Where Does Meaning Meet?

A packed hall in Orewa last night had a really good airing of the issues around the End of Life Choice Bill. On a dirty evening there was an excellent turnout of locals - and probably a few carpet-baggers from adjacent electorates - and a top-line national panel of speakers for and against. The audience gave them frequent but not especially enthusiastic applause.

There were questions from the floor for a full hour but, as with the panel speakers, no new ground was broken. There are no new insights into the issue on either side.

I was reminded of the two housewives (this story must have come from the 1950s!) who used to argue the big issues of life across the fence between their two properties. They could never come to any agreement on whatever they discussed because they were arguing from different premisses.

That's the problem with the End of Life Choice discussion. Both sides start from totally different understandings of the meaning of life, death, compassion, and, especially, palliative care. Both even use language that is exclusive to their own side and not acceptable to the other.

It's great that there was such a good audience last night. I hope that many of them came without the strong prejudices held by some of us who have grappled with the issues for years. Perhaps last night's newbies to the discussion can make more dispassionate evaluation of the issues on both sides. If that is taking place around our community, the meeting must be considered a great success.