Not a member? Join now »
Welcome to our news page. Please note: you must be a member and logged in to leave comments.
The experiences shared in this report are as harrowing as anything I have encountered as a Member of Parliament. I have had two bouts of cancer and am no stranger to the nastiness of the disease and its treatments, but nothing prepared me for the horror of what is described here.
In 2019 British people are being forced to endure unbelievable suffering at the end of life. Some will retch at the stench of their own body rotting. Some will vomit their own faeces. Some will suffocate, slowly, inexorably, over several days, their last moments of life disfigured by terror. Any one of us might suffer such a fate.
[This is also happening in New Zealand.]
Read more here »
This is a film about a film. Fatal Fraud is a case study about techniques used by opponents against evidence-based public policy initiatives. In this film, Andrew Denton explains with the help of leading experts how emotional manipulation, fear, framing and omission are deployed to sow Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt in the minds of legislators and the public.
Watch the film here »
by Maryan Street
On 21 August, the House debated Part 2 of the EOLC bill. This was the very substantial part of the bill which dealt with processes and procedures. It was a protracted debate, with supporting MPs deliberately sitting quietly and not taking calls in order not to prolong the debate, while the opposition exhausted their arguments, the Speaker's patience and the whole House in the end. By agreement between the parties, while it did get to voting before 10pm, the House suspended voting part way through in order to avoid another late night marathon as had occurred in the previous debate.
That means that the next Member's Day on 11 September will BEGIN with the EOLC bill and the interrupted voting straight after the General Debate at about 4pm. There are no other bills ahead of it currently. There are 15 SOPs left to be voted on which pertain to Part 2, but an educated guess says that at least 5 of those will be ruled out of order by the Associate Speaker because they contradict David's amendments to the Part which have already been passed. So that leaves 10 SOPs to be voted on. I imagine that will take until about 5pm or shortly after. Then the House will move on to Part 3 which should not take very long because it is more technical in nature and should be disposed of by 10pm. That leaves Part 4 and the Schedules to be debated on the next day (25 September), and then Clauses 1 and 2 remain.
Clause 1 is the title of the bill, and there are some SOPs in to change that ("Assisted Suicide Bill" etc.) and Clause 2 is the Date of Commencement. It is in Clause 2 where NZFirst's SOP about a referendum will be debated, obviously because it will alter the date of enactment. That will be the last debate at the Committee stage. Thereafter, it moves on to its third and final reading which is a time-limited debate and will only take two hours (or a little more if the Business Committee decides to be generous and extend the time a little, as it did before). This will occur in October, all going well.
So there is not much longer to go!
The next debate for the EOLC Bill will be Wednesday 11th September. We should see the 3rd Reading completed by the end of the year. What a wonderful Christmas present!
What's it like to help someone end their life? It's something doctors here could soon be doing, as David Seymour's End of Life Care bill passed its second reading [on 21 August].
The proposed euthanasia law has had new safeguards inserted to make sure that doctors cannot be the first ones to suggest assisted dying.
Other successful changes protect health professionals conscientiously objecting to euthanasia from employment repercussions, provide for patients delaying euthanasia, and further formalise the exact process that those seeking assisted dying would go through.
The changes were all inserted on the behest of the bill's sponsor David Seymour by 69 votes to 51 in a late-night Parliamentary session on Wednesday night, while the End of Life Choice Bill was in the second day of its committee of the whole house debate.
Seymour has been seeking to narrow the bill and strengthen protections in order to keep the loose coalition of MPs who have backed it so far onside for the third and final reading.
At the End of Life Choice Bill's second reading, MPs share their personal stories on why they support or are opposed to the legislation.
He was stymied in his attempt to do this through the 16-month select committee process but succeeded in his first day of debate several weeks ago, when he managed to narrow the bill so it only allowed the terminally ill to request assisted dying.
This was enough to keep the support of the Green Party, who had faced serious lobbying from the disabled community who were worried the bill would allow coercion.
David Seymour has been seeking to narrow his bill.
