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.

Update of End of Life Choice

THE BILL
At the end of June the End of Life Choice Bill passed its Second Reading 70-50 but it was clear that quite a few Members voted only for it to be discussed for another few months rather than confirmed as Law. There were some moving speeches and an accepting atmosphere in other normal antagonistic House and the issue is by no means dead.
Already a dozen proposals have been formally lodged for amending it, and the sponsor, MP David Seymour himself has produced a 70 age document of changes he'd like to see made. The debate could be long drawn out around the few hours a month that are permitted for Private Member's Bills.
It has become apparent that the deluge of submissions made to the Justice Committee has been matched over recent weeks by pro forma emails being sent to MPs. The Society has asked us to give them a break which does seem to be reasonable. In some ways, everything that can be said has been said and we just have to wait out the parliamentary process.
QUEENSLAND?
It was interesting to hear that the Queensland parliament is hearing submissions on their bill and some 80% appear to be running in favour of Choice. What a contrast to the NZ position where 80% of submissions have been against. For a relatively conservative state it would seem Queensland's conservative component is not as well organised as its counterpart in this country.
ON A PERSONAL NOTE
The issue gets more and more personal for me as my health and comfort deteriorate. But we still have plans for an intimate family recognition of 60 years of marriage in November....

"You'll probably die of something else"

Here's another short video designed to encourage the usually apathetic majority to take to their computers and scribe a short letter to MPs in their region. It's just a whimsical reminder of the different ways in which one can die of prostate cancer. Having come off the cancer-controlling drugs I now have to reflect on the reality of a cancer death. But I think the video is still kinda cute and it at least deserves a spot in my blog.

A Fairy Story?

To mark the possible reappearance of the End of Life Choice Bill in Parliament next week, here's another in my series of short videos. I made these clips to entertain; but I also want them to prompt people to write to their MPs before it's too late. They need to hear the views of ordinary people before they vote. 

Consistent Poll Results

In April Horizon Research conducted a poll of 1300 representative New Zealanders on End of Life Choice. Consistent with most polls carried out in the past 25 years, the number of those resisting any change remains at less than 20%.
Those in favour of EOLC for terminal patients now number around 74% (up from 64% when Horizon ran their first poll in 2012)..
Of interest is that 65% also believe assisted dying should be available for people with "irreversible unbearable suffering which may not cause death in the immediate future". This is the category that the Green Party want to remove from the Draft Bill. Hopefully some accommodation can be reached on this issue when the finer points of the very complex Bill are debated. But first it has to get through the second Reading, to be held as early at 22 May but possibly not until June.  Private Members' Bills take low priority in the House.
I have been working on a short video to send personally to all MPs who appear to still be in the "undecided" category. Happily, this list is getting shorter week by week...

Clouding the Issue

As the Second Reading on May 22 creeps up it is clear that the those who are opposed to the End of Life Choice Bill are ramping up their claims. In this powerful article by Graham Adams, 1 May in NOTED. there are dramatic examples of the lengths to which the opposition is prepared to go. Do go to it and read the articles there. In the first Bill English's wife Dr Mary is charged with being involved in an entirely inappropriate meme on social media deliberately relating assisted death to youth suicide. The implication is, how wrong can you be, how low can you get.

It is depressing to be confronted with such specious arguments that the real issue is lost to sight. Only widespread action by ordinary voters can help the 50% of MPs who are in the "undecided" category to focus on what really matters.

Personally, now, all that is central to the issue for me is me. My cancer, no longer receiving treatment but left to take its not very congenial course. My possible last days are all the Bill sets out to deal with. It is if it is written for my particular and personal circumstances. Get your heads around that, you undecided MPs!

Sauce for the Goose

It's interesting that Israel Folau should be chucked out of the Brownies when he put some of his personal beliefs on social media and they are unacceptable to the bulk of the population.

But Maggie ("Tea Lady") Barry continues as a member of the National Party when she not only declares her beliefs about heaven, hell and, particularly, what she calls "killing" but evangelically tries to bludgeon the general population into acting on those same beliefs when they don't actually share them.

