::End of Life Choice Bill NZ :: Debate Event

Hey Everyone!

This post is going to be quite different, due to my interests being expanded!
For those of you who only read my blog for my writing/book posts, I understand if you get bored and don't read the whole thing, but may I please just encourage you to read to the end! This is an issue in many other countries as well as New Zealand.

(WARNING: Most of the quotes and statements are paraphrased, and are not to be taken as the exact words spoken.)

Earlier this week, I attended a debate.

The debate was about the End of Life Choice Bill currently before the Select Committee in New Zealand. For the Bill was David Seymour, the MP who introduced this Bill, and against it was Professor Roderick MacLeod, Palliative Care specialist.

My sisters and I arrived about 10 minutes early, were greeted cheerily, invited to take a seat, and thanked for being there. Taking our seats, we observed the people and place around us. We noticed a large range in the age of attendees, extending from young people to middle aged to elderly, indicating that this issue is widely known and greatly important to our country. (And others, likely.) Sitting on our seats were two small pieces of paper: one was a voting slip, to be filled out after the debate. The other slip of paper is below:

We were greeted by both Dan Bidois, the MP hosting the debate, and by David Seymour, who shook our hands and handed us a paper illustrating the End of Life Choice Bill. This paper was handed out in case we "found it easier to follow graphics than words".

Below are pictures of both sides of the paper.

About 10 minutes after the start time, Dan Bidois stood up behind the podium with his microphone, and introduced the topic of the evening's debate, as well as the debaters. He said his main goal was to find out what side/s his electorate was on. (Making his electorate feel heard was important in his hidden goal of being re-elected.) He stated that even though he obviously did have a stand on this matter, it wasn't his desire to state that, but rather to gauge the opinions of his electorate. He asked for a show of hands to determine how many were for or against the Bill, and also how many attendees were from his electorate. After his "short" introduction, he handed the microphone to the moderator, and sat down at the table on the left side of the podium, next to David Seymour.

Each debater was given 10 minutes for their opening statement, starting with David. He started by saying he normally flattered his hosts a lot before beginning his speeches, but this time, with only 10 minutes, he'd have to leave that out!

He then went on to say that he believes the status quo in NZ is "barbaric", and that if we didn't agree, he'd never be able to convince us that we need Euthanasia; but if we even slightly agreed, then he may be able to sway us to thinking that Euthanasia is just the thing that NZ needs to improve it's quality of life. (How ironic!) Proceeding to run through the paper he'd previously handed out, he tried to assure the audience that this was a VERY conservative bill, ruling out everyone that didn't fit in with the "many" requirements in the Bill.

1) Is the person over 18 years of age?

2) Is the person a New Zealand citizen or permanent resident?

3) Does the person suffer from either a terminal illness that is likely to end their life within six months, a grievous and irremediable medical condition?

4) Is the person in an advanced state of irreversible decline in capability? This means that illness has caused significant loss of ability to live a full life, that cannot be regained through treatment.

5) Does the person experience unbearable suffering that cannot be relieved in a tolerable way? This means that the person's pain or suffering cannot be adequately alleviated through treatment that is available.

6) Does the person have the ability to understand the nature of assisted dying, and the consequences of it? This means that the person has the capacity to give fully-informed consent to the procedure of an assisted death. 

If the answer is no to any of these questions, then the person is not eligible for assisted dying. If YES to all of them, the person would "be eligible to make a request under the End of Life Choice Bill."

Once David's turn was over, Professor Rod MacLeod stepped up to the podium, adjusted his glasses, shuffled his papers, and thanked Dan Bidois for hosting him. He affirmed that what NZ needs is better palliative care which reaches everywhere, not euthanasia. He pointed out that:

1) It is impossible to know whether someone is being coerced or pressured into requesting assisted death by family members or others, or even society. 

2) It would also be difficult, if not impossible, to determine if someone was lucid, able to comprehend the meaning of assisted dying, and has enough capacity at that time to agree to be euthanized. Dying people are often lucid and completely perceiving one minute, but delirious and incoherent the next. 

3) Unbearable suffering is a rather confusing term - emotional suffering can often be much more unbearable than physical. People often come into Hospice (an organization that provides care and relief for dying persons) suffering "unbearably", but after a little while of delightful distraction, they have almost entirely and completely forgotten their suffering. 

4) Doctors are terrible at prognostication. There have been many instances where people have been told they have only a short time left to live, but have lived a long way past that date, and still haven't neared death. The prognosis had been wrong for these people. It would be awful for even one person to be euthanized according to a wrong prognosis, yet this Bill has potential for SO many more wrong, incorrect assisted deaths. 

After both opening statements, the debaters were allowed 5 minutes to answer each other.

When Professor McLeod referenced the Netherlands and other nations as evidence that euthanasia is a slippery slope, David argued that the Netherlands in particular is inapplicable to us, as they started out with a law so much different. However, as the evening wore on, he continually used the Netherlands and a few other countries as proof to show that euthanasia isn't unsafe or dangerous to vulnerable people. 

Insisting that NZ needs this Bill, he occasionally referred to this 'evidence' from other countries that have already legalized euthanasia, saying that they proved that euthanasia is beneficial. 

After the debate, which lasted about 1/2 hour, the floor was open for an hour long Q&A session. 

Many people put their hands up, were given microphones by the mic-runners, and asked their questions, sometimes for David, sometimes for Professor McLeod, and sometimes for both. 

One man commented on the phrase "find relief through assisted dying", asking how David could know that they wouldn't suffer after death. David answered by saying that as long as that man's beliefs did not harm or restrict others, he was fine to believe what he wanted, and David didn't mind.

Others shared personal stories and asked whether they or a loved one would be eligible for assisted dying under the End of Life Choice Bill. 

A blonde-haired lady expressed that she had allergies to every single pain medication, and inquired of Professor MacLeod what palliative care could do for her, had she a terminal illness or grievous medical condition. Professor MacLeod answered that he didn't, unfortunately, have an answer for her, that she was part of a very small minority. 

Many people waited a long time to ask their questions, and among them was a dark-haired, perhaps Indian lady who asked David whether he could put his hand over his heart, and say that no one, in the next 100 years, would be unjustly or wrongly euthanized, if this bill was passed. His answer? "Oh, absolutely, I could!" 

As the evening drew to a close, David appeared to be getting more and more emotional and sarcastic, while Professor McLeod remained calm, collected, and soft-spoken, yet confident and firm in his replies. 

The moderator frequently walked over to the table David Seymour and Dan Bidois were sharing to talk with Dan. To the audience and speakers, he was generally polite and courteous, even though he had to cut off a few rather "passionate" people who weren't exactly asking questions. A slight favoring of David's side was minutely obvious to the attentive. 

At the end of the evening, we filled out our voting slips, and posted them into a small box at the back of the room, chatted with a few people, and eventually left, full of information to share with our parents! 

Euthanasia is a PC way of serial killing. It's time to speak out against it. 

What do you think? 

Thanks for reading!