Debate rages over euthanasia bill
Emotions were running high as vocal proponents for and against euthanasia debated the controversial issue at a public meeting in Wellington, with doctor culpability and protections for the vulnerable both front and centre.
The End of Life Choice Bill, currently with the justice select committee, would make it legal for those with a terminal illness or irremediable medical condition to have the choice of assisted death, otherwise known as euthanasia.
While it passed its first reading last December by 76 votes to 44, the bill has been slated by many, including former prime minister Sir Bill English, who took to the Samuel Marsden Collegiate School stage in Wellington to argue the opposing side.
Referring to the proposed legislation as ‘‘parliamentary-sanctioned murder’’, English argued that a lack of safeguards to protect both the vulnerable and the country’s medical professionals meant the bill should not be passed.
‘‘We should not be blind to the dangers because even if you believe it’s right for some to have the choice, the consequences for everyone else are large.’’
He noted that one of those potentially affected was his wife Lady English, a Wellington GP, who he believed would be obligated to participate in the practice despite being ‘‘morally against it’’.
Backing up English’s sentiment was Dr Sinead Donnelly, a palliative medicine physician vehemently opposed to euthanasia. She said vulnerable people should not have the option of assisted death put in front of them.
‘‘Having known that vulnerable place and now having committed myself to serving others, I know this is not what people want, we don’t want to be killed, we cry out in despair for someone who cares.’’
Arguing in favour was ACT’s David Seymour, the bill’s sponsor, who said that individual morals had no place in the debate, with the bill protecting those who wanted nothing to do with it.
‘‘I don’t know if I would use this bill myself – it’s a very personal thing – all I’m saying is that I wouldn’t dream for a moment of imposing my particular moral outlook on the world of anyone else.
‘‘This legislation creates an alternative that gives choice to those who want it and safety to those who don’t,’’ he said.
Along with his ‘for’ team-mate Dr Andrew Butler, Seymour stressed that the current system, where ‘‘informal euthanasia’’ was the norm, had to change to ensure adequate safeguards were in place.
‘‘The status quo is simply unacceptable, it’s barbaric and we should be ashamed of it in 2018 in a country like New Zealand.’’
Butler, who acted as the lawyer for physician-assisted-dying advocate Lecretia Seales, told the Wellington crowd that it was her case that had ultimately changed his own outlook on the issue.
He credited a better understanding of the issues and a deeper understanding of the evidence in favour of euthanasia for the change in his opinion and he urged others to do their own research.
More than 20 similar events had already been held around the country. In May, the timetable for the justice select committee’s report on the End of Life Choice Bill was extended after a record 35,000 submissions were received.