Media Conference, Dr Kerryn Phelps, Dr Trevor Mudge, Dr Michael Sedgley, Dr Allan Zimet, AMA Federal Executive

DR PHELPS: We have the secretary-general in the room.

QUESTION: I will wait for that. How do you feel, given that this is your last term as president?

DR PHELPS: I am very confident and optimistic about the next 12 months. We have a very ambitious agenda. We have been pursuing much of that agenda, particularly in respect of medical indemnity insurance. The Australian health care agreement is coming up next July. Aged care reforms and indigenous health will be at the forefront of our initiatives over the next 12 months, including improvements to the situation for general practitioners and for salaried doctors around the country. We will be looking at the situation for veterans under the repatriation scheme. I think we will be able to make progress on all those areas in the next 12 months.

QUESTION: Do you think, given the medical indemnity situation, that this will be possibly the most difficult 12 months that doctors in Australia will face?

DR PHELPS: I think this is the most difficult situation the medical profession has ever had to face. As I said yesterday, the medical indemnity crisis is not a threat by doctors. It is a threat to doctors. I am very pleased to see that today Treasurer Peter Costello has waded into the debate. It is very important that we have broad-based support from the coalition so that they can move forward with reforms that will actually bring us a long-term solution and secure the future of the medical profession.

QUESTION: He seems to be putting a lot of responsibility on the states to come forward. There's not much mention of what the Commonwealth is going to do.

DR PHELPS: The complexity of this issue is that it requires four or five different federal government departments and eight different state and territory jurisdictions to do their bit. It is true that we need fundamental tort law reform in every state. I call on the states to get together, and they'd better do it pretty quickly, and let us know what they are going to do about some form of harmonised tort law reform. Clearly, we also need a clear statement of intention from the Prime Minister within the next few days so that doctors who are facing renewal or otherwise in their insurance contracts will have the confidence to be able to continue working. We need to see this strategy from the government, and we need to see it soon.

QUESTION: Is there any sign that the state governments have got something ready for the end of this month, as they've undertaken to?

DR PHELPS: We have sporadic reports from around the country, but that is not good enough. We need for the health ministers in every state to make an unequivocal statement to Australian doctors and to the Australian public about what they are going to do to solve this crisis. Much of the solution lies in the hands of our state governments.

DR MUDGE: The assurance was given at the Prime Minister's summit on 23 April that the states would come up with their solutions to the problem of premiums by 30 May. So we look forward to that announcement. We have great confidence in the Prime Minister's decisions and his knowledge of what is happening in this area. We believe that there may be more announcements to be made in the next few days. In particular, that date of 30 May, we are looking forward to it because it is when the questions regarding state support will be answered.

QUESTION: Dr Phelps, will this be your last year as AMA president, or will you seek a change in the constitution so that you can stay on?

DR PHELPS: I can confirm today that this will be my last year as AMA president. I will not be seeking to change the constitution to give myself a longer tenure.

QUESTION: With this morning's debate on euthanasia, how does the AMA approach this issue? Are you combined, or do you all view this from different perspectives?

DR PHELPS: I have to say it was a major decision in itself to open the euthanasia debate in the medical profession at a national conference. It is a debate we must have. I am certainly looking forward to hearing the deliberations this morning. It is a very emotive debate, but it is one we must approach responsibly, carefully and compassionately. I look forward to the outcome of the session today. Dr Mudge might like to comment about that.

QUESTION: Could you give us an update on what the AMA position is on euthanasia?

DR MUDGE: The AMA's current position is against euthanasia. We feel that there is a lot of confusion surrounding end-of-life decisions, of which euthanasia is but one. Euthanasia means different things to different people, but it is best defined as physician-assisted suicide or physician-initiated death; that is, the giving of a lethal injection. It is not good palliative care that is treating people's pain and suffering, even if they die as a consequence of that treatment. That is where the confusion often lies. The AMA is going into this debate with an open mind but with a background that the strength of support for our position on euthanasia in the past has always been very strong. And it is strong around the world. It is a position that every medical association, including the World Medical Association, holds, with the exception of the Netherlands. I would not prejudge the outcome of this debate, but it is fair to say I would be surprised if the membership wished to change the policy. But it is up to them.

