A functioning democracy
Oral submissions are key to the process of public consultation so have your say
Iwrite to record a citizen’s view of the Justice Select Committee at present travelling the country canvassing arguments on the “assisted dying” bill now before Parliament.
Twenty five Hawkes Bay people ticked the box to speak to their submission after the March 6 deadline expired.
Oral submissions — written ones totalled 35, 000 — provide individuals the opportunity to summarise and context their original, with committee members able to ask clarifying questions. The committee will report back to Parliament in the second half of the year.
It was only the second time I had made oral presentations to a stateestablished body, the first being to the recent also mobile Mental Health and Addiction Panel. I thought I had something to offer following research into war returnees with unresolved post-traumatic stress disorders (PTSD) issues — and into the healthcare politics involved.
Although the end-of-life hearing was more formal, it was certainly not the hothouse, camera-in-face political ordeal often seen on TV, particularly in the US.
Listening to those presenting before and after me was itself instructive. Certainly it made me proud to be part of a functioning democracy at a time when many such states worldwide are becoming dysfunctional.
I heard 12 fellow citizens’ submissions, including those from four doctors, two nurses, a former matron of a local hospice and a district court judge. All had considered points of view, many with obviously emotional backstories. All were motivated by compassion. Some argued from a position of rights and choice, others from consequences: concern about slippery slopes, safeguard problems or psychological coercions.
The doctors were equally split each side of the issue, while the judge wanted a US Montana-style solution with judges as arbiters in difficult cases, travelling to homes if necessary
Some cited “grievous and irremediable” and even “terminal illness” prognoses being shown to be wrong, as reasons to regard dying as best done in slow motion without a hurry-on from doctors. Some argued for patients’ agency over their own graduated pain relief.
A former hospice matron wanted legislation change. Others distinguished between unbearable pain and distress about death, especially among those lacking family support. These submitters quoted doctors with decades of palliative care saying that with recent developments, unmanageable pain need no longer occur. For others it is a simple matter of expanding awareness of the Declaration of Human Rights formulated in 1948. Physicianassisted dying will be derived from the declaration as did racial equality, LBGT rights and rights over reproduction.
A cardiologist cited initial resistance of medical groups to abortion rights, and trust in professional judgments about quality medical care.
Both sides spoke of the often unsaid: the absence of living wills, inhibitions about asking for death, being made to feel a burden by families, and a society where quality, efficiency or financial considerations become paramount in deciding between life or death.
For obvious reasons, everyone prefers a bill on life and death matters to have widespread support. But we set a higher threshold for changing our electoral system — it took three referendums to set it in place — than we do for making serious social changes or deciding moral questions.
The French ensure time is given for citizens to reconsider who they want as their president and members of Parliament by requiring two ballots, a fortnight apart. And a recent London Review of Books article on Brexit suggested the UK should follow the multi-referendum
Once a culture of assisted dying was established it would be hard to disestablish or challenge, especially by the most vulnerable.
process for major issues, as used by New Zealand for our electoral change.
At the very least a timely government-funded review of euthanasia legislation consequences could be written into such law.
Once a culture of assisted dying was established it would be hard to disestablish or challenge, especially by the most vulnerable.
Whether this bill passes or not — in Montana it passed with a 1.3 per cent majority — it is my hope a follow-up referendum puts the question to the people.
Having prepared a 15-slide power point for my oral submission — at 20 secs-per-slide the compact Petcha Kutcha ideal — I found there was nowhere at the Napier venue to display it. And neglecting to print off slide copies prior, I ended up delivering a less-than-clear summary (https://goo.gl/xK6L6H).
Annoyed at myself, I returned to my car to find a text from the committee secretary asking if I would like to send it electronically so the committee members could view it. Now that is what I call a rigorous and compassionate people’s process.
is a writer and an independent researcher based in Napier.