The New Zealand Parliament legalised euthanasia this week by 69 votes to 51, pending the outcome of a referendum next year. On paper, The End of Life Choice Act 2017 looks restrictive. Its architect, libertarian MP David Seymour, claims it permits “one of the most conservative assisted dying regimes in the world.”
Opponents say it is full of loopholes, which would make it like every other piece of euthanasia legislation in the world. Indications are that, once such a law is in place, nobody much cares about how it is working.
As National MP Chris Penk said at the final debate: “The question is not whether some people will die in the way the bill allows, but whether many people could die in a way that the law does not allow.” That is what has happened in the Netherlands and Belgium.
Hospices won’t be exempt
The Act allows assisted suicide by a lethal dose of drugs, either self-administered or administered by a doctor or a nurse practitioner. This option would be available to New Zealand citizens or permanent residents aged 18 and over who have been diagnosed as terminally ill and having less than six months to live.
Originally, the Act also covered people with “grievous and irremediable” conditions, which could apply to depressed and disabled persons, but this was dropped by Seymour to garner more support from MPs.
Conscience protection for doctors and nurses was added. They are not obliged to participate in any part of the assisted dying process or suffer any penalties for opting out. However, an attending practitioner with a conscientious objection must tell a patient that they have a right to ask the group administering the scheme for the name and contact details of a replacement doctor or nurse.
An amendment drafted in consultation with Hospice New Zealand that would allow organisations to opt out without risking losing public funding was voted down.
Other efforts to address weak provisions concerning safeguards and accountability were shut down in successive debates by members impatient to get the bill passed.
The beautiful-young-woman-with-a-tumour factor
In the end, Seymour got 69 of the 120-member Parliament on his side. However, to get the eight votes of the New Zealand First Party members (led by Deputy Prime Minister Winston Peters) he and supporting MPs had to accept the party’s demand that the Act go to a referendum. It will be one of at least two proposals the public can vote on alongside next year’s general election, the other being the legalisation of recreational cannabis.
It has taken four attempts, starting in 1995, to get euthanasia across the line in the New Zealand Parliament. Its success this time is in keeping with social trends such as secularisation, but also owes a lot to the advocacy of Wellington lawyer Lecretia Seales, who died of brain cancer in 2015. As an attractive, clever 42-year-old tragically facing death, she has done for euthanasia in this country what another beautiful young woman with a brain tumour, Brittany Maynard, did for the cause in California.
Ms Seales, who had worked for the liberal-minded Law Commission, applied to the New Zealand High Court for a declaration that she had a “right” to assisted suicide under the NZ Bill of Rights Act. She failed at court, but succeeded in the public domain where the support of her husband and family and influential figures such as former Law Commission chief Sir Geoffrey Palmer – not to mention massive and sympathetic media attention – emboldened politicians to have another go at legalising euthanasia. Seales died peacefully of natural causes in June 2015 and in October Seymour lodged his member’s bill. In December that year the New Zealand Herald declared Lecretia Seales “New Zealander of the Year”.
Tens of thousands of opposing public submissions binned
The Seymour bill was drawn from the ballot in June 2017 and had its first reading in December. It then went to a select committee of MPs for study and to receive public submissions. More than 39,000 submissions were received, 90 percent opposing it. Over four months touring the country the committee heard over 2000 oral submissions, of which 85 percent were opposed. These included the majority of medical associations and individual doctors and nurses who addressed the committee.
In addition, a grassroots effort saw published a number of excellent video testimonies from people who had faced a terminal diagnosis or lived with a severe disability, as well as professional commentary on the issue. One of the people appearing in these videos, Clare Freeman, who became tetraplegic at 17 and attempted suicide, addressed hundreds of opponents in front of Parliament on Wednesday as MPs prepared for the final vote. She recounted how a psychiatrist suggested that she could get help to end her life overseas.
All of this has counted for very little with the majority of our political representatives. The public opinion they fear is the referendum looming at the election next year and the debate that will precede it. As NZ Herald writer Claire Trevett commented today: “Few MPs will want to take the lead in that debate – for few will want to be defined by it and have it overshadow their campaign.” That is probably truer of those supporting the legislation than those against it.
The “misinformation” spectre
Supporters have already raised the spectre of “misinformation” to ward off inconvenient publicity about euthanasia and the End of Life Choice Act itself. In fact, Minister of Justice Andrew Little (a supporter) is so concerned that the public may be misinformed and misled that he has talked about setting up a unit in the Ministry of Truth – sorry, Justice – to monitor advertising campaigns. This applies also to the cannabis referendum.
