Act jars with viewing lives as ‘‘sacrosanct’’

IN the 4th century, BC Hippocrates formulated what is now known as the Hippocratic oath. Almost 2500 years later, it is still the basis of the declaration taken by all doctors on their graduation.

‘‘I will not give a fatal draught to any one if I am asked, nor will I suggest such a thing’’.

In 1765, writing in his commentaries on the laws of England, the English jurist Sir William Blackstone stated that the right to life was inherent by nature in every individual. He said it was the first rule of English law.

It is the first right affirmed in the

New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. The sanctity of human life is the reason why our society is opposed to suicide.

It is the rationale for New Zealand’s suicide prevention strategy — Every Life Matters.

The End of Life Choice Act, which is the subject of one of the referenda to be voted on in the forthcoming elections, rides roughshod through both the above principles.

If the provisions of the Act are met, doctors will be permitted to administer a draught to kill their patients, or provide them with the means to commit suicide.

In broad terms, if a person is suffering from a terminal illness, has only six months to live, and is experiencing unbearable suffering, the Act applies.

It will affect only a limited number of people and the number will decrease as palliative care continues to improve.

Proponents of support for the Act have given examples of persons who have suffered painful deaths. In none of the examples has it been stated that the persons were under the care of a hospice or had adequate palliative care.

The most worrying aspect of the Act is that for the first time in our country’s history the law will provide that human life is not sacrosanct. We will permit people to be put to death.

Once the principle is allowed, it is only a matter of degree where to draw the line. In other countries which allow assisted suicide, there has been relaxation of the criteria over time.

If the referendum approves the Act and it becomes law, what will be the next category it will apply to? The Act is a classic example of the legal adage that hard cases make bad law.

We must vote No on the referendum. David More Halfway Bush

Aurora

THE Commerce Commission last week published crosssubmissions to the initial submissions pertaining to a CPP funding request.

Aurora submitted a crosssubmission in which subclause 24 contained the statement: ‘‘Some submitters voiced opposition to Aurora Energy’s approach to regional pricing. We feel bound to reiterate that the CPP process is about determining a maximum allowable revenue that Aurora Energy may recover in compensation for its past and future investments. The manner in which those revenues are allocated to consumers, through pricing, is out of scope of a CPP and is in fact regulated by the Electricity Authority.’’

Does this read that Aurora does not want to disclose the actual dollar cost increase in consumers’ power accounts until after the CPP is approved? Fait accompli. The consumers will then learn from the Electricity Authority the impact on power accounts.

If Richard Fletcher is a sharing, caring, transparent chief executive, why would he not want this information available prior to CPP approval instead of firing a shot across the commission’s bow? Is the increase going to be that unpalatable?

Steve Tilleyshort

Clyde

Medical School

THE Medical School, and the University of Otago generally, is on a selfdestructive pathway with the Mirror on Society admissions.

The message to North Island school leavers is clear: avoid the long journey to inclement climes and take your talent to a university that values it. Peter Stanley

Tauranga