A Shot Across the Bow?

1 August
The first debate was held last night. David Seymour's Supplementary Order paper limiting the bill to people who are "terminal" was  not unexpected but very sad. In the EOLC movement we have a number of people who have long-term irremediable conditions and might have hoped the bill could apply to them. The Green Party was not up to any kind of compromise, refusing to support the bill unless it was for terminal patients only. So, David and our supporters for EOL Choice have to accept that half a loaf is better than no bread, I guess. Anyway, the compromise was well received by the House.
A whole string of seemingly innocuous SOPs kept the House in session until 11.45pm.  One was that the definition of a psychiatrist should include five year's experience. Well, heck, you don't get to be a psychiatrist of any kind without an awful lot of experience. Each of these SOPs required a personal vote, some of which took nearly fifteen minutes. It looks already as if there is a deliberate attempt to slow the decision-making process down.
Next opportunity for debate is afternoon/evening of Wed 14 August.  Or maybe a week later, it seems.


29 July
Last Wednesday I was fascinated to hear the Speaker of the House read out a statement about how the debate for the End of Life Choice Bill would be handled.
He specially indicated that Part I of the debate would contain a few significant clauses which would, in effect, determine the substantive issue. No subsequent debate on what seems likely to be an extensive Bill would be able to contradict or undo an affirmative decision on the principles in Part 1.
He also provided a lot of detailed advice on the use of proxies, pointing out that if an MP was going to seek a proxy the member had better be sure how that person would vote.
I haven't ever heard such a specific and detailed statement of guidance from the Speaker. It looks as if he will manage a good debate and give fairly short shrift to Members who try to wear it down with unnecessary duplication and irrelevancies.

The Submission 2018

Today 29 June 2018, Bev and I attended the hearing of the Justice Selection Committee of Parliament on the End-of-life Choice Bill. It was a very mixed experience, but, for those who are interested and who missed the live stream, this is the text of my submission.

Introduction

I am David S Mullan, of Red Beach, retired Methodist Presbyter, 83. I have advanced prostate cancer. I desperately support this Bill.

1.        A Very Personal Issue

Hours after an unrelated surgery I experienced the most appalling tetany spasms. I felt as if every muscle between my shoulders and knees was tugging on the edge of the incision. I could neither move nor cry out.

I duly reported these agonising episodes to the medical staff but nobody commented.

·      If that kind of pain, even in short spasms while unconscious is what I might expect when this wretched disease overtakes me, I don’t want it.

·      If something like that is what broadcaster Andrew Denton described of his father’s death, I don’t want it.

My cancer is now compressing my spinal nerves. It is affecting my legs. I am being medicated for daily pain. I can expect to be progressively paralysed and eventually made helpless. My experience with the mysterious tetany spasms leads me to believe that I may be one of the 15% of Hospice patients whose pain is simply not able to be palliated.

I had hoped that this Bill might have become Law in time for me to choose to take an organised farewell of family and friends and depart this life in some dignity. That now seems unlikely.

I may therefore decide to become another statistic among older people who are ending our lives prematurely. We are being treated with disdain by Parliament when all we ask for is some dignity and choice.

It is ironic to me that the opponents of the Bill already have their choice. But people like myself who know they are at risk of a bad death do not have choice for a dignified end. For us, this is an issue of Human Rights.

I submit that Parliament must decide that Choice for some citizens should no longer mean No Choice for others.

2.        Religious Issues

As a Christian thinker, I am troubled that some religious people say that untreated pain is in itself a transformative experience, is “good for the soul”.

That kind of religious teaching must be for their people. To apply this principle to others in a secular and democratic society is, in my view, disrespectful—and tragically wrong. So, the attempts by some submitters to hide the identity of their church are, in my view, little short of deceitful.

I am a member of the Methodist Church which has a history of being vocal on social justice issues. But it has based its views on contemporary and well-considered theological considerations. And rather than opposing change, it has usually given a lead to the community in changes for the better. Even in my lifetime it has taken action on Pacifism, Apartheid, Prison Reform, Industrial Relations, Homosexual Law Reform and the whole range of gender and Human Rights issues right up to the acceptance of LGTB people in church leadership.

So I stand in a tradition which has tried to encourage the wider community to become more liberal rather than to scold it with antiquated theologies and some “biblical” principles that were conceived in a different world.

I speak from the experience of a working lifetime in pastoral care, social work and ministry formation. I have entered into the suffering of many who have died badly. I have worked with their pastors and their frustrations. Now I face my own journey into dark places and I sense that my country does not respect my need.

And I speak from the perspective of the Christian Jesus who ministered to the needs of the marginal people of society. He put their personal needs ahead of institutional respectability and tradition.

I submit that your Committee might also sit lightly to institutional religion and give priority to charity and compassion for all people.

Kia ora tatou katoa!

