Decision 2020

It isn't every day that I get to vote on a completed piece of legislation and help decide whether or not it will come into effect. In fact, this election is the first time in my life. So I figured the event justified some thought and research. In no particular order, below are a few of the things I considered, or discovered.

Early on, some clarification of terminology was in order. Assisted suicide is when a doctor prescribes life-ending drugs, and the applicant takes them independently. Euthanasia is when a doctor administers the lethal drugs. Assisted dying is the umbrella term that includes both assisted suicide and euthanasia. While most overseas assisted dying laws allow for either one or the other, the End of Life Choice Act includes both. 

I thought assisted suicide sounded awful enough on its own, and then I found out that sometimes there are complications. People vomit up the tablets. Go to sleep for a while only to wake up again really confused. 

We're regularly reminded "but there are safeguards!!" And led to believe they're foolproof. But if we look at the actual wording, what do we find? One doctor has to "do their best." What! That is subjective and immeasurable. How can you possibly expect to test or challenge that? I don't even like hearing people speak that phrase to children; it's disgusting in a legal document. Even the Nazis included stricter safeguards when they first introduced euthanasia.

I was surprised to hear that there are many educated people who oppose this Act, despite being in support of euthanasia in theory. Their concerns are with this specific piece of legislation. That seems to me to be an important point we should take note of.

Elder abuse is already a massive problem here in New Zealand. Logically this would only make that worse. 

Will doctors always do exactly what this law stipulates, and always respect their patient's wishes? Will this provide choice for some and protection for everyone? I personally know people who gave medical professionals specific requests about their care, only to have those blatantly ignored and the opposite thing done. I also know someone who was offered drugs to treat symptoms, but even on request was refused any further testing. No diagnosis has ever been provided. I have no reason to believe this law will be immune from similar problems.

Passing this legislation undermines all suicide prevention attempts. It sends the message that some people are less valuable and unworthy of life. There's no way of getting around that.

The more I research and consider, the more sickened I am by this piece of poorly-written legislation. These are just a few of the many reasons I'm voting NO to the End of Life Choice Act. 

Further Reading:

Lawyers for Vulnerable New Zealanders makes some great points and has a whole PDF of flaws available for download. 

Doctors Say No

Church and The Bible

Although I discussed this very thing with several people when level 3 and 4 restrictions were first announced, I held back from publishing anything here because I had other commitments I felt obligated to fulfill first. I now wonder if that was a bad idea and if I perhaps should've given up a meal or a couple hours sleep to scrape together enough time to publish something here.

Throughout most of my lifetime New Zealand Christians have experienced a great deal of freedom to worship. We could attend church services whenever and wherever we wanted. We had free access to Bibles, books, and other publications--both online and from our local Christian bookstore. We could study our Bibles at a cafe or public park without fear of serious repercussions.

I fear we allowed our liberty to become opportunity for the flesh. We allowed ourselves to be captivated by the world's entertainments, choosing it's frivolities over strengthening our spiritual lives. For how many years have we neglected prayer and left our Bibles untouched on the shelf, or unopened on our phones?

When laws were passed that directly attacked the God we claim to serve, we looked the other way and screamed "SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE!!" if anyone questioned our inaction. Yet, when the government instructed every church in the country to close its doors, we forgot all thought of separation and rushed to obey, cheering the decision as we did.

"And let us consider how to stir up one another to love and good works, not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another, and all the more as you see the Day drawing near." ~Hebrews 10:24-25

Doesn't the Bible also say to obey the government though? It does -- an important point -- but let's not forgot to check what else it says, or we risk running into problems. As my pastor has preached recently, it's important we learn Scripture in context and truly study it. Learning a single verse here and there leaves the door wide open for misinterpretation. In fact, right within its pages we learn that Satan tempted Jesus with Scripture by misapplying it.

"But Peter and the apostles answered, 'We must obey God rather than men." ~Acts 5:29

Modern Christians are quick to remind us that we can worship without a building. "Churches are empty, but so is the tomb," they say. At face value that seems like cute encouragement, but I'm not one to settle for face value. I got thinking about Bible heroes and wondered how their reasoning compared with ours today.