The debate on Wednesday concerned the exact process for assisted dying and went well past 11pm as a personal vote was called for on many of the proposed 31 amendments.
The bill now confirms that the patient must be the one to first suggest assisted dying. They then must make this request to their doctor or other health professional - who can conscientiously object, but must tell the patient that they can contact a special Health Ministry office who can help them find a practitioner who can help.
If that practitioner thinks it is appropriate they must make sure the consent is "informed" - that the person knows all of their options for care - and if the patients still wishes to go through with it the request must be put in writing.
Two doctors must then agree that the patient is informed and the criteria to request assisted dying are met, and if either of them are not sure if the person is making the decision themselves or with informed consent, a psychiatrist must be asked for their opinion. Any of the three doctors can veto the process.
A new change inserted by Seymour on Wednesday would allow a patient to defer this process for up to six months without having to start from the beginning again - or cancel it at any point.
"Evidence from offshore is that there is a palliative effect simply from having the choice. Once people know that they have the choice about how and when they die, if they want it, then that actually has a huge positive effect on their wellbeing," Seymour said.
Speaking after the bill was passed Seymour said much more work remained in the coming months of debate on the bill.
"It's long grinding process and there will be several months of this to come," Seymour said.
He said his change made sure that there was a "very low threshold" for suspicion of coercion that would stop the entire euthanasia process.
Opponents of the bill put forward several unsuccessful amendments to make the law more restrictive, including one from National MP Chris Penk which would create an advisory council to approve or disapprove of every case.
This amendment failed 71 votes to 49, a similar margin to the other amendments put forward by opponents to the bill.
Penk and other opponents made clear that they believed the bill was generally unsalvageable and that coerced deaths would still happen - so they would definitely not vote for the bill at third reading.
"Even if you are supportive of euthanasia in principle, this is certainly not the bill to deliver it," National MP Maggie Barry said.
Seymour still faces serious challenges before making the bill law.
He will need the win the support of the House for a referendum on the law to keep all of NZ First's nine votes for the third and final reading. The bill only passed its second reading with a margin of ten votes, so if all NZ First votes were to go, only a single MP changing their mind would see the bill sunk.
He said on Wednesday he was pleased his coalition of around 70 votes in favour was sticking with him on all the amendments.
Source: The Spinoff
Fervent euthanasia opponent Maggie Barry is giving her party a headache that may last right up to next year’s election.
NATIONAL PARTY LEADER SIMON BRIDGES AT THE PARTY'S 2019 CONFERENCE (RADIO NZ/CRAIG MCCULLOCH)
When Judith Collins tearfully told Parliament during the second reading of David Seymour’s End of Life Choice Bill in June that she had been on “the wrong side” of the debate and now she was on “the right side” by voting in favour, it was impossible not to hear her sniffing the winds of political change.
It has gone mostly unremarked that of the five MPs who are commonly tipped as contenders to replace Simon Bridges as leader — Collins, Paula Bennett, Mark Mitchell, Nikki Kaye and Todd Muller — only Muller voted against the bill in June.
Departing Selwyn MP Amy Adams, who ran Bridges close in last year’s leadership race, also voted for it as did two MPs touted as future leaders — Nicola Willis and Chris Bishop.
Collins is smart and canny. Why would she want to remain not only on the wrong side of a majority of New Zealand voters, but also on the wrong side of a majority of National supporters — especially if she guesses the bill is likely to pass?
A Horizon poll published in May showed 65% of National’s voters approve of an assisted death for anyone with an end-stage terminal illness aged over 18 who is of sound mind and suffering unbearably.
Fifty-eight per cent of National voters also support assisted dying for adults with neuro-degenerative conditions, such as motor neurone disease, and who are suffering unbearably, even if their death may not occur in the immediate future.
However, while nearly all of National’s potential leadership contenders favour assisted dying, the bulk of the party’s MPs are dramatically out of step with the people they represent.
