My euthanasia fears for Mum

Assisted dying laws may appeal to the educated middle classes. But what about the vulnerable, such as those who do not speak English as their first language, asks Anna Cotton.

Together with my siblings, I help to take care of our widowed mother, who is now in her early 90s. My parents migrated from India to Malaysia where they brought up their children. Gradually over the last 30 years, we have all moved to New Zealand.

I love the care and support provided by this country for Mum who, when she was 83, suffered an aortic dissection due to high blood pressure. She chose to stay in her own home in Northpark, Auckland, which was made possible by the provision of carers to look after her needs.

Although these services are of the highest standard, our family nevertheless has an important role in helping Mum to understand her medical care options, because of her limited knowledge of English.

It is precisely with this as a backdrop that I am so opposed to the legalisation of euthanasia in any form. I have gone on public record in writing and in person in submitting against the End of Life Choice Bill.

Because English is not Mum’s first language, she frequently does not understand all the nuances of what is presented to her. Several times I have been with her when she has been admitted to hospital. Often, when the doctors discuss her illness and possible options for treatment with her, she needs to turn to me to explain. Then I will put the situation to her in the language she is familiar with.

I see many dangers for vulnerable Kiwis such as my elderly mother should this bill be passed. Many of these arise out of its vague provisions for both eligibility and administration.

So why do I feel this bill is so dangerous for vulnerable Kiwis like my mother?

In particular I should like to highlight the lack of clarity as to who may initiate the discussion leading to a request for assisted dying. As the bill stands, there is nothing to preclude doctors from suggesting a medicalised premature death to patients struggling with difficult symptoms (as has already begun happening in Canada, with the documented case of Candice Lewis).

The End of Life Choice Bill is being introduced for a small group of educated, middleclass people who are afraid of unbearable suffering.

Furthermore, it could easily be argued that doctors would be obliged to include assisted dying in the treatment options they are required to present to their patients under the Health and Disability Act.

Because such a move flies in the face of everything doctors have always stood for, it would be confronting enough for any patient, but doubly so for those who do not readily understand English.

So is the bill going to be translated to the various foreign languages of New Zealand’s migrants and refugees, or have they been excluded from consideration of the bill’s provisions?

What about all those who are illiterate; is there a plan to explain the bill to them?

Nowhere in the bill do I see any mention of interpreters for these groups of New Zealanders. So how are they going to convey their wishes to the medical staff?

In my view, the End of Life Choice Bill is being introduced for a small group of educated, middle-class people who are afraid of unbearable suffering, whether physical or psychological. However, I am sure they will be financially equipped to hire solicitors to fight for their individual needs.

I beg MPs of all parties to consider the implications for vulnerable members of society such as my mother and all those for whom English is not their first language.

This bill should be rejected, and the money for its campaign should be put towards the genuine care and support for those in need.

STUFF An audience at Samuel Marsden School in Wellington listens to a debate on the End of Life Choice Bill last year. Speakers included bill sponsor David Seymour and opponent Sir Bill English.