Remember Daniel? The one who got thrown into the lion's den and had plenty of books and Sunday School lessons written about him? The high officials of his day didn't like him and looked for ways to get him in trouble. They knew he prayed by a window three times a day, so they got the king to make a rule forbidding this for thirty days. I can just imagine today's Christians giving Daniel advice after he heard the news:

"Close the curtains before you pray!"

"Just pray in a closet or your bed or the bathroom! You can pray anywhere, it doesn't HAVE to be at the window!"

"Daniel, we're told to obey our authorities! And God can see your heart without you needing to say anything. And besides, it's only for thirty days! Just DO AS YOU'RE TOLD!"

But Daniel didn't do any of those things. Far from it. Daniel 6:10 tells us: "When Daniel knew that the document had been signed, he went to his house where he had windows in his upper chamber open toward Jerusalem. He got down on his knees three times a day and prayed and gave thanks before his God, as he had done previously." (Emphasis added.) Had Daniel behaved otherwise our Bible today may have been an entire book shorter, and we never would've had one of our favourite and heroic stories.

Paul, one of the most well-known New Testament writers was tortured and imprisoned for the faith. Just the other day I read how one group of people he visited begged him not to go to Jerusalem, but to stay with them instead so he could avoid imprisonment. If he had agreed not to preach, or at least not controversial things, he could've lived an easier life. And our New Testament would be a whole lot smaller. 

Moving forward, I'm curious to see how pastors will preach on many of these passages in Scripture. "These are cool stories but we should treat them as simply that. They don't really have anything to do with our lives today. Although the heroes of the faith risked their lives and reputations for Christ, that stuff was just for the past and has no relevance to us today. We should sit quietly in our homes and do exactly as we're told without ever questioning how legal, moral, or biblical the rules imposed on us are." (2 Timothy 3:16)

If we have reached a point where churches are inessential and merely social gatherings, then we're doing something wrong. Maybe we just need to repent of our rebellion and acknowledge that God's ways are truly higher than ours, or maybe we need to reconsider what church is even supposed to look like and how it should operate.

Spring Has Sprung

My Submission to the Select Committee on the Abortion Legislation Bill

I certainly won't claim to have the most well-written submission, but it is complete and as follows. :) 

I strongly and fully oppose the Abortion Legislation Bill.

New Zealand law should protect the weakest and most vulnerable members of our society, and this bill fails to do so in many ways.

Companies such as Tupperware supplying kitchen products and Stampin’ Up! supplying craft items allow clients to cancel orders in return for a full refund within several weeks of placement, in case clients change their mind. If we anticipate people changing their minds – and allow them to do so with no strings attached – with something so insignificant as an order for kitchen products or craft items, how much more should we require a “cooling off” period for a decision as big, important, and life-changing as abortion?

The Abortion Legislation Bill’s clause on conscientious objection is drastically insufficient. Requiring a doctor to have any involvement in a procedure violating his conscience is a blatant disregard for the doctor’s rights. And in fact, because the bill allows women to self-refer anyway, this requirement for doctors to be involved is nothing more than a completely unnecessary and brazen removal of the rights of our doctors.

New Zealand law acknowledges that persons less than 16 years of age are not mature enough to purchase alcohol, to obtain a marriage license, to drive a car, to vote, or even to purchase spray paint. It surely would be entirely contradictory to prohibit all of these things and at the same time allow minors to access abortion without restriction.

Advances in imaging technology allow us to witness the amazing intricacy of unborn children at earlier and earlier stages. We can see them move around, kick, suck their thumbs, and even clap their hands. To identify an unborn child’s sex by ultrasound obviously requires that certain body parts are formed! By only 12 weeks gestation all organs are in place and simply have to grow larger before birth. Liberalising our abortion law would completely disregard our increasing knowledge and understanding of a child’s development prior to birth.

Similarly, advancing medical technology brings viability to increasingly earlier ages. At present this means a child can survive outside the womb from around 20 weeks. If our law is to reflect this, we should prohibit late-term abortion entirely, a far cry from liberalising it as this bill proposes to do.  A live birth from 20 weeks gestation onward will both allow the woman to end the pregnancy and retain the child’s right to life.