The second reading of the End of Life Choice Bill showed this glaring disjunction very clearly. Two-thirds of National voters want some form of assisted dying but only a third of National’s MPs — 18 out of 55 — voted in favour.
Another worry for National is that North Shore MP Maggie Barry is by far the most prominent opponent in the debate. Her campaign of opposition is often seen as being pursued with a reckless disregard for evidence and couched in exaggerated and inflammatory language.
And that is a problem for Bridges and his party because her aggressive and obstructive stance is unpopular with much of the public and her fellow MPs.
MAGGIE BARRY AT WELLINGTON BOTANIC GARDENS, 20 MARCH 2017 (PHOTO BY MIKE CLARE/ANADOLU AGENCY/GETTY IMAGES)
Before the End of Life Choice Bill returned to Parliament last week, Judith Collins told journalists that she hoped “people don’t play silly buggers” and abuse the process as it is debated.
Collins didn’t identify the “silly buggers” she was referring to but her comment has been widely interpreted to mean Maggie Barry and her religious allies.
Last Wednesday, hours before David Seymour’s bill was due to be debated, Barry fronted the media — accompanied by National colleagues Simon O’Connor, Chris Penk, Alfred Ngaro and Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi — to reaffirm their intention to lodge more than a hundred amendments.
National Party strategists must wonder what they have done wrong in an earlier life to deserve photos of a posse of their MPs splashed across the news media under headings such as: “Euthanasia critics look to drag out battle in Parliament.”
That banner could easily have read: “National MPs intend to filibuster a very popular bill that even their voters support.”
Barry denied that the 120 amendments they will lodge constitute filibustering. In fact, she doubled down, telling journalists: “I would imagine it could quite easily go beyond that  because you can make amendments on amendments.”
Proposing 120 amendments for a bill of only 28 sections is extraordinary but threatening amendments to amendments looks unrepentantly vexatious and a clear example of the abuse of process Collins warned against.
MIKE’S MINUTE, WEDNESDAY, 13 DECEMBER 2017
National has currently got the wind at its back after a successful party conference and a Colmar Brunton poll that put the party at 45%. What it really doesn’t need right now is months of negative publicity as Barry and her confreres are portrayed in the media as niggling spoilers.
Some of the sharpest critics include those normally sympathetic to National. After last Wednesday’s parliamentary debate, Mike Hosking told his Newstalk ZB audience: “Now, this [debate] ain’t over yet, not by a long way thanks to Maggie Barry and her mates who, despite what she claims, is doing herself no favours by stalling with her 100-plus amendments.”
And it’s not the first time he has criticised her.
At the time of the second reading of the bill in June, when he asked National’s Mark Mitchell what he thought of Barry’s role in the assisted dying debate, the Rodney MP replied: “No comment.”
Hosking later told his Breakfast audience, “When Mark Mitchell says ‘no comment’, you know exactly what he’s thinking. I just wonder… internally, within the party… if she is doing herself a little bit of damage with her stance at the moment.”
Hosking, of course, will know very well from National insiders just how much Barry’s aggressive stance is alienating her colleagues, including some of those who oppose legalisation. She has always been polarising but her crusade against assisted dying has turned the former garden-show host into Roundup on legs in the opinion of many both within and outside Parliament.
The radio host told Mitchell he thought Barry was “giving politicians a bad name” and said: “Even if she doesn’t like [the bill]… there’s not 120 amendments required.”
The North Shore MP’s threat to unleash an avalanche of amendments has been widely seen not only as an attempt to stop the bill or delay its passage, but also to make its criteria so restrictive that it will be more or less unworkable in practice if it does pass.
A big problem with such a diehard stance, of course, is that the bill is not nearly as contentious as the media likes to depict. That much was made clear once again last week when a Colmar-Brunton poll showed 72% of the nation are in favour of assisted dying with only 20% opposed.
That such a substantial majority persists after several years of a vociferous campaign of opposition to Seymour’s bill makes it clear just how popular such a law change would be.
