Same old same old arguments...

As we continue in a prolonged period of waiting while the Justice Committee of Parliament hears all the same old arguments all over again, the following is a refreshing and hopeful statement.

“The laws that authorize medical aid in dying have worked exactly as intended, the evidence shows. They have benefited dying patients and their families without causing any harm to anyone.
“None of the problems that were expected by opponents have emerged. There is no
disproportionate effect on vulnerable populations, no evidence of a slippery slope.”

The writer was David C. Leven, executive director emeritus and a senior consultant to End of Life Choices New York, in a letter to the New York Times on June 20, words our MPs should bear in mind as they consider the Bill before Parliament.

This and other relevant matters are fully discussed in the current newsletter of the End-of-Life Choice Society. But also discussed are the tactics of some of the opposition such as Catholic Bishops who have "inspired fear and loathing with puerile lies that people with asthma, arthritis and gluten intolerance would be euthanized."

MP Maggie Barry is one who has swallowed this kind of line. At the recent E.O.L.C  hearing I quoted the 75-85% of kiwis who supported some change in the law and she responded with a lecture on the unreliability of national polls because the pollsters could skew them to get the results they wanted. And what about the 3% or 4% margin of error? she said. My parting shot was that a margin of error of 20% would still leave a substantial majority in favour of change. And she is co-Chair of the Justice Committee hearing submissions. When prejudice and statistical ignorance enters this kind of discussion, truth is hard to establish.

Another point in the newsletter is that the likelihood of a majority of 61 being secured by March next year is by no means assured. An analysis of the current likely voting is very interesting, but worrying. The opposition has massive organisation and funding and can be expected to mount a major PR campaign before the Parliament actually votes.

All this lends weight to a point a made in my submission (see June 19), to the effect that the lack of this kind of law change is likely to result in my taking into my own hands what is necessary to deal with unbearable and untreatable pain.