Seymour Bill just the latest stage of issue

PAULA Salisbury accuses David Seymour of ‘‘dividing the nation’’ with his End of Life Choice Bill (Letters, 7.11.19).

Has she spent the last few decades in a cave? How else can she be unaware that long before David Seymour’s Bill was pulled out of the parliamentary tin, the nation was deeply divided on this issue? Witness similar Bills by Michael Laws (1995) and Peter Brown (2003).

Seymour’s End of Life Choice Bill is simply the latest one, reflecting increasing public support for the right of the terminally ill to avoid suffering by dying at a time of one’s own choosing.

Martin Hanson

Nelson

IF David Seymour’s End of Life Choice Bill passes its third reading on November 13, it will mean that Parliament has scrutinised it once, twice and thrice and passed it as fit for purpose, safe for use.

Over and above that, NZ First has imposed a further requirement: that it be subjected to a referendum where citizens will decide whether they like the Bill as amended and presented back to them as an Act, or not.

Our MMP system allows minor party voices to be heard; the majority of us voted for MMP. Here’s an example of how it works in practice.

Ann David

Waikanae

HEAR, hear, Richard van der Plas (Letters, 4.11.19).

I worked in the laststage geriatric area of the health system for 4550 years and saw people being kept alive, with antibiotics and heavy duty pain relief, because their relatives wouldn’t face the fact that they were miserable and beyond caring.

Doctors are expected to do what they can to ease suffering but, to me, endless rounds of antibiotics, morphine and their side effects, are only delaying tactics and playing God, if there is such a thing.

As Richard said, why do this — give us the choice.

Kay Hannan

Oamaru