Following an interview with Little, however, the NZ Herald reports, “Teams in the Justice Ministry will prepare neutral, factual information for each referendum and make that publicly available, but they will not be tasked with calling out misinformation.” The Minister expects things to get “ugly” and expects the worst of social media, but has indicated that complaints to the Advertising Standards Authority are the way to go for disgruntled members of the public. He will simply do what he can to “call out misinformation.”
It would be foolish to think that the public is already well informed (and could only be misled by further debate), although politicians and the media regularly invoke opinion polls that show a level of public support for euthanasia of around 70 percent. If the public is generally ignorant, what is the value of a poll that asks a superficial question such as, “Parliament is considering passing a euthanasia law that would allow terminally ill patients to die with the help and approval of their doctors. Would you support it?”
Of course people should be allowed to die. Of course doctors should do what they can to ease their symptoms and reassure them as they die. Aren’t they, don’t they already? Yes. But the euthanasia movement fosters the deceitful idea that people are being kept alive against their will by extraordinary means.
Three-quarters of Kiwis don’t know what ‘choices’ the Act allows
A poll commissioned by Euthanasia-Free NZ and released early this week showed that, despite the legislation being around for four years, the great majority of the public do not know what “choices” the End of Life Choice Act would legalise.
70% thought it would make it legal for people to choose to not be resuscitated, when people can already ask for such a request to be added to their medical file.
75% thought that the Bill made euthanasia available to terminally ill people only as a last resort, after all treatments have been tried to control their pain.
“However, the Bill does not require an eligible person to have tried any pain relief or palliative care before requesting a lethal dose, or to have a consultation with a palliative care or pain specialist to find out what options are available to them,” says Euthanasia-Free NZ.
Like the Act’s supporters. this group is concerned about the referendum. “We doubt that another year would be long enough to allow the public to become adequately informed about the Bill’s content, amid contentious debates on cannabis and the general election,” says its executive officer Renee Joubert. “We are concerned that a referendum result may not reflect the public’s true sentiments.”
There seems, indeed, a real possibility that the cannabis referendum, being a more grass-roots issue (so to speak) and therefore given more media time, will eclipse that of euthanasia. The best we can hope for in any case is a change of government.
I recently read an article about what it’s like being deaf in New Zealand. One woman interviewed recalled a camp she attended when she was young. The experience made a big impression on her, so much so that she came to realise that being deaf was “who I am”.
This got me thinking about other times I’ve heard someone say that such-and-such is “who I am”. One hears of people saying it about their race, their gender, their sexual orientation, or some other characteristic they consider to be vital to the point of being definitive.
I expect many who say this are very deeply affected by the significance of the characteristic they are describing and this is articulated, with some poetic licence, as “This is who I am”. In some cases (perhaps many), this poetic licence may be energised by the fact that the person has been made to feel like a social outlier because of the characteristic. In these cases, the “poetry” becomes quite poignant and very powerful.
However, some proclaim “who I am” with a polemical purpose which, if spelled out, goes something like this: “This characteristic is who I am. For that reason, your disapproval of it, or disagreement with it, is a rejection of me as a person, a denial of my humanity”. What seems to follow, in the mind of the speaker, is that the disapproval or disagreement must therefore not be permitted and may even be reasonably described as hate speech and condemned as such. We see this happening all around us.
This characteristic is who I am. For that reason, your disapproval of it, or disagreement with it, is a rejection of me as a person, a denial of my humanity.
No matter how the declaration “This is who I am” is used, I suggest that it isn’t actually true. I cannot interfere with a person’s view of themselves – I’m just an onlooker with no authority – but I can have an opinion about this kind of thought process. When the woman declared that her deafness is “who I am”, it occurred to me to ask, “What about your ethnicity and gender, are they just peripheral?”
When a person identifies a characteristic and says, “This is who I am”, they are doing themselves a great injustice and selling themselves way short.
Each person consists of an enormous number of characteristics, some innate and others formed by experience and context. I’ll call each of these a “what” as distinct from the “who”. There are all sorts of whats – sex, ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender presentation, age, height, body shape and weight, strength, IQ, EQ, disposition, beauty, physical prowess, physical health, mental health, attitude to heights, enclosed spaces and spiders, place on various spectrums (eg introvert/extrovert, optimist/pessimist, sweetness of tooth, sensitivity to heat and cold), opinions and world-view, life experience, experience of oppression (from one side or another), skills, self-esteem, memory, facility with languages… I’m not sure the list has an end.
I suggest that “who” a person is must be, at the very least, the aggregate of the enormous number of whats that characterise the person. To be honest, I would go further and suggest that this aggregate is simply “what” the person is, while the “who” of that person is something even more profound and utterly unique.
