That Bill Again

The Justice Committee is having some of their work done for them.
It was always on the cards that some changes would need to be made in the Bill. But its sponsor, David Seymour MP, has sent a 77 pg document to the Committee suggesting changes.
His summary is that the Committee should amend the Bill to provide for:

• a binding referendum at the General Election after the Bill has been passed by Parliament

• amending the eligibility criteria to limit eligibility to terminal illness, not other "irremediable" conditions

• stating clearly that access to assisted dying for people cannot be by reason of mental health conditions and disabilities only

• incorporating the Access to Palliative Care Bill sponsored by Maggie Barry MP.

David also also suggests amendments to clarify the role and protection of pharmacists, nurses, and medical practitioners, the purpose of the SCENZ Group, the register, and the issues of advanced directives, insurance, and suggests providing for the issuing of delay certificates for a person who is eligible for assisted dying but wishes to change the timing of administration.

It seems a remote possibility that Maggie ("Tea Lady") Barry will be pleased to have her alternative proposal incorporated into the End of Life Choice Bill. That's an olive branch that is probably dead on the tree.
Otherwise, David's paper is a comprehensive review of his own Bill and seems to accommodate a large number of the major concerns that have been raised in submissions and public meetings. Let's hope it moves the whole discussion forward. The Committee is to report in March. 

Words Matter

I've lodged a complaint with TVNZ about the use of the term "euthanasia" to describe the End of Life Choice Bill.
I believe the use of the word contravenes three broadcasting standards:
1. Balance:
The word "Euthanasia" is universally and deliberately used by opponents to the Bill and is offensive to those who support it. It is emotively loaded with visions of shooting a sick  horse. No alternative word was used at any time on at least two formal programmes on TVNZ a couple of weeks ago.
2. Accuracy:
The word is simply not accurate to describe the Bill. In fact the word doesn't appear once in the Bill.
3.  Fairness: 
Because the word is used, deliberately and incorrectly, by the opponents of the Bill its use in the public media in respect of the Bill is demonstrably and obvious unfair to the Bill and the 70% of the population who support the general principles. It is pejorative and  judgmental.

UPDATE 15 Feb 2018
PS While I was away TVNZ took  six or eight pages to tell me I was wrong on all counts. But I sense that part of the issue has at least been reconsidered. I hope that helps. 

A conscience vote?

It's been interesting for me to note that half a dozen NZ parliamentarians and candidates at a semi-public meeting all announced that their intention for the End of Life Choice Bill was to vote "according to the wishes of my electorate".

It was as though a "conscience" vote was something they were not prepared to make. I suggested to our local MP (who was at the time "undecided")  that I would rather have his vote "in good conscience" against the Bill than have him go into the debate still vacillating.

But, actually, I didn't think too much about the issues. A "conscience" vote is not just a vote for one's own personal opinions and beliefs. For instance, We saw many MPs vote for the First Reading of the Bill although their personal inclinations were against it. They were taking the attitude that at least the Bill deserved a thorough hearing from a competent Committee before being thrown out by Parliament. That was a responsible act and I told my MP so.

When the next Readings of the Bill come along I would like to see a few MPs paying less attention to their own views than to the good of the country as a whole. I hope that some swinging MPs and even some who have decided to oppose the Bill might, in conscience, pay enough attention to the negative aspects of end of life as it is for many people at present that they might even vote for the Bill against their personal convictions. I'd like them to say "I do not want the personal choice of a different end of life for myself" but my "conscience" tells me I should vote for the Bill to give others the choice.

So personal views and opinions are not the whole of a "conscience" vote. It must also include consideration of more issues than just personal ones. It must include the understanding that the conscience of an MP has to do with making decisions for the good of the greatest number of the population. Even against one's own personal beliefs.

When this Bill comes back to the House MPs will be free to vote according to their consciences. Hopefully, the consciences of some will remind them they are voting for the whole population, not just the promotion of their own beliefs.

Rodney Voters - Where were You?

A few months ago, New Zealanders polled about 75% in favour of a change in the law so that a suffering, dying patient could ask for medical help to shorten one's last days. By far the larger proportion of the NZ population appear to want to have personal Choice at the end.

However, when the Justice Committee of Parliament called for submissions on the End of Choice Bill that would make this possible, some 85% of "submissions" were opposed to any change in the law. Some members of the Justice Committee such as Maggie Barry believe that is the correct figure for the whole population. Again and again she has that declared 85% of NZ is against any change.
Rodney friends: did you offer your views, even to a very brief  note: "I am in favour of the proposed Bill"

When Mark Mitchell called a public meeting to debate the issues in our electorate last year there was an informal vote taken on the principle. The Bill was marginally defeated on the numbers attending. This has been pretty common in such meetings throughout the country.  Some politicians could take this to mean that more than half of us in their electorates do not want change!
Rodney sympathisers, how many of you were there that night? How many of you felt that vote was meaningful?

When I've made the fairly obvious point that the opposition by submitters and attenders did not seem to represent the mind of the community as a whole, I've been told that Parliament has to listen to the groups who make the strongest case.
Rodney voters, do you think Government should legislate mainly for the group that writes the largest number of one-line submissions on the instructions of their church leaders?

I don't think so. I am disappointed that so many of us who would like to see a change in the present law simply did not get off our bums to prepare submissions or show an interest in meetings. We just can't be bothered.

Well, friends, we can still write and talk to our MPs. At the end of the day every MP will have to vote on this issue. As a good electorate MP ours is always open to comments from Rodney voters.

If ever there was a time to write or say something to your MP, it is now.

Mark is at:  markmitchell@national.org.nz   or mp.rodney.parliament.govt.nz

The Embarrassing Church

I see that Auckland City Council, in reviewing its property rates is moving toward extending the concessions granted to churches and other religious groups.
I've said for years that people who have chosen to build a worship building should not expect to receive rates concessions for ever. I cannot see any reason why the state should give members of a religious persuasion this special concession.
But I was clearly against the trend. The ACC has been importuned by some denominations and individuals and is apparently proposing to extend rate-free privileges to a whole range of church properties that are not used only for worship, including properties let for financial reward, for fund-raising and even, would you believe,  the residences of church ministers.
This kind of subsidy of religion by the state leaves me very uncomfortable. I hope that the shouts of glee among Methodist Treasurers will be pretty subdued. Indeed, I challenge them to put this unexpected windfall in their accounts back into increased service of the disadvantaged in our communities.

It's been interesting to me that MP Maggie Barry has come under scrutiny for alleged bullying of her staff.
When I complained about her savagely biased attitude as deputy Chair of the Government's Committee on Justice such further accusations were not in my mind. But I am impressed that others have made the link between her bias and her general attitude, notably Graham Adams in Noted a day or two ago. His full article is really worth a quick read.
On reflection it's quite easy to recognise that her impolite treatment of the two lady submitters who preceded me back in July was not merely biassed but also much stronger and more deliberate that the occasion demanded. I think it's quite likely that they both felt bullied.
Well, the Committee has finished hearing submitters and it will be interesting to see if they have learned anything that was not already reported exhaustively and recorded by its predecessor. We all know how Maggie will vote. But will the Committee stand up to her forcibly expressed opinion?
Perhaps they should invite her to have a cup of tea...

(Regular readers of my blog will recall the incident recorded at the end of my post of 29 June)