DR PHELPS: It is important to note that today we will be departing from normal conference protocol and we will be calling for secret ballots on the motions before council today.

QUESTION: The secret ballot is on euthanasia, is it?

DR PHELPS: Yes.

QUESTION: Why is that?

DR PHELPS: I think it is important that people can vote with their conscience without feeling that they have to bare their souls publicly. It is very important that doctors and the AMA get a very clear indication from national conference as to how they want the AMA to proceed with policy on this important issue.

QUESTION: Given the pain and suffering of some people, why is it that the AMA is so against euthanasia?

DR MUDGE: I think the arguments will be far better articulated in the session and the press conference following than I can articulate prior to the debate. Suffice it to say that the basis is that the risk to society of allowing for the first time one section of society to kill another without the balancing intent of saving other lives, which is the situation with the termination of pregnancy or capital punishment, if you believe in it, with just war and self-defence. In all those situations where society allows, if you like, a killing, the justification is the preservation of other lives. In euthanasia it is not. The risk to society and the risk to the security and confidence that the public have in the medical profession is simply too great. That has always been the rationale for the current position. We will see if there are changes.

QUESTION: What is your response to learning that Mrs Crick may not have been terminally ill?

DR MUDGE: My response was yesterday, and still is today, that it is inappropriate to use the sad death of this individual as a pawn on either side of the euthanasia debate. We do not know the full facts. When we are in possession of the full facts, we would be in a much better position to make any sort of judgment.

QUESTION: Are you saying that they are using Mrs Crick as a pawn?

DR MUDGE: No. I said that either side of this emotional debate is prone to use emotional situations for their argument. In this situation it is inappropriate.

DR PHELPS: I suggest that we continue questioning on the euthanasia debate after the plenary session. I think it will be a much better way to be able to proceed with this discussion at that time.

DR BAIN: If will announce the vote count. There were 112 votes to Dr Phelps and 32 votes to Dr Gerald Segal.

QUESTION: Is that a historic result?

DR BAIN: I do not know. I have not looked back on the votes from previous years.

DR PHELPS: We could check the records for you.

DR MUDGE: It is a decisive vote.

DR SEDGLEY: It's a strong vote of confidence.

QUESTION: What about votes that were marked incorrectly?

DR SEDGLEY: We looked at those. The scrutineers for both candidates looked at those and decided that all three of them were quite clearly for Dr Phelps. So the returning officer and the scrutineers for both candidates agreed on that.

QUESTION: Dr Phelps, will you keep Dr Segal as your aged care spokesman? And what now for the relationship between you?

DR PHELPS: Dr Segal has indicated that he will be remaining on the AMA's Council of General Practice, and that he will not be continuing on the aged care committee. I will be formulating the committees with the advice of my executive council over the coming weeks. I will be have to be doing some talking to our new federal councillors coming in as to what their interests are and where their expertise lies. We will be formulating the committees on that basis.

QUESTION: Will you kiss and make up with Gerald?

DR PHELPS: What a concept!

QUESTION: How do you respond to his suggestions that you have strayed too far from the government?

DR PHELPS: He can make any suggestions he likes in the context of an election campaign, but I think the evidence is there. We are working closely with government while fiercely maintaining our independence. I think that is the way the AMA ought to be and will remain. We are and will remain non-party political. We will remain fiercely independent of government influence. We are there to represent the interests of doctors and patients and the Australian health system generally. While we do that, we are also able to work constructively with government. That is as it should be.

QUESTION: In the next 12 months, will you be looking at grooming a successor, now that this is your last year?

DR PHELPS: I have a very experienced vice-president to my right. Thank you all. I look forward to talking to you again in a few short hours.

ENDS

CONTACT: John Flannery (0419) 494 761