Argument weak? Shout lies more loudly!

Ken Orr, of the NZ Right to Life group, yesterday issued a new media release that I find deeply offensive.

He claims that those of us who support anything called Physician Assisted Dying or Voluntary Euthanasia are in fact proposing that suicide pills be issued to all 70 year olds. He has obviously not read the suggested Bill.

Part of my submission to the Committee on this issue has to do with encouraging them to concentrate on the proposal, not on twisted, perverted, imagined outcomes.

My predecessor at the Dunedin Methodist Mission, in the 1950s had regular "Wayside Pulpit" posters outside the Mission.  One that was still remembered by a member of my staff in the 1970s, was "Mud Slung is Ground Lost"...

Let's have a debate by all means. But, please, let's stick to the issues.

The Debate Must Go On

The Parliamentary Select Committee on Health has released the terms of reference for its hearing of the issues around End of Life Choice. Submissions close in February 2016.

On the one hand, that gives everyone plenty of time to prepare statements. On the other, it moves the whole process further away in a distant future.

Furthermore, no Government has to take notice of a Select Committee. The matter will be investigated and a report produced. And that could be where it all ends. Both of the major political parties are aware that at least 30% of the country's voters do not yet support changing the law. There is too much to lose for the politicians on both sides to be enthusiastic about a debate that comes down to an actual vote on whether or not Physician Assisted Death will become a reality.

An promising feature is that the terms of reference state the Committee is to "fully understand public attitudes". A significant shift in reported public attitudes could well be prompted by publicity attached to the Select Committee submissions process. So a vigorous debate needs to continue now. Supporters of End of Life Choice must not leave the debate to the Committee. And they need to enlighten this debate by personal experiences. Some of us who have terminal cancer have to allow our stories to become public property. 

Tomorrow, Bev and I sit down again with our Oncologist and discuss the option of a fairly new chemotherapy, Abiraterone, and its vague promise of an "average of 4.6 extra months" of life.

It doesn't sound like much of an option. But, perhaps, if I am currently good for two or three years and Abiraterone could push that out a further, say, six or seven months, I could even be in the Parliamentary public gallery when the law is changed.

Sooner or later, with or without my presence, it will be.