Who we really are
We Christians believe each human being is made “in the image and likeness” of the creator God. This is rather grand and gives each person fabulous significance and value, which is the other reason I find limited self-identification so irksome.
But even if the imago Dei is notionally set aside, it is apparent that an individual human being is an unfathomably deep and complex unit. So, when a person focuses on a single characteristic and says “This is who I am”, they are saying something that is wildly inaccurate.
We should be prepared to go to some trouble to understand why a person identifies themselves in this way, especially if there is real hurt underlying what they say. However, it doesn’t follow that a poetic understatement, no matter how poignant or tragic, should be taken literally – because then it’s false.
Identity politics
I don’t intend this to be of merely passing interest: it’s relevant to identity politics.
I’m not quite sure just who is “in charge” of identity politics – I only know they’ve been operating behind the scenes and that no-one voted for them. They seem to have decided that each person has only a handful of characteristics – or, at least, only a handful of characteristics that matter.
I cannot interfere when a person entertains a false and limiting belief about themselves. I must feel a little sad and leave them be. However, I object to being told that I must treat their paltry self-identification as a fact.
It is even more objectionable when someone applies this shabby branding tosomeone else.
This happens, for example, when I am identified as “just” a pale, stale male or “just” a phobia-laden Christian bigot or “just” a beneficiary of racist colonialism etc. Once one of these damning labels is attached to me, no interest is taken in my other characteristics, much less in my actual opinions, decisions and actions.
It also happens when a person is encouraged to self-identify in this paltry manner – to see themselves as a person of very few parts. The perverse thing is, this encouragement comes from people who claim to advocate for that person!
“This is who I am” is bad enough. “This is who you are” is worse.
This has been going on for a while, but I continue to be astonished by the new elite (academics, media, educators, much of government) who arrogantly presume to define everyone, especially when that definition is insultingly incomplete. This displays utter contempt for every member of the community – not only those the elite intends to punish for past sins but also those it claims to champion.
Identity politics insults everyone by underestimating them. That’s just the start, of course: after rebranding us and dividing us into herds, the elite –
decides which herds are good and bad (regardless of what people actually say and do);
stage-manages a war between them (women against men, Pakehā against Māori, and so on).
The complexity and uniqueness of every human being is not the only vital truth ignored – also ignored is a person’s accountability for what they do, not for what they are – but that’s where it starts.
Now that the rugby World Cup is over life in New Zealand can return to normal – at least for another four years 🙂
Along with every rugby fan, I was disappointed and surprised when the All Blacks were eliminated by the more powerful English team. Being English I decided to then support the ‘Lions’ but my hopes were dashed when the South Africans came out hungry and desperate for victory.
However, after hearing the captain and the coach of the Boks at the post match conference, I was delighted and inspired by what I heard; and after seeing many of the English refuse to wear their medal, well let’s just say, I wasn’t impressed by my countrymen.
What made the difference? What gave the Springboks the advantage over the Lions? I believe It was having a vision bigger than the game itself. Sure, every team there had a vision to be victorious and to hold the Webb Ellis Cup high but the South Africans were playing for more than that. They were playing for hope for their country, for unity and for the dream of a better future. If you haven’t read the Springbok captain Kolisi’s speech, here it is… it’s inspiring.
As I read the line, “We love you South Africa, and we can achieve anything if we work together as one”, I couldn’t help but think of how this sentiment could have the power to transform marriages. Imagine relationships where we are always working together as one; where the game plan is to always have each other’s back, to be united and to bring hope to those around us. Imagine couples who aren’t just focused on getting what they want in life, but are seeing the bigger picture of bringing joy, life and purpose to those around them.
All too often in marriage we can forget that we’re on the same team and we can spend our energy ‘mauling’ and ‘scrumming’ against each other – trying to win the argument or get the upper hand. I’m sure the enemy knows that if he can keep us tackling amongst ourselves we won’t have the time or energy to play the real game with the real opponent.
Fortunately, unlike the rugby teams, we don’t have to wait another four years to be victorious. Let’s choose today to focus on how we can each work together as one. As you think about your work environment, your home life, and your community, ask yourself, “How can I work together with those around me, how can I bring unity and hope to my team, and how can I be instrumental in building a better future?”
As I write this now I’m aware that our tagline is a perfect ending for this piece.
Hope for today. Help for tomorrow.
Like the Webb Ellis Cup, that’s a vision worth lifting up!
About FamilyLife NZ
Changed lives; that’s what motivates us.
FamilyLife NZ has been teaching, training and equipping families for over 25 years. We love hearing stories of husbands, wives, and children whose lives are different because of an interaction with something that we’ve been part of. That’s what we’re about at FamilyLife; to inspire and equip couples to be successfully married for a lifetime.
