Is euthanasia the only solution for dignity in death?
In 12 months, assisted dying will be legal as – unsurprisingly – the mainstream demographic has predictably spoken with a 65.2 per cent yes vote in the referendum’s preliminary results.
Congratulations to those who have had their wish granted and commiserations to those who haven’t. Although I am myself pro-choice, I remain opposed to this law for two reasons – the risk to indigenous people and the disabled, as evidenced by international research in countries where it is legal.
I am a disabled Ma¯ori woman who lives with pain 24/7. That pain will progressively increase as I live on, and so I am very aware of the disparities that exists in our health and disability system.
I am also aware of how poverty and a lack of access to good medical interventions such as the expensive cost of accessing medicinal cannabis, thanks to an inept Pharmac, lead to choices of desperation rather than a choice of free will.
There are also issues with defining a ‘‘terminal’’ illness and many, it seems, wrongly assume disabled won’t be affected without realising many disabilities by their very nature are terminal.
Therefore, trying to stop the voices of our disabled has led to some incorrect assumptions and misunderstanding as to why many of us have spoken out against this particular act.
It is poorly drafted and lacks safety mechanisms.
More importantly, though, is the lack of acknowledgement of te Tiriti o Waitangi and the cultural rights of Ma¯ori when making end of life decisions.
We all have individual human rights (responsibilities and obligations); that is a universal bottom line for all citizens. However, as an indigenous person, I also have cultural rights, responsibilities and obligations to my wha¯nau, hapu¯ and iwi. Therefore without recognising the need to apply a cultural lens to a very non-protective based law, we are placing at risk wha¯nau into some precarious decisionmaking.
If a cultural lens is applied then it would be a wha¯naubased discussion working together; this is how many indigenous communities do things with wha¯nau when they are dying. To remove them from their role of caring for others shifts dynamics within the wha¯nau.
Then there is the grief and trauma. What about the consequences of such a decision on those left behind? Are we now saying our elders, our chronically unwell and our disabled (68 per cent of Ma¯ori acquire disabilities from age 40), are not worth fighting for their dignity to have some quality or life? We don’t give dignity to our disabled wha¯nau now. Is the only solution euthanasia?
Pain management has changed over the years with better options such as affordable medicinal cannabis or palliative sedation. Why is it not being discussed? And what about death and dying? We don’t talk about it but it’s clear we need to as many don’t understand how the body begins to shut down. When we view someone not eating as starving, it is an assumption framed around grief, as the body slowing down is a natural end of life.
As we are now about to have the End of Life Choice Act in law, we need to work together to ensure protections are in place and there are consequences for any abuse of power.
If we don’t, errors will occur. Imagine if we still had the death penalty. If we did, innocent people like Teina Pora would not be alive today. If we are to embrace this new world of having doctors actively end lives, then let’s do so from different diversity and cultural lenses, so we provide an experience that is empowering – and not disempowering or dangerous to those whose difference is important to their wellbeing and outlook in life.
I am a disabled Ma¯ori woman who lives with pain 24/7. That pain will progressively increase as I live on, and so I am very aware of the disparities that exists in our health and disability system.