  

Dave Mullan

28/101 Red Beach Rd, Red Beachn 0932

+64 9 426 7562  +6421 159 2896

Notes

Although Hon Maggie Barry, as is her wont, made quite a few speeches on her own account, in the guise of asking questions of some submitters, at the end of the my submission, when I paused for questions, her first one was "Would you like a cup of tea?" I wasn't expecting that.  I must have made some impact. We then had some discussion about the merits - or otherwise - of the report of the original Committee and properly conducted opinion polls and that was that. 

Now the A.C.T.

The legislative assembly of the Australian Capital Territory has just opened an inquiry into End of Life Choices in the A.C.T.

With the example of Victoria before them, they seem to have moved smartly to follow suit, with a comprehensive terms of reference and a full year before they have to report.

Included in their terms of reference is the provision where Federal Government some years ago withdrew the right of States and Territories to write their own law on this matter. This was prompted by a Northern Territory decision to legalise voluntary euthanasia for its people. This Federal law will have to be overturned before progress can be made in any State or Territory - another big challenge for the movement.

However, in Australia, as in New Zealand, it is becoming clear that new law is no longer a matter of if, but when. The mood of our communities and the opinions of broad samples of our societies seem to be making that clear.

It is right that every jurisdiction should investigate its own needs thoroughly. If NZ is dragging its heels in what some see to be a liberal rush to respond to perceived community needs, let it be because the matter will be thoroughly and impartially investigated, not because some powerful minority groups are exercising undue influence in slowing down the decision-making.

DO NOT RESUSCITATE!

A few weeks ago our conscientious nursing staff announced that our Village had a new Automated External Defibrillator. Furthermore, it would be brought to every emergency call involving a collapse. If any of us did not want to be resuscitated in certain circumstances, we would have to provide a written record of our wishes. And we should also wear a Do Not Resuscitate tag.

I'd already been down this track with a wristband which I purchased (but don't normally wear, actually) so it was a simple matter to pick up a suitably inscribed dog tag and borrow a chain from Bev's collection. And I am wearing that all the time.

With total paralysis as a probable outcome of my journey with prostate cancer, I would welcome the opportunity of a substantial heart stoppage to let me go. "I mean it. Nurse. If  I've been out of it for some minutes, just keep that thing off me!"  What a way to outflank the opposition who are denying End-of-Life Choice for me and a few dozen others each year...

Well done, Victoria!

After a rumoured 100 hours of debate, both Houses of the Parliament of Victoria, Australia, have now adopted an End-of-Life Choice Bill to come into effect by 2019.

That's a huge result for this part of the world. Now we need to see how the David Seymour bill will go in the next Parliamentary term in New Zealand.

However, it is depressing to see the amount of discussion that this issue evokes. Even more depressing is that there is nothing new to be said. At a public meeting with our local electorate MP recently, I heard him trot out one or two of the risks associated with this kind of legislation as though they had never been considered. The meeting was Grey Power oldies and they didn't take too kindly to his naive and ill-informed comments.

But there was progress. A few months ago, he had declared on national TV that he hadn't made up his mind. At this meeting, when asked, he said that he had reached a point of view. As a lifelong Catholic, he was now personally against any form of shortening life. But, he said, he would "poll" his electorate when the Parliamentary vote was coming up and he would vote , not according to his conscience, but in the direction indicated by his constituents.

Funnily enough, that's exactly what every one of half a dozen candidates for Parliament said when asked for their personal views a few months ago by the same Grey Power members. But not one candidate described how they would organise this "poll". None assured us such a poll would be properly managed by a reputable profession firm. None even thought to mention that their poll would not be limited to members of their own party, or their own church or other easily accessible group. Sounds like a cop-out to me...

I'm pleased that our MP has now reached a point of conviction he can own up to in public. I don't share his view but I respect it. I certainly won't seek an audience with him to try to change his views.  And, personally, I would be happy for him to vote according to his conscience and not according to some mish-mash of a poll that might or might not represent the wide range of public opinion in any electorate.

I just want to see some action in response to the declared wishes of the vast majority of the population over several professionally managed opinion polls over a decade or more. Let's get on with the vote.

That TV1 News Item Last Week!

If blog readers happened  to miss last night's TV news item, here's the link, kindly provided by Political Reporter Katy Bradford, whose team made such a splendid job of the piece.

The broadcast ended a very busy week for Bev and me. We had at least two things on each day and there was some difficulty organising a date to do the camera work. Then it had to be cancelled because they couldn't get a camera. The wild storm over the whole of the country dominated the news for three or so days and the piece couldn't be aired until Friday.

And that day we were using our retirees Gold Card to bus and train right over to Penrose to pick up our cute five-years old all-electric Leaf. We walked back into the house, turned on the midday news and there was my face all over the intro piece. Happily, they found something better for the 6pm news.

But it was a privilege to have the opportunity to respond on behalf of End-of-Life Choice NZ. I wanted to support the view that we've heard all the arguments on both sides. It's now time for the Politicians to make up their minds and vote. David Seymour's bill popping up out of the ballot box a few weeks ago has made it an election issue  It's time has come.