What is depression and how does that affect people?
Often when people think about depression they just think about people feeling sad. And we have to remember it that sad is a normal human emotion. So if one has days that don’t feel as good as others, some people call those days Mondays, and I agree entirely. So what we have to distinguish is between normal human behaviour. So it’s normal to have days where you feel a bit flat, where everything’s not so good. And then there’s the illness, depression. And depression affects far more than the emotions. In fact a lot of people with depression, they don’t feel sadness, they feel numbness. They feel nothing at all. People with depression can have difficulty with concentrating…
I know that the topic of suicide is hard to face. You may not have been touched by it. You may feel inadequate if you had to try and help someone.
The truth is that NZ is being swamped by an epidemic of hopelessness and life issues that is leading youth and men in particular to take their lives as a permanent solution to a temporary problem. The government does not have teams of psychologists roaming the streets looking for potentially suicidal people. The only people out there who can help desperate people are you and me – and others like us. We need to know what to look for and then what to do about it, which is often alerting experts. In this livestream event Michael Hempseed helps us have greater awareness of risk factors and symptoms.
Everyone needs this training!
You may have never had anyone you know be in a suicidal situation. But if you were even just once faced with this difficult situation – would you not want the confidence to know what steps to take to help?
Michael Hempseed (BA Psyc (Hon), Dip. Child Protection) is an experienced speaker who combines the latest research on mental health and suicide with practical tools, insights and pathways to support. He is an author and TEDx Speaker. His TedX presentation, ‘Overcoming Failure’, has had 25,000 views. His book, Being A True Hero: Understanding and Preventing Suicide in Your Community, is proving to be a worthwhile book for professionals and for those who have friends that may be suicidal.
Did you know failure can lead to shaken self confidence, depression and even suicide? Michael shares his personal story of overcoming failure on Britain’s Got Talent. Michael challenges us to re-examine the way we think about failure and whether it is possible to be successful after a dramatic failure.
Michael is a highly sought after professional speaker. He has delivered many inspiring seminars on such diverse topics as overcoming failure, mental illness and resilience. Michael has a real heart for helping everyone be at their best, especially those who are really struggling in life. Funny, full of enthusiasm and taking a genuine interest in people are all qualities that make Michael a captivating speaker. In addition to this he hosts a weekly radio show called Lighthouse of Hope, dedicated to helping those experiencing mental illness.
Visiting over 30 countries, including Ukraine, Cambodia, Morocco, China, India and Brazil has given Michael a wealth of real world experience. In particular his trip to India had a profound effect on him. Before leaving for India he was told that he would realise how lucky he was when he returned. Yet, he discovered a profound joy in India and when he returned he found that same joy was so often lacking in the Western World.
How to Deal With Failure | Michael Hempseed
THE CATH VINCENT SHOW: Wake up to your WOW
Too often we exclusively associate suicide with depression, Being A True Hero looks at the many causes of suicide, from depression, bullying, brain injuries, psychosis, lack of sleep, childhood trauma, the cluster effect, loneliness, failure and many more. This book will help the reader to know more about suicide, whether they are a concerned parent, a friend, an employer, a counsellor, sports coach or a doctor.
The book is the result of over 10 years research. Michael Hempseed effortlessly merges scientific research with real world examples, he presents complex scientific information in a way so that anyone can understand it. Being a True Hero, is full of possibilities for recovery and the sheer number of options for help will astound many readers. More importantly he shows that no matter how bad the situation is there is always hope.
Michael writes about mental illness and suicide with compassion and hope. His book is useful for people who have personal experience, the people who love them, and professionals who work in the field. It is serious, at times funny, and references up to date research.”
Kay O’Connor PhD, counsellor
I recently asked a friend I was concerned about if he was suicidal, it turned out he was – and needed help. Without the information in this book I never would have had the confidence to do that. The material in this book could save many lives.
More than 90% of the submissions on the Abortion Legislation Bill have rejected the proposed decriminalisation of abortion, with just under 8% supporting the Government bill.
The in-depth analysis of a random sample of 1,000 submissions by an independent researcher found that 90.6% of submissions were opposed. This means that over 18,000 submissions in total rejected the abortion bill, compared to less than 2,000 in support. Almost 2/3rds of all individual submitters were women. Medical doctors, nurses and healthcare workers who submitted as individuals were also about 90% opposed.
Less than 7% of submissions made any reference to religious arguments. This is not to say that only 7% of submitters held religious views, but it does mean that the arguments made against liberalising abortion were by and large not religiously based.
