End-of-Life Choice and end of Voluntary Euthanasia Society

A quick AGM yesterday disposed of the name with which most of us have been a little uncomfortable for some time. The word "euthanasia" seems to be a turn-off for a lot of people. So, what used to be the Voluntary Euthanasia Society of New Zealand is now to be known as End-of-Life Choice. With hyphens.
The Committee is the same, the objective is the same, but we have chosen to eliminate an unsatisfactory expression.
Ironically the guest speaker in the afternoon public session. Dr Jan Bernheim, used the word "euthanasia" liberally and without qualification. But his fascinating talk made it clear that Belgium has moved far beyond our sensitivities around the use of the word. And they have certainly moved far beyond our tentative reaching out for some new practice that will express the growing concern for suffering people to have some choice about the ending of their life.
Before 2002 Belgium did not have the highly developed hospice movement that has made such a different to the quality of death for some decades in this country. But when they did address the issue of dealing with the last stages of life they had the opportunity to include a style of what they cheerfully call "euthanasia" along with a wide range of palliative care.
This linking of palliative care with doctor-assisted-death delights me. I've been feeling for some time that the body that is already dedicated to dignity in dying is the body that should embrace the opportunity to carry its objectives out to the full. Hospice, far from railing against physician-assisted-death, should be the organisation that develops a compassionate philosophy of patient choice about life's ending and introduces practical opportunities for that choice to be exercised.
When former Prime Minister John Key said "NZ doesn't need voluntary euthanasia because we have Hospice" he demonstrated a total misunderstanding of both and uttered a forgivable lie. When Hospice says NZ doesn't need any kind of doctor-assisted death, they also are fumbling with the truth. Worse, they are denying their organisation the opportunity to take a great step forward in their own mission of improving the ending of our lives.

South African Decision

9th May
I see that today's NZ Herald has published the news about the South African High Court decision about physician assisted death.
Well, friends, you read it here first! Here's my post of 5th May.
Incidentally, I hope you're all signing the VES petition - it's only asking the government to "fully investigate public attitudes". That's hardly a controversial proposal, surely!

5th May
The South African High Court has ruled that a cancer sufferer should be permitted to seek an assisted death without the doctor concerned being charged with any crime.

There is a touching little link with New Zealand. The applicant,  Robin Stransham-Ford, was a high court advocate in South Africa and he said that when New Zealander Sean Davison was in trouble with the law over his mother's assisted death, lawyers in South Africa said nothing. Stransham-Ford said that when his prostate cancer became terminal, he saw his application to the court as a way of making amends for remaining silent.

Ironically, it is reported that Robin  died of natural causes on the very day his application was granted.

The Voluntary Euthanasia Society of NZ has been given leave to be associated with a similar application which will be made to the NZ Court on 25th May by Lecretia Seales. As in the South African case, this application, if it is granted, will apply only to her. But a precedent of a kind will be created.

I am going to send a donation to the fighting fund for this application. And spending most of today on yet another hospital procedure in connection with my prostate cancer I hope very much that it will be successful. It will not change the law, but it will prod a disgracefully disinterested Parliament into at least taking the issue seriously.

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.