SIMON BRIDGES ADDRESSES THE 83RD ANNUAL NATIONAL PARTY CONFERENCE AT CHRISTCHURCH TOWN HALL. (PHOTO BY KAI SCHWOERER/GETTY IMAGES)
Simon Bridges voted against the bill at both the first and second readings but he must be very aware of the damage Barry and her allies could do to National if the debate continues to run hot in the media until a referendum is held at the next election.
Bridges told Magic Talk radio in June that he was unhappy with NZ First’s call for a referendum before the bill becomes law — which is a condition of the party’s continued support and would be held at the next election alongside one on marijuana for personal use. “I think if we get to the point where we’re having a number of referendums it becomes very distracting from choosing a government to lead this country into the future.”
There will be no referendum, of course, if the bill is defeated at the third reading.
However, if it is passed and requires a plebiscite to become law, the battle will only intensify as opponents mount a desperate rearguard action to defeat it. And that will suck up a lot of oxygen in an election year.
National will consequently be identified in the run-up to the election as the face of fierce opposition to a popular law reform — and that face will inevitably most often be Barry’s.
Like Bridges, Jacinda Ardern is not in favour of a referendum but has said she would vote for one if it was the only way to get the bill over the line. However, she would undoubtedly also prefer not to have the election campaign dominated by two referendums.
The prime minister, who is firmly in favour of assisted dying, reckons a referendum on assisted dying “isn’t required to ensure that the voice of New Zealanders has been heard and to reflect the will of Parliament and the people they represent” — which could be interpreted as a recommendation for MPs to pass the End of Life Choice Bill with enough of a margin to sidestep Winston Peters’ demand for a plebiscite.
The vote at the second reading was a healthy 70-50 in favour but if the nine NZ First MPs vote against the bill at the third reading because a referendum isn’t approved, that majority would become, on current numbers, wafer thin.
However, the changes Seymour has proposed may make his bill palatable enough to some conservative MPs to win their vote and possibly gain sufficient cross-party support to ensure a healthy majority — which means a referendum could be avoided even if NZ First votes against it.
If that happened, the bill could become law before the end of the year.
There are obviously strong incentives for both Labour and National to sort the issue without letting it drag on to the election. Consequently, it’s quite possible that Judith Collins’ switch to the “right side” of the debate will not be the last Road to Damascus experience we see as MPs try to clear the decks before next year’s election campaigning begins.
A Colmar Brunton poll for TVNZ News on medical assistance in dying cross confirms earlier findings by Horizon Research.
A July 2019 survey of 1000 adults nationwide by Colmar Brunton finds 72% think a person who is terminally or incurably ill should be able to request the assistance of a doctor to end their life.
20% thought they should not be allowed.
Though four months apart, the result is similar to one from Horizon Reseach's survey of 1,341 adults in April 2019 which found assistance for those suffering end-stage terminal illness was 74%.
This compared with 74.9% overall in May 2017.
In the April Horizon 2019 survey
Horizon also found strong support for other measures, now being ruled out of the end of Life Choice bill before Parliament.
Where such a request has come from a mentally competent patient, 18 years and over, who has irreversible unbearable suffering which may not cause death in the immediate future (e.g. motor neurone disease or some other degenerative or irreversible condition): 65% support, 19% oppose
Allowing a competent person to write a legally enforceable and binding Advance Directive to allow medical assistance to die should the situations in situations 1 and 2 above occur after the patient becomes mentally incompetent (e.g. with severe brain injury): 66% support,19% oppose
Legalising such a request for medically assisted death by Advance Directive, when a person is suffering from severely advanced dementia: 65% support, 20% oppose.
Comments on this survey result are welcome at Horizon Poll's Facebook page.
David Seymour has successfully narrowed his End of Life Choice Bill to only allow assisted dying for terminal patients.
This amendment, which Seymour himself disagrees with, is key to keeping the support of the Green Party and several other MPs for a third reading.
The bill is currently in the Committee of the Whole House Stage, where it could stay for weeks if not months being debated clause-by-clause, before finally going to a third reading debate - and possibly a referendum.
