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

Can A Christian Support Euthanasia?

About two years ago I was first properly introduced to the concepts of euthanasia and assisted dying. Since then I've learned a lot more about them; I've attended debates and speeches, and read material from both supporters and opponents. I've read the EOLC Act and polls showing the public's perception of it. I also have conversed with people, gaining a better understanding of their thoughts. I've found some things to be as I expected, but plenty has shocked me too. 

In truth I was convinced by secular reasoning to make space in my schedule for these topics and not leave them for someone else to deal with. I hope to share some of those soon, but right now I would like to focus on the Christian, biblical perspective.

I've been surprised by how often professing Christians have told me, "I'm not sure what I think about this." Particularly embedded in my memory is a conversation that included this acknowledgment from someone with a strong mission focus. To my shame I was too stunned to respond well, but I left pondering the irony of the situation and wondering what our thoughts had to do with it. Doing missions is about being an ambassador for Christ, something all Christians are called to do. If that is our focus, then shouldn't our question be, "What does He think about this?

"Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, God making his appeal through us. We implore you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God." ~ 2 Corinthians 5:20

Some of us will remember memorising all ten commandments during our childhoods, including the sixth: "thou shalt not kill." People fluent in the Hebrew language inform me that separate words are available for "kill" and "murder," as there are in English. This one would be correctly translated as "murder". But don't get too excited. The exceptions are self-defense, the death penalty, and war. An exception for "mercy killing" simply doesn't exist. 

But let's go right back to the beginning. In Genesis 1:27 we read: "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them." All the animals had been created already, and now mankind enters separately. All creation is pronounced "very good" but humanity alone is chosen to bear God's image. As such, human life holds special, inherent worth and value. Because we love God, we treat His image with respect. We don't harm or destroy it. And that goes for all lives; none are any less valuable than others and we don't discard anybody.

In many passages of Scripture we are called to love one another. One of the ways we do this is by bearing one another's burdens. We seek to alleviate and end suffering--not sufferers. We protect, support, and promote life. 

"The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy. I came that they may have life and have it abundantly." ~ John 10:10

Our Saviour came to give abundant life. Satan comes to steal, kill, and destroy. Would followers of Christ follow His example, or that of His and our greatest enemy?

There's a lot more that could and should be said, but for the sake of time I will wrap up here with one last point. God reserves for Himself the power to give and take life. He alone decides when it is our time to leave this earth and enter eternity. If we take that into our own hands we choose to serve ourselves instead of God and in doing so we proclaim that God is no longer God of our lives, but instead we are our own god. Serving anyone or anything above the God who created us is nothing short of idolatory. 

Culture may argue and change its mind every few years about what is acceptable and what isn't, but God isn't confused or indecisive about the truth and He makes it clear so that we don't need to be either. I'm thankful for that. 

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

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.