrew's Bill seeks to take away the power of the legislative assemblies of the Northern Territory, the Australian Capital Territory and Norfolk Island to make laws.

With the passing of the Andrew's Bill the Senate was able to overturn the RTI Act. Three Australia states and territories have seriously considered euthanasia, in each case as a result of private members Bills. The legislative proposals all contained the following elements: 1) Means for a person to make a request that he / she be killed 2) Matters relating to acknowledge the patients needs (i.e. information about health status and likelihood of recovery) 3) Means for a doctor to officially state matters relating to the patient's health status (i.e. that the patient is of sound mind at the time of making the decision and that the patient is suffering from an incurable disease) 4) Details of the circumstances in which it shall be legal to comply with the person's request, including how the killing shall be carried out and by whom Several issues were raised in regards to the Euthanasia Act, concerning all member of both the Northern Territory and the rest of Australia. Both the pro's and con's had to be considered within these issues. The issues were: 1) The Territory rights issue 2) The claim that the Bill will lead to legal uncertainty 3) The claim that the Northern Territory's Rights of the Terminally Act would have unacceptable impacts on the Aboriginal community 4) The more general moral, philosophical, ethical and social arguments about euthanasia 5) Individuals rights and choices 6) The dignity Effects on the Individual and Society The Commonwealth parliament considered the Rights of the Terminally Act to represent a basic shift in Australia's ethos and social fabric. It had additional national significance as all Australians could have used the Act.

It therefore became not just a matter for the people of the Northern Territory but a matter concerning all Australians. The Commonwealth had the power to intervene in exceptional circumstances than euthanasia as it is an issue that deals with the life and death of Australian citizens. Aboriginal communities were seen to oppose euthanasia, there was an overwhelming Aboriginal opposition to the Rights of the Terminally Act. During the inquiry, prior to the passing of the Euthanasia Laws Bill, a major concern emerged about the Northern Territory legislation's impact on the willingness of Aboriginals to access medical services, given their attitudes to euthanasia and western medicine. Proponents of voluntary euthanasia created argument based on individual rights, autonomy and choice. Those in favour of voluntary euthanasia maintained that the general public overwhelmingly supported its legislation and that such a move would merely bring under stringent control and regulation what in reality is already happening in practice.

Opponents of voluntary euthanasia based their arguments on the sanctity of life, religious beliefs to involuntary euthanasia and the erosion of medical ethics. Individuals already have the unfettered right to abstain from medical treatment. Suicide is not a crime, although the community spend millions of dollars a year trying to prevent suicide. The Rights of the Terminally Act does not so much change the law for the patient as it changes the law for the third party (the doctor). What should be illegal for the doctor became legal under the Rights of the Terminally Act.

6. Conclusion In the midst of this debate, bear in mind one simple fact, if the Federal Parliament allowed this law to stand, people would die. Whether the issue is refusing to prolong life mechanically, assisting suicide or active euthanasia, we eventually have to confront societies fears towards death. Death and dying is not always easy for people to accept but it is an inevitable part of life. However the issues that surround euthanasia are not only about death and dying but are.