At least Folau is true to his religious convictions and doesn't cheat, lie or misrepresent facts just to win converts.

MFC1 DSM Huge rise in PSA

Maggie "Tea Lady" Barry and the Catholics

What a comprehensive condemnation of the insidious role of the Catholic Church in the End of Life Choice debate is Graham Adams' article "Why the Catholic Church Hides its Face" in NOTED on 3 April!
His thorough research and careful writing reveal the length to which the Church has gone to - and is going to - to persuade the general population to accept their "flat earth" theology and dehumanising beliefs about living and dying.
It is not surprising that the Church, in begging its parishioners to make submissions against the Bill, told them not to mention that they are Catholic. It is not surprising that the Church, in the context of its current international reputation vis a vis ethical and moral issues, is reluctant to hold up its head and make its own case. It is not surprising that the bunch of old men at the head of the Church do not wish to face up to the scrutiny of the public news media.
But it was a surprise to me that the "Care Alliance" which seems to represent Catholic beliefs, was set up by none other than Maggie ("Tea Lady") Barry and John Kleinsman, a lay spokesman for the Catholic Council of Bishops. No wonder the former sees herself as chosen of God to represent His cause at all costs of truth and integrity...
All this and more is revealed in Adams' article, together with his rejection of the Catholic doctrines of life, death, suffering and the role of the Church. It's a fascinating read and explains the absolutely intractable position of official Catholicism.

Adams ends:

However, someone who believes assisted dying is murder; that only God can interrupt a human life; and that suffering is a path to salvation is never going to agree to any change in the law, no matter how many safeguards are set up or how much evidence from other jurisdictions shows the practice is safe or free of abuse — as it overwhelmingly does.

Thank you!

Nearly half a century ago I was involved in some discussion with a staff member of the Dunedin Medical School. There was a growing awareness that mere academic achievement was not the only quality that should be expected of incoming medical students. Having done extensive research in the criteria for selecting candidates for church ministry, I had the opportunity of suggesting to my medical friend that both professions required a high and demonstrable level of interpersonal relations. Perhaps especially among theological or medical specialists, who sometimes appeared to lack the "bedside manner" of the family GP or local minister. I know he took these thoughts to back to the Medical School.
As we have been concluding a five year relationship with the cancer experts at Greenlane Clinical Centre Bev and I have both been discussing the quality of care they have delivered to us.
We have to say that throughout this journey we have been treated with the greatest professional courtesy and yet also significant personal warmth.  We have never been "talked down" to. We have never picked up any hint that we were perhaps taking too much of their time - even when we might have been. We have had many laughs and shared quite a few jokes. My attempts at personal interest in my circumstances have always been meticulously respected - even when sometimes I didn't really know what I was talking about. And my concerns for end of life choice were always heard with sympathy if not outright enthusiasm. Most importantly, all decisions about my medical journey were made in a context of mutual discussion and consensus.
And when they determined that it would be reasonable for me to go onto the very expensive drug Abiraterone (which had recently come onto the free list for 600 men) and I was uncomfortable with the country putting that much money into an old man nobody insisted that I must accept it.
But our consultant said "If this drug could could give you one more year of good quality of life, what could you do with that? He had been reading "me", not just my "case". He knew that there were worthwhile  things I could do and that I would like to them. It was a challenge I could not turn down.
Now, eighteen months later, the drug has run its course and has been stopped. But I can look back on a number of significant projects that I carried through in answer to that challenge. And although I am much more at the mercy of the disease as it will now take its more rapid course, I can only say that I am deeply grateful for the opportunities of these last couple of years. And I have some hope for any time yet to come.
And for the whole five years of careful, warm, "professional" ministry by those whom we have met month by month, we offer our warmest thanks. In the confusion and concern in the public health sector at the present time, we want them to know that their efforts on our behalf are deeply, deeply appreciated. Thank you, all.