A Moral Example?

As one who for most of his working life was heavily involved in church administration of one kind and another, I feel for our sister Church Leaders who are receiving devastating publicity all around the world for past behaviour among some of their agents. With their leaders, I regret that such actions were often covered over by the religious hierarchy. Only a very authoritative regime could survive the public odium currently in the air. Many another less organised religious community has fallen over for much less public disfavour or ridicule. It must be galling to have to swallow so much humble pie at once.

Given these difficulties for the Roman Catholic community, how is it that their leaders in this country can feel they have the moral authority to project their theological and ethical views on the whole of society in another area of human behaviour?

• It is an open secret that Catholic parishioners were instructed by the Bishops to write to both the recent Parliamentary Committees hearing submissions on End of Life issues.
• It is also known that the bishops also urged their people not to admit to being Catholic because the Church's image in the community is not too hot (Now there's a funny thing....).
• And it is on the public record that the current Justice Committee received around 27,000 submissions that were not much more than a name and an address and a sentence such as "I am not in favour of the End of Life Choice Bill". 

As if this attempt to manipulate the Hearings process is not enough, statistically ignorant people like MP Maggie Barry can reiterate in public again and again that this expression of opinion - devoid of any argument - means that 85% of people in New Zealand are "against the proposed Law."

How can they make such a claim? Will Parliament go along with this astonishing analysis? I'm no statistical whiz but I know that you cannot draw conclusions about the wishes of any population from a self-selected group who may have an axe to grind and want to lay their views on everyone else.

The fact is that the population has spoken. Every professionally conducted poll in this country for decades has produced a majority of respondents in favour of some form of Medical Aid in Dying. The latest was around 76% in favour.

The proposed Bill is not perfect but it is a cautious step forward. Anyone who wants to express doubts about it should read the wording before commenting. And Parliament should get on with doing the best it can for the majority. All we ask for is the one thing conservative churchmen and others are at great pains to deny us: CHOICE.

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.

Justice in the Justice Committee?

A few minutes ago, Dr Jack Havill, the former President of End-of-Life Choice, when making his submission to members of the Justice Committee at a Hearing in Hamilton added these extraordinary and unconventional comments:-

"The second part of  this submission may seem very unusual.

It is a complaint about the Deputy Chair of the Justice Select Committee. I have spoken to many New Zealanders and they cannot understand why, as the Deputy Chair of the Selection Committee, hearing oral submissions on the (End of Life Choice) Bill, the Honourable Maggie Barry should show her bias so publicly and indeed spend much of her time campaigning at public meetings against medical aid in dying.

This seems to the average member of the public as totally unfair, especially as she has also been aggressive to actual submitters while giving (their) oral submission.

We do not maintain that she should not have opinions against the Bill, but we expect her to act impartially in her role as Deputy Chair, and to consider evidence which support MAID in a reasonable manner.

She has been bringing the process into dispute.

Our opinion is that she should resign from the position as Deputy Chair because she is heavily compromised."

I have already indicated in this blog that I was deeply concerned at Maggie Barry's attitude in the Hearing which I attended on 29 June. From this brief experience, and seeing her speaking publicly in opposition to the Bill I can only endorse Dr Havill's concern. 

I observed submitters in favour of the Bill being subjected to aggressive questioning, to denials that their submissions could be true, and to lectures on the other side of the issue. One submitter was subjected to just plain rudeness while making a strongly felt submission; she suddenly found that the Chair of the Day had left her seat and walked some distance away to make herself a cup of tea.

I believe the Speaker of the House has been approached about the apparent conflict of interest. I understand he was given the astonishing reply that there is no Code of Conduct set down for the conduct of Parliamentary Hearings. Members are not, apparently, even expected to maintain a show of impartiality. That is certainly how the Auckland Hearing was conducted on Friday 29 June.

I suggest that in the interest of the “fair play” that we in this country pride ourselves upon that Ms Barry either immediately recuse herself as a Hearer or else cease offering her opinions on any public stage.

She cannot have it both ways. She must choose. Either decision could be a simple action that would restore some show of integrity to the Parliamentary Select Committee on Justice.

And I hope that she makes this choice before speaking against the Bill at a public meeting called by our MP Mark Mitchell, to be held in Orewa on Tuesday 21st. I will be there and I hope a good crowd of fair-minded locals will turn out – on both sides of the argument – to engage together in a congenial and democratic process of exploring the issues.

Ca Pros Update

It's been a fairly frenetic few weeks for this household, but the medical report is that the substantial pains emanating from the cancer in my spine in June have been abated by five targeted bursts of radiation. Apart from (almost inevitable) tummy upsets and some unrelated pain in my left ankle I've had a really good run in the last three or four weeks.

After all the stress of making a submission to the  Parliamentary Select Committee on Justice I thought it would be easy enough to chat to the local reporter of the Rodney Times. But the whole of the front cover and two inside pages devoted to her report was a surprise. And to be told by someone I'd never met that the interview and a video involving both Bev and me had gone up on the national news carrier Stuff was much more of a surprise. Do look at it - it's Bev's first venture on public media. Both the video and the text have created a lot of interest just at the time our local MP is hosting a first public forum to debate the issues.

And guess what? The MP whose lack of impartiality I have roundly criticised is billed to speak against the Bill on which, as deputy Chair of the Parliamentary Select Committee on Justice, she is supposed to be conducting unbiased Hearings. I discussed this shameful conflict of interest with the reporter and it's going to be the subject of a further news release involving other people who were more affected than I was.

In the middle of all this stuff we've had some pleasant drives in the country and have had the Leaf's annual service for some 9000kms done for $54. And that's including a wheel rotation that I ordered. This particular EV is definitely not heavy on the family purse... and giving us a great deal of pleasure at a somewhat critical time in our lives.

Now Bev has reminded me about a bread mixture I put in the machine after breakfast and I have no idea when I started it... I'd better go and see what to make of it. It looks like this loaf may get a double rising...  And as soon as that's done we're heading out for a drive for less than the cost of a cup of coffee.  Of course, somewhere, we'll buy two coffees and share a piece of cake.