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.

Lost Luggage?

I notice  my last post was on the whimsical side. I could easily write in a similar vein today but the subject is a lot more serious.

Parliament has started discussing a Private Member's Bill giving airports permission to manage their own lost luggage problems. This popped out of the Parliamentary ballot box recently. But David Seymour's Voluntary Euthanasia bill languishes there, perhaps for ever. Well, that's how the system works.

But it seems in bad taste for a grinning Prime Minister to be reported saying that his caucus supports the lost luggage bill. But I guess any old bill would do to fill up some debating time and to keep V E off the agenda.

Yes, it could be whimsical. But for many of us it's darn serious.

Make up your minds, parliamentarians!

Just back from the Auckland lecture by Dr Rob Jonquiere on the legalised regime for voluntary euthanasia in the Netherlands. What a breath of fresh air!
Quietly spoken but passionate, clear but deeply knowledgeable, he led us through the different cultural and legal contexts and explained the essential elements in the Dutch law and practice.
Euthanasia is still a crime on the statute books. But there is a specific exemption around a set of key criteria:  patient request in relation to "unbearable pain", and physician cooperation in the light of a "hopeless" condition. The process is enshrined in careful consultations and enjoys a thorough review mechanism.
In particular, Dr Rob drew attention to their emphasis on "ending suffering" rather than "ending life because of terminal illness" as was recently proposed for New Zealand.
So far, no Parliamentarian has agreed to hold up the flag for even this very basic proposal. The government of the day is clearly too conservative. The opposition prefers to concentrate on "the economy" rather than the plight of those suffering in terminal illness.
The stance on both sides of the House is profoundly ironic: my local hospice is canvassing for donations to pay up to $1000 a treatment for patients with unbearable pain. They have to beg in this way because this drug is not funded by Pharmac.
Make up your minds, parliamentarians:  either authorise additional funding to ease the suffering of those who are trapped in pain because of your misplaced sense of priorities or get a re-drafted End of Life Choice Bill into discussion with some urgency.

End of Life Choice? - What choice?

Ian Lees-Galloway

So Labour Leader Andrew Little has "told" Ian Lees-Galloway that he is not to put his private member's End of Life Choice bill back into the parliamentary Ballot Box.

I was not unsympathetic to the decision made that the EOLC bill be withdrawn last year so that it did not become an election issue. That was understandable - to a degree. But I am now deeply disappointed that the party leader who is trying to convince the electorate that Labour is still "socially progressive" is not able to at least permit one of his members to give the draft bill a chance of gaining legislaters' attention.

It is reasonable that a private member's bill be given a certain amount of scrutiny by a party leader before the individual takes the plunge. It is understandable that promoting such a bill will draw off some of the energies of the member concerned. But the airy dismissal of this issue as a controversy that does not warrant consideration "at this time" because of Labour's political predicaments is frustrating for two reasons.

The EOLC Bill is already favoured in some form or other in opinion polls. And a huge amount of promotional work has been done and will continue to be done using energies outside of Mr Lees-Galloway's own resources. If the bill is put back into the ballot, and is actually drawn, there is no doubt that the issue will at least receive serious consideration.
Andrew Little apparently stated (disparagingly?) that this "stuff on euthanasia" is not timely for a progressive party.

In what I interpret as a dismissive and ill-considered decision I think he has made a profound misjudgment of both the issue and the mood of the electorate. Both deserve better from an aspiring Prime Minister. I suggest that the test for him now is whether or not he is able to reconsider this unfortunate and inappropriate decision.