DEBATE on right to die legislation must be aired again inside the Tasmanian Parliament. Few issues facing the state are more sensitive, more controversial, and more needy of robust and forensic discussion among our elected representatives. Similar laws in place overseas allow terminally-ill patients to end their lives under a doctor's care. Consenting patients with incurable diseases are prescribed suicide drugs and end their lives at a time of their choosing. The basic premise for the bill is increasing somebody's quality of life by removing the stress of facing a painful death. Respecting the rights, wishes and free will of individuals is, of course, incredibly important. But any legislation with this aim in mind must be absolutely watertight to protect the rights of society's most vulnerable. Any new laws must contain adequate safeguards against death without consent. An often-heard phrase during Tasmanian parliamentary debate is "perfect is the opposite of good". It is usually recited by those who know proposed laws are fairly sloppy, but want to see the legislation pushed through regardless. But when drafting laws on assisted voluntary euthanasia, nothing less than perfect will do. Former premier and attorney-general Lara Giddings has reaffirmed her intention to revive debate on euthanasia by the end of this year. It comes as a Victorian parliamentary inquiry this week investigates the issue. Ms Giddings is seeking tripartite support for a co-sponsored bill before introducing it before parliament, and her prospects look promising. But it's important to bear in mind the issue's recent past before jumping to any conclusions. Voluntary assisted euthanasia legislation was rejected by the House of Assembly in 2013. All 10 Liberal MPs voted against the Private Members' Bill following a conscience vote, along with three Labor MPs. Eleven Tasmanian MPs were in favour, but the Bill was sunk in the lower house. A Greens Dying with Dignity Bill back in 2009 suffered the same fate. Looking back on the last term of Parliament, the debate on euthanasia tends to get lumped together with abortion and same-sex marriage. While each can be cast as socially progressive legislation, it is unhelpfully reductive and misleading to bind the three together. Voluntary euthanasia legislation should be allowed some clear air in order to be dealt with clinically and methodically. We are now more than a year into a new parliament, with a swag of new MPs on board. At least two new Liberal MPs are willing to consider voting for Ms Giddings' proposed legislation, along with the Greens. Backbenchers Roger Jaensch and Joan Rylah were not in Parliament when the issue was last debated, and say they are open to listening to new information and better understanding the legal implications of such laws. Regardless of where you stand on the spectrum of support, these twin aims are perfectly valid. Tasmanians deserve access to all available information, as well as the opportunity to have their voices heard through their local MPs. One challenge we must be incredibly wary of is sensationalising the issue on either side of the debate. Publicity surrounding a "mobile euthanasia clinic" proposed by campaigner Philip Nitschke in 2012 harmed the prospects of reasoned debate, regardless of the underlying intentions. Here's hoping our MPs can cut through the bluff and bluster clouding debate on euthanasia, and give the issue the attention it deserves.
DEBATE on right to die legislation must be aired again inside the Tasmanian Parliament.
Few issues facing the state are more sensitive, more controversial, and more needy of robust and forensic discussion among our elected representatives.
Similar laws in place overseas allow terminally-ill patients to end their lives under a doctor's care.
Consenting patients with incurable diseases are prescribed suicide drugs and end their lives at a time of their choosing.
The basic premise for the bill is increasing somebody's quality of life by removing the stress of facing a painful death.
Respecting the rights, wishes and free will of individuals is, of course, incredibly important.
But any legislation with this aim in mind must be absolutely watertight to protect the rights of society's most vulnerable.
Any new laws must contain adequate safeguards against death without consent.
An often-heard phrase during Tasmanian parliamentary debate is "perfect is the opposite of good".
It is usually recited by those who know proposed laws are fairly sloppy, but want to see the legislation pushed through regardless.
But when drafting laws on assisted voluntary euthanasia, nothing less than perfect will do.
Former premier and attorney-general Lara Giddings has reaffirmed her intention to revive debate on euthanasia by the end of this year.
It comes as a Victorian parliamentary inquiry this week investigates the issue.
Ms Giddings is seeking tripartite support for a co-sponsored bill before introducing it before parliament, and her prospects look promising.
But it's important to bear in mind the issue's recent past before jumping to any conclusions.
Voluntary assisted euthanasia legislation was rejected by the House of Assembly in 2013.
All 10 Liberal MPs voted against the Private Members' Bill following a conscience vote, along with three Labor MPs.
Eleven Tasmanian MPs were in favour, but the Bill was sunk in the lower house.
A Greens Dying with Dignity Bill back in 2009 suffered the same fate.
Looking back on the last term of Parliament, the debate on euthanasia tends to get lumped together with abortion and same-sex marriage.
While each can be cast as socially progressive legislation, it is unhelpfully reductive and misleading to bind the three together.
Voluntary euthanasia legislation should be allowed some clear air in order to be dealt with clinically and methodically.
We are now more than a year into a new parliament, with a swag of new MPs on board.
At least two new Liberal MPs are willing to consider voting for Ms Giddings' proposed legislation, along with the Greens.
Backbenchers Roger Jaensch and Joan Rylah were not in Parliament when the issue was last debated, and say they are open to listening to new information and better understanding the legal implications of such laws.
Regardless of where you stand on the spectrum of support, these twin aims are perfectly valid.
Tasmanians deserve access to all available information, as well as the opportunity to have their voices heard through their local MPs.
One challenge we must be incredibly wary of is sensationalising the issue on either side of the debate.
Publicity surrounding a "mobile euthanasia clinic" proposed by campaigner Philip Nitschke in 2012 harmed the prospects of reasoned debate, regardless of the underlying intentions.
Here's hoping our MPs can cut through the bluff and bluster clouding debate on euthanasia, and give the issue the attention it deserves.
