So much for consistency, so much for compassion

THE results of the two referendums that New Zealanders voted on this year are almost certainly known now, special votes notwithstanding. Each has been decided in the opposite way to Civis’ vote, but that’s life (or, in the case of the euthanasia vote, death).

In the discussion before and after the vote Civis hasn’t seen reference to the referendums that took place regularly alongside most elections from 1911 to 1987, which have some resonances, in an inverted way, with this year’s vote on the recreational use of cannabis.

The regular referendum on alcohol prohibition initially required a 60% majority to achieve national prohibition (in 1911 the vote for prohibition was 55.8%) but by the time of the special poll in April 1919, the required majority was only 50%, and only the votes of soldiers not yet home from the war prevented it being reached. At the time of the December 1919 election, the national prohibition vote reached 49.7% — the closest it ever came to success.

In contrast to the requirement that banning the dangerous drug alcohol should depend on a referendum, the use of cannabis, with a much less impressive record of causing harm, was banned by a simple Act of Parliament (the Dangerous Drugs Act) in 1927.

Imagine if use of cannabis had been subject to the same process, regarding its legal status, as alcohol.

Of course, being easily grown by individuals and therefore, unlike alcohol, not supported by strong commercial interests backing continuance, it might have been banned by referendum as a sideeffect of the strong temperance movement of the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

But if not, it probably couldn’t have been used by gangs and other drug pushers to make money and entice users on to stronger and more destructive drugs, and a referendum this year to consider banning it would probably have failed miserably to achieve its prohibition.

Enough of fantasising. A reallife horror show has been delivered by voter endorsement of the End of Life Choice Act.

Civis has discussed in several columns the dangers in legalising euthanasia, and the flawed thinking which brought the Act to Parliament and to referendum. It seems pointless to repeat those arguments now. But the inevitability of the Act coming into force in a year raises practical questions.

Civis knows of someone who lost confidence in his regular doctor on finding that he was willing to refer women for consideration of abortion. Will patients lose confidence in their GPs if they know they’re killing patients? Will nonkilling doctors be swamped with new patients?

Apart from allowing 48 hours for paperwork, there’s no ‘‘coolingoff’’ period between a decision to go ahead and execution (Oregon requires 15 days, Victoria 9 and Canada 10). Is there scope for the regulations, to be promulgated under section 31 of the Act to give it effect, to require such a period, to allow time for careful reconsideration of a decision to end one’s life?

To qualify for euthanasia a person must have a terminal illness likely to end life within six months. But is that predictable? Some research suggests 80% of such estimates are wrong. How can the regulations ensure that requirement is fulfilled?

Elder abuse by relatives isn’t uncommon. How can subtle coercion be detected?

Who pays for the professional work involved in euthanasia?

If it occurs in a public hospital, presumably the taxpayer. If at home (the ideal place to die), the patient charge for several extended consultations by an attending, and then an independent practitioner, and possibly a psychiatrist, and then organising and effecting the killing, will be significant: euthanasia will be available to the welloff but not the poor (but what does one expect from Act New Zealand?).

So much for ‘‘compassion’’.

Most importantly, for suffering patients to have access to meaningful alternatives to euthanasia, hospice services must be fully publicly funded for all New Zealanders.

That’s essential. Donations and sausagesizzles won’t suffice.