Professor Greg Craven denounces ACT’s ‘micro-jurisdiction’ ‘seeking attention’ | Canberra weather

news, latest news,

One of the country’s leading constitutional advocates has lambasted the proposal to let the ACT legislature decide whether or not to allow physician-assisted dying in the territory. Professor Greg Craven said ACT is a micro-jurisdiction and the danger with micro-jurisdictions is that their lawmakers like to draw attention to themselves, which could lead to bad law. “That’s the challenge you see when you get small legislatures,” he said. “That doesn’t make good policy. There aren’t the internal controls that there are in a state like Victoria with five or six million people.” He said ACT’s population was similar in size to that of Blacktown in Sydney. The idea of ​​Blacktown legislating the rules to end a life would not be acceptable, he said. Likewise for ACT. He wondered if the desire to legislate on “physician-assisted dying” was a matter of personal importance. “The question is, ‘How important do you look? “You can get very extreme results.” He thinks small entity legislatures are tempted to take extreme measures in order to make waves. He had noticed the same behavior in other parts of the world such as Canada. “Euthanasia is one of those issues that progressive thinkers tend to focus their energy on. “If an important part of your motivation is to attract attention, you will always be inclined to go above and beyond.” PLUS “OUR RIGHT TO DECIDE”: Professor Craven is recognized as one of the country’s authorities in matters of constitution. He has been professor of law, vice-chancellor and president of the Australian Catholic University. Currently, federal law prohibits ACT from legislating on physician-assisted dying. Victoria has already made it legal for people with a terminal illness, whose death is not in more than six months, to seek help to end their life early. The Canberra Times is campaigning for ACT to have the same power to legislate in this area. you are thinking of assisted dying, the ACT should always have the right to decide the issue for the people of ACT. Professor Craven denied that the two questions were separate. The lawyer thought that trying to separate the two was like trying to separate a coconut from a lamington. He is firmly opposed to assisted dying (or euthanasia as he prefers to call it). He believes that whatever the initial guarantees, a door to more lax rules would open. He fears that vulnerable elderly people will be forced to say that their lives must end. “Is this really the time for this debate? ” He asked. Life was sacred. The emphasis should be on caring for people at the end of their life rather than helping them end their life earlier. The president of Dying with Dignity ACT did not accept Professor Craven’s argument. “[Professor] Craven claims without evidence that hospice care is the answer to the endurance and suffering experienced in death. It is clear from polls carried out by many media that 80% of people do not agree with him, “said Jeanne Arthur. She accused him of” scaring. “


Thelma J. Longworth

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.