Huge risks in euthanasia: Ex-PM
The debate over euthanasia has played out between some of the most vocal proponents and opponents in the country, writes Chelsea Boyle.
Former Prime Minister Sir Bill English spoke of his fierce opposition ahead of Matt Vickers, the husband of the late Lecretia Seales, as they made opposing submissions about the End of Life Choice Bill. Seales, a Wellington lawyer, was diagnosed with terminal brain cancer in 2011 and unsuccessfully sought in the High Court of New Zealand a judgment that would protect her doctor from prosecution should she consent to die with medical assistance. Seales died on June 5, 2016, on the same day the judgment in Seales v Attorney General was delivered. Justice David Collins ruled that a doctor could not assist her to end her life without the risk of prosecution.
The bill, sponsored by Act Party leader David Seymour, has received a record 35,000 public submissions to the Justice Select Committee. That is the most submissions received by a select committee since the legalisation of same-sex marriage drew 22,000 submissions in 2012. Speaking for the first time as a submitter, English told the Justice Select Committee that killing had always been banned and that was fundamental to humanity.
“In effect, the [proposed] law asks us to look the other way.”
What started as permitted would become desirable and then for some an unconsented necessity, English said.
“That is the slippery slope,” he said. The criteria in the bill was too broad and subjective — “that creates uncertainty”.
Usually, legislature worked very hard to mitigate what would be very small risks — this would open large risks, English said.
“Safeguards mean nothing if there are no consequences for breaking them.”
It was not properly open to the scrutiny it required, he said.
“Remember, this bill makes the doctor immune from criminal and civil law.”
It would not be possible to break open the doctor’s confidential relationship with the patient, there would be no evidence, he said.
“This may explain why in the 15 years there has been euthanasia law in a number of different jurisdictions there are no court cases.”
English said the test for consent was poor in the proposed bill and did not meet the necessary threshold.
“You have to make sure no person had their life taken against their will
. . . that’s the threshold.”
English said the conscientious objection clause did not protect doctors who opposed euthanasia and he found that to be “repugnant”.
The impact on the “common good is much greater” than proponents would accept.
Mary English said as a medical professional she was “totally opposed to the state-sanctioned killing” of the vulnerable either by assisted suicide or euthanasia.
It was both legally inconsistent and cynical to signal that suicide was a tragedy for the young but progressive for the elderly, she said.
She had seen first-hand patient concern of being a burden, and elder abuse was a concern. She said she strongly believed “legally sanctioning this euthanasia would tip the balance of presumption by the patient” from the idea they should be helped to a sense of duty not to be a burden.