Euthanasia concerns remain

THE most prominent voices in the euthanasia debate come from the strong advocates of change and the determined opponents. That is the nature of much public discourse.

Many people, however, are conflicted. They can see sense in the End of Life Choice Bill while also being wary.

The same applies to MPs who are facing the decision on how to vote when the third reading of David Seymour’s Bill finally comes before Parliament. There are those who emphatically believe the Bill should be passed and those implacably opposed. Many are uncertain.

There remains, too, the New Zealand Firstbacked plan for a public referendum. That might prove to be the final decider.

This ‘‘conscience’’ issue is fraught because it is a life and death matter, because embedded in our cultures is a respect for life and a desire to fight for it.

The Bill originally gave those with a terminal illness or a grievous and irremediable medical condition the option of requesting ‘‘assisted’’ dying. Mr Seymour agreed to limit the Bill to those with less than six months to live to help ensure its passage.

The House continues debating scores of possible amendments and examining the devil in the detail every second Wednesday. This could go on for months. Additional recent amendments stop doctors and nurses recommending euthanasia to patients, and they must halt the process if they suspect a patient has been pressured into the decision. Extra employment protections have been introduced for those who object to taking part.

These are all improvements and increase the likelihood wavering MPs will back the Bill.

Mr Seymour’s concession on terminal illness was crucial. Disabled groups, in particular, felt threatened by the Bill as it stood. ‘‘Irremediable’’ is too open to interpretation.

The changes help ameliorate concerns about some of the subtle pressures on many to choose an early death. But given many an older dying person’s wish not to be a burden, these worries remain. As well, families faced with inheritances reducing steadily via the cost of hospitallevel care or because of the disruption to their lives might not always be cherishing and caring. Human nature is contrary and dangerous.

There remains, too, doubts about the impact on this country’s appalling suicide rate and on vulnerable people. If people — even with that sixmonth qualification — have the right to request death, that could be insidious on those tempted to take their own lives. If it is good enough for them, it is good enough for me.

Just about every 40plus New Zealander has had experience of slow family death through cancer or various other conditions, many of them horrid. Experiences vary for all sorts of reasons. But, with modern drugs and today’s care, the physical pain of the last months and weeks should be minimised. Unfortunately, there is still some way before proper palliative care is as widespread as it should be. That needs to change.

For many families, nevertheless, the process of approaching death — for all its agonies — is a precious part of life itself. It has poignancy, togetherness, tenderness, and the giving and sharing of love.

The understandable cry for assisted dying has, it needs to be said, come predominantly from the assertive white middle and uppermiddle class culture where the focus is on individual rights.

In other communities, life and death can be more about the family, the wider whanau and the community. Individuals are not islands to themselves.

We still have concerns about euthanasia, even as we agree with Bill opponent and Dunedin North MP David Clark who has accepted it will not be the end of the world if it passes.