In modern New Zealand society we are frequently reminded that we are not allowed to discriminate against people for any reason. Not because of race, gender, sexuality, or disability. Despite this, the Abortion Legislation Bill fails to include any form of protection from such discrimination. Are we to become like Iceland and abort almost all of our pre-born children with Down’s Syndrome? Surely this is a violation of disability rights. Are we happy to allow New Zealand parents to abort their daughter simply because they wanted a son? This is the height of gender inequality.

As a former foetus, a woman, and a New Zealand citizen I stand fully opposed to the Abortion Legislation Bill. Let us be a society and a nation that values and protects every human life.

Why I Oppose the End of Life Choice Bill

Euthanasia and assisted suicide have been hot topics of discussion here in New Zealand for a while now, with the debate heating up over the last few weeks as we anticipate a vote in parliament tomorrow night on Seymour's End of Life Choice Bill. I am grateful to have had the opportunity to learn about the proposed legislative changes from a number of people with relevant experience and qualifications, and from David Seymour himself. I strongly oppose this bill for many reasons, some of which I have outlined below.

You can't have a law that affects only a few people -- that isn't the way national law works. Advocates of this legislation often say: "Well, you might not want euthanasia, but can't we just have it for a few people?" No, you can't. New Zealand laws don't apply just to the people who want, like, or agree with them, they apply to everyone in our country.

This legislation would make euthanasia and assisted suicide just another form of acceptable healthcare in New Zealand. I don't know about you but if I'm discussing my treatment options with a doctor I don't expect him or her to list deliberate death as one of my options! Additionally, if you arrive in hospital and neither you nor anyone close to you is able to make decisions about your healthcare (e.g. you are unconscious and no family members can be reached) doctors will do what they believe is in your best interests. Do you really want euthanasia to be one of the options they can choose from?

A law such as this would completely undermine the work of all suicide prevention programs. It would proclaim that only some people are worthy of life and that others would be better off dead. That is certainly not the message we want to send to vulnerable New Zealanders; to our disabled, our elderly, or those struggling with mental illnesses. In fact, it is not a message we want to send to ANY New Zealanders. Such a message would encourage health professionals to fight harder for some of their patients' lives than others. It also would encourage the general population to view some members as more valuable than others. I thought our society was fighting for equality? 

We already have a problem with elder abuse and this can only compound that problem. Every year, over 2200 cases of elder abuse are reported in New Zealand, while an estimated 3/4 of cases go unreported. 79% of these cases involve psychological abuse which no doctor can accurately detect in the time available with patients.

Although this bill would make euthanasia and assisted suicide healthcare by law, doctors and other health professionals have been some of the most outspoken opponents! "Doctors are not necessary in the regulation or practice of assisted suicide. They are included only to provide a cloak of medical legitimacy. Leave doctors to focus on saving lives and providing real care to the dying." Dr Donnelly states in Doctors Say No: An Open Letter to All New Zealanders which has 1103 signatures from New Zealand doctors at the time of this writing, while proponents of the bill have managed only 17 signatures on their Doctors Say Yes letter. Additionally, the only doctors who can face legal trouble under this bill are the ones who want no part in either euthanasia or assisted suicide. The only people this bill really protects are doctors who issue the so-called treatment, regardless of whether or not they followed the "required" procedures.

Other countries that have already legalised such practices with similar legislation have disastrous stories to tell of the consequences. The so-called "safeguards" are drastically insufficient to effectively protect vulnerable people. Minors are being euthanised, people are being euthanised against their will, and insurance companies are refusing to fund real care; Even in cases where they approved requests prior to legalisation of euthanasia they are withdrawing that approval saying they will fund euthanasia, but not treatment. Many people around the world are telling us not to make the terrible mistake they did. In fact, even those who advocated and signed for similar bills now wish they had not.

In the interest of time I will wrap up this post although there is a lot more I could say. The more I have learned the greater my opposition has grown. The introduction of such legislation would bring a seismic shift to the expectation and the nature of healthcare in New Zealand and have disastrous consequences on our society. I hope and pray that MPs have done their own research and will involve their consciences in tomorrow night's conscience vote on the End of Life Choice Bill.

