Earlier this week I attended a debate between David Seymour, ACT MP, and Professor Rod MacLeod, palliative care specialist and hosted by Dan Bidois, National MP. I anticipated that Dan would primarily be interested in hearing from those in his own electorate, but I still wanted to hear from David about his own bill. The evening certainly proved interesting.
Before things got underway Dan and David both made their way around the room greeting us all individually. My initial impression was that Dan may be easily swayed to vote whichever way would be most likely to ensure his re-election, and David appeared to be very calm, collected -- and confident.
Dan got the evening underway, saying that he'd organised the event so his electorate could "feel heard", explaining that he had a view on this issue but wasn't there to share it. I found it interesting that he repeatedly said he wanted his electorate to "feel heard", never that he wanted them to actually "be heard". Am I just getting caught up in the grammar, or is his choice of wording perhaps indicative of something more? Secondly, I feel his view was made clear when he seated himself next to David, and the two shared small talk throughout the evening, joined later on by the moderator, while the professor was left to himself.
It was determined by a show of hands that about half of attendees were from the Northcote electorate, with some others having travelled significant distances to be there. A majority opposed the bill (roughly 60 to 30), and someone commented that it was the young ones who opposed.
David and Professor MacLeod were each given 10 minutes to explain their argument, and then 5 minutes to respond to the other's. David went first, calling the current situation in New Zealand around palliative care barbaric, and then essentially reading the headings off a slip of paper he'd handed to us beforehand. (Pictured below.) Professor MacLeod spoke about his experience during 30 years of work in palliative care, and said that New Zealand ranks 3rd in the world for that area. In their responses, David continued reading where he'd left off while the professor responded to his opponent's argument.
After the first half-hour, Q&A was opened up to attendees. The vast majority of questions were from opponents of the bill and many were directed at David. An air of shock fell over the room when he responded to one questioner that he absolutely could guarantee that not one person would be wrongly killed within the next hundred years as a result of this bill. It seems ironic that he responded to Professor MacLeod's statistics by saying certain countries were irrelevant, and then proceeding to reference them himself many times throughout the evening.
Professor MacLeod impressed me with his knowledgeable responses, presented clearly and calmly despite the hostility shown him. In contrast, David's apparently calm and easy-going demeanor fell apart as the evening progressed. It was clear that he ran out of any sort of material midway through, after which point he become more and more angry, and resorted to jumping around questions, accusing the professor of fear-mongering, and telling questioners that if they looked at the evidence they'd find there was nothing to worry about -- yet he couldn't seem to reference any such evidence. At one point a woman began "I'm not considering suicide, but--" and David interrupted, "well maybe you should!"
I'm glad I went along and I left with greater conviction to oppose this bill every way I can. It's sad that we've become a country that can even entertain the idea of assisted death being "compassionate". A doctor's duty is to preserve life -- euthanasia is the antithesis of this.
Dan got the evening underway, saying that he'd organised the event so his electorate could "feel heard", explaining that he had a view on this issue but wasn't there to share it. I found it interesting that he repeatedly said he wanted his electorate to "feel heard", never that he wanted them to actually "be heard". Am I just getting caught up in the grammar, or is his choice of wording perhaps indicative of something more? Secondly, I feel his view was made clear when he seated himself next to David, and the two shared small talk throughout the evening, joined later on by the moderator, while the professor was left to himself.
It was determined by a show of hands that about half of attendees were from the Northcote electorate, with some others having travelled significant distances to be there. A majority opposed the bill (roughly 60 to 30), and someone commented that it was the young ones who opposed.
David and Professor MacLeod were each given 10 minutes to explain their argument, and then 5 minutes to respond to the other's. David went first, calling the current situation in New Zealand around palliative care barbaric, and then essentially reading the headings off a slip of paper he'd handed to us beforehand. (Pictured below.) Professor MacLeod spoke about his experience during 30 years of work in palliative care, and said that New Zealand ranks 3rd in the world for that area. In their responses, David continued reading where he'd left off while the professor responded to his opponent's argument.
Professor MacLeod impressed me with his knowledgeable responses, presented clearly and calmly despite the hostility shown him. In contrast, David's apparently calm and easy-going demeanor fell apart as the evening progressed. It was clear that he ran out of any sort of material midway through, after which point he become more and more angry, and resorted to jumping around questions, accusing the professor of fear-mongering, and telling questioners that if they looked at the evidence they'd find there was nothing to worry about -- yet he couldn't seem to reference any such evidence. At one point a woman began "I'm not considering suicide, but--" and David interrupted, "well maybe you should!"
I'm glad I went along and I left with greater conviction to oppose this bill every way I can. It's sad that we've become a country that can even entertain the idea of assisted death being "compassionate". A doctor's duty is to preserve life -- euthanasia is the antithesis of this.
No comments:
Post a Comment