“It is patently obvious that most New Zealanders don’t buy the ‘health issue’ mantra, and the subsequent ignoring of any rights of the unborn child being pushed by politicians through this bill. Independent polling released at the beginning of this year actually found strong support for the unborn child having human rights and being legally protected once a heartbeat is detected – which can be between 6–12 weeks – and only a small minority thinking that life doesn’t begin until the child is born. Women are far more likely than men to say that life begins at conception,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ.
“And polling at the beginning of last year found that only 4% of New Zealanders want more liberal time limits for abortion. The vast majority of New Zealanders also showed strong support for a restrictive legal framework for accessing abortions. This is in stark contrast to calls by groups like Family Planning, ALRANZ and the National Council of Women who are promoting the Law Commission’s Model A which allows abortion for any reason up to birth.”
“New Zealanders love both women and their unborn children. And we want the law to reflect that love.”
All the submissions were downloaded from the submissions and advice section of the New Zealand Parliamentary website. Submitters clearly in support of or against the Abortion Legislation Bill were recorded directly as ‘support’ or ‘oppose’ respectively. If a submitter made comments about aspects of the Bill without stating their own overall position, they were recorded as ‘neutral/unclear’, as were submitters who were unclear about their overall position.
The independent analysis of the sample, carried out by an Emeritus Professor, has a margin of error of +/- 1.8%.
World Medical Association reaffirms its opposition
Jurisdictions which permit assisted suicide or euthanasia suck all the oxygen out of media coverage of this topic. To put the issue in perspective, assisted suicide or euthanasia is only legal in Canada, Belgium, the Netherlands, Switzerland and a handful of American states. Nearly everywhere else, doctors have repudiated it.
As a reminder of this, the World Medical Association has reaffirmed its long-standing policy of opposition to euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide. At its annual Assembly in Tbilisi, Georgia, the WMA adopted a revised Declaration on Euthanasia and Physician-Assisted Suicide. It states:
“The WMA reiterates its strong commitment to the principles of medical ethics and that utmost respect has to be maintained for human life. Therefore, the WMA is firmly opposed to euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide.”
Furthermore, the WMA strongly supports conscientious objection. Its statement says: “No physician should be forced to participate in euthanasia or assisted suicide, nor should any physician be obliged to make referral decisions to this end.”
On the other hand, the WMA also supports the right to refuse burdensome treatment. “The physician who respects the basic right of the patient to decline medical treatment does not act unethically in forgoing or withholding unwanted care, even if respecting such a wish results in the death of the patient,” it states.
WMA Chair Frank Ulrich Montgomery, a German physician, summed up the feeling of the medical profession on a global level: ‘Having held consultative conferences involving every continent in the world, we believe that this revised wording is in accord with the views of most physicians worldwide.’
End-of-life care has been at the centre of heated debates within the WMA. Last year the Canadian and Dutch delegations to the WMA’s assembly failed in a bid to change the organisation’s stand to neutrality, rather than opposition. As a result, the Canadians pulled out of the WMA. There is sure to be on-going pressure for the WMA to change its position.
So it’s significant that earlier this year, the WMA’s official journal published a strong rebuttal of arguments for neutrality. It stressed that the proportion of doctors who back the Canadian approach was minuscule:
“Only a small minority of physicians support E&PAS. The vast majority of doctors around the world wish only to foster the will to live and to cope with illness and suffering, not to facilitate acts of suicide or to create ambiguity around what constitutes a medical treatment. We must remember that the four regional WMA symposia demonstrated that most doctors would never be willing to participate in euthanasia.”
The WMA statement coincided with another statement, this time from a religious angle. Representatives of the three Abrahamic religions – Christians, Jews, Muslims – signed a declaration in the Vatican repudiating euthanasia and assisted suicide. It is an extraordinary demonstration of ethical unity on a deeply controversial topic by theologically separate groups. Their declaration says:
We oppose any form of euthanasia – that is the direct, deliberate and intentional act of taking life – as well as physician assisted suicide – that is the direct, deliberate and intentional support of committing suicide – because they fundamentally contradict the inalienable value of human life, and therefore are inherently and consequentially morally and religiously wrong, and should be forbidden without exceptions.
The statement also stresses the importance of palliative care and of trying to ensure that patients do not feel useless at the end of their lives.
The signatories included Vatican officials, Avraham Steinberg, co-chair of Israel’s National Council of Bioethics, Samsul Anwar, chairman of the Central Committee of the Indonesian Muhammadiyah and Orthodox clergy.
Michael Cook is editor of MercatorNet
This article by Michael Cook was originally published on MercatorNet under a Creative Commons licence. The original article can be found here.