Sources:

http://www.superseniors.msd.govt.nz/elder-abuse/

http://doctorssayno.nz/

http://www.legislation.govt.nz/bill/member/2017/0269/latest/DLM7285905.html

https://cdn-flightdec.userfirst.co.nz/uploads/sites/yestodignity/files/PDFs__Files/2019/Drs_say_YES.pdf

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/oct/20/assisted-suicide-law-prompts-insurance-company-den/?fbclid=IwAR1nCgxx0ZOnAbn4pL6b6ICn3XwhiGPjvQI-ZoK9VBzPO3aEzU8oxzK4yWs

https://www.dailywire.com/news/34014/netherlands-elderly-woman-forcibly-euthanized-paul-bois

Are You In the Same Place I Was? || Event Highlight

Growing up in the modern world, I heard the terms "pro-life" and "pro-choice" from time to time, but for many years I had little idea what they meant. I'm accustomed to viewing choice as a good thing -- how boring would a restaurant be if it served only one dish? -- and life, well, without it we can't make any choices! Clearly though, the two terms represent opposing viewpoints and so I had to dig a little deeper to uncover their real connotations. 

Later, I didn't know what abortion was, but somehow related it to the anti-family violence campaigns that published on TV, billboards, and bus stops. How was it fair to bring a child into such situations? I wondered.

Slowly but surely I found answers to my questions, and I wanted to get involved. Only problem, the links I found were all based in America! There must be people running similar organisations in New Zealand . . . hmm.

Whether you're curious about what the pro-life movement is and stands for, what we're doing, wish you could articulate your own opinion more clearly, or are ready to get involved and wondering how, this event is for you! 

Next Saturday, February 2nd 2019 come along to hear some awesome speakers from around New Zealand, eat some great food, and make some new friends. Lunch and dinner are both included, and the entire event costs $15 -- less than a restaurant meal!

Be sure to book here for catering purposes. :) 

I look forward to seeing you there!

End of Life Choice Bill Public Meeting || My Thoughts

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. 

Uncle Richard & Cynthia Visit NZ

Earlier this year our cousin Cynthia came to New Zealand for this first time with her dad. It's been 12 years since we all visited Australia and there were only half as many of us then ;P So the little people were excited to meet her for the first time, and the older ones were looking forward to catching up after so long!

I'm blaming the lack of photos on phone problems *cough*. They were in the country for two weeks and we all enjoyed the catch-up. :)

: : Traditional NZ fare ;P : :

Walking in the Karangahake Gorge || Part 1

In April of this year, my Mum's youngest brother tied the knot, causing the first family reunion in about 19 years. My Uncle Richard and cousin Grace came from Aussie a couple weeks prior so we would have time to catch up aside from wedding bustle. The last (actually, only) time Grace and I have met was 10(!) years ago, when my family visited Aussie. Uncle Richard was in NZ only (haha) about eight years ago. So yeah, it had been a while but it was great to catch up again. {Miss ya Gracie, come back soon!!! :'( <3}

Easter Monday obliged us by appearing on the calendar only a couple of days after their arrival, so we all headed down to explore the Karangahake Gorge.

: : Checking the map + getting ready to walk : :
Lots of cousins. Plenty more missing too :P

: : Crossing the first swing bridge : :

: : Danielle : :

: : Loving all the ferns + tree ferns : :

: : Hey, look Kayger, a photo of me :P haha : :
{Thanks Aunty Yvonne!}

: : Uncle Paul + Aunty Yvonne : :

I Voted!

And because I'm stink and don't feel like writing the amazing election post I thought about writing . . . I'm just going to link to an article about why you should vote. It's by a homeschool graduate (albeit American . . . sorry lol). Read it here.

Welcome!

HI!

Welcome to my blog.
I am Bianca Marietta Jago, age 13yrs.
I live in Auckland, New Zealand.

Hopefully i can keep this up to date, so you can all see what i am doing, since i don't often get around to writing letters at the moment.

See ya,
Bee