Information changes some minds

THE failure of a citizens’ jury to reach a verdict on euthanasia is not unexpected, an Otago researcher says, but the fact several jurors changed their minds during the process shows the difference thorough information can make.

The project, led by University of Otago researchers, involved 15 people selected at random from the Dunedin South and Maori electoral rolls, who were given presentations from experts.

The exercise was held after the End of Life Choice Bill — which would allow people with a terminal illness or ‘‘grievous and irremediable medical condition’’ to end their lives if they meet certain criteria — had already passed its first reading in Parliament.

When the citizens’ jury began, only one person was absolutely opposed, with 10 indicating either uncertainty or moderate support and four indicating strong support.

However, by the end of the threeday process five people said they were absolutely opposed to changing the laws, nine indicated strong support and one identified as undecided.

Bioethics centre lecturer Simon Walker said for the jurors it was a question of weighing up compassion for the individual with potential harm.

‘‘I don’t think any of us were entirely sure what to expect, but [the results fit] the polls,’’ he said.

Presenters included the mother of terminallyill lawyer Lecretia Seales, who unsuccessfully fought for the right to end her own life in 2015.

Specific concerns raised included trying to establish whether or not people were pressured by their families, Dr Walker said.

Jury member Peter Springford, of Outram, started the process believing a law change was the best outcome.

He was surprised to learn that according to a palliative care specialist, none of the palliative care doctors she knew believed in euthanasia.

‘‘[She said] as long as people are kept comfortable and not in pain, it’s better,’’ he said. ‘‘I started to change my mind.’’

The ‘‘turning point’’ for him to oppose euthanasia was listening to disability advocate Ken Joblin.

Mr Springford questioned what would happen to people in resthomes, who were there at a cost of thousands of dollars, if it were easier for people to end their lives.

‘‘It sounds crude what I’m saying, but that’s what will happen,’’ he said.

Dr Walker said the report on the jury was neutral and would be submitted to the select committee for its consideration.

A proeuthanasia End of Life Choice organisation spokesman said the jury’s verdict ‘‘exactly reflects public opinion’’.

‘‘Every scientificallytaken poll of voters over recent years has shown a clear majority support medicallyassisted dying for the terminally ill,’’ he said.

‘‘EOLC hopes that Parliament will do what most New Zealanders want and follow enlightened legislations in Europe, the United States, Canada, South America and Australia.’’

Mr Springford said he wondered if the select committee might prefer to make the decision by referendum.

If so, more information on the topic would have to be communicated to the public, he said.

‘‘I didn’t know half of it, and there’s most likely stuff I still don’t know.’’