On Wednesday evening during its first committee session, part one of the bill was examined, which includes the definition of who is eligible to request assisted dying.
His amendment passed 74 to 44.
Louisa Wall breaks down in euthanasia speech over personal experience in family
The Labour MP said a family member had a terminal illness, and providing choice is incredibly empowering.
Seymour sought to narrow the bill during its 16-month select committee process but this was not possible as the committee had severe disagreements with how to deal with the bill.
ACT Party leader David Seymour has narrowed his euthanasia bill to only cover those with a terminal illness.
His amendment narrows the bill to only allow a person with "a terminal illness that is likely to end the person's life within six months" to request assisted dying, or euthanasia. The first version of the bill also allowed for a person with "a grievous and irremediable medical condition" to request assisted dying, leading to stern opposition from disability groups who said the bill would allow the disabled to be coerced into death.
Terminal illness is not the only criterion: the patient must also be capable of understanding the decision made and be in a state "of irreversible decline in capability".
Seymour's full suite of amendments - not all of which have passed yet - will set out many other elements of the bill, including the need for two doctors independent of each other to confirm the terminal diagnosis.
The bill passed second reading 70 votes to 50. It is a conscience issue for National and Labour MPs, meaning they are able to vote independently. Indeed, some of the most severe divides on the bill are within the National Party.
Several MPs spoke against the bill, including former speaker David Carter.
"I will oppose this legislation, and I'll oppose it for one significant reason: I cannot be assured that there won't be some elderly person who is coerced into accepting assisted dying," Carter said.
Seymour said there was not evidence of any undetectable coercion from around the world.
"When we look around the world we don't find evidence of it, and, second of all, I don't believe that it's a standard that people apply to other aspects of law. They certainly don't apply it to any of the other medical decisions that people make, and if they did the entire field of medicine would be unworkable."
He said the progress with the bill was very encouraging."The critical change other MPs have asked for has been made, and we've made very good progress.
"If we can pass a part of the bill every member's night then we will be done in September - October or thereabouts."
Green and NZ First MPs are all whipped into supporting the bill provided several amendments.
The Greens sought the narrowing, while NZ First will seek a referendum to be added into the bill.
That decision will not be made until the last stage of the Committee of the Whole House, likely some time away.
Tuesday, 30 July 2019, 2:17 pm
Press Release: ACT New Zealand
David Seymour, ACT Party Leader and Sponsor of the End of Life Choice Bill, has today released his Supplementary Order Paper containing his amendments to the End of Life Choice Bill.
“Over the last few months I have worked with the Parliamentary Counsel Office and have been provided advice from both the Ministries of Health and Justice. I have also consulted with other Parties and individual MPs, as well as interested parties outside parliament.
“The amendments are formatted as a revision-tracked SOP which clearly shows all amendments I wish to make to the Bill as they would appear in the final legislation if these changes were adopted.
“The End of Life Choice Bill has always been a safe bill as it was designed in line with international Best Practice, contains numerous safeguards and was considered “tightly circumscribed” by the Attorney-General.”
“This SOP has been developed in consultation with Members of Parliament and a range of organisations to allay valid concerns and I am confident that this SOP will receive support from the greatest number of Members of Parliament to ensure a safe and efficient passage of the Bill through Committee of the whole House.”
“I am asking those who support giving compassion and choice to New Zealanders suffering at the end of their life to support these amendments, and New Zealand First’s proposed referendum amendment, while opposing all others. This course of action will ensure a coherent policy outcome and a straightforward Committee of the whole House stage for the bill.
“Some supporters may be disappointed that this SOP will create one of the most conservative assisted dying regimes in the world, but I have listened to concerns from supporters and opponents and have developed them into a high-quality amendment that compliments the Bill as introduced.”
In summary, the major changes are:
The SOP can be found here.
by Dr Mary Panko
Published: July 26, 2019
COLUMN – Gisborne Herald
In a few days’ time, July 31, the third round of David Seymour’s End of Life Choice Bill will be debated in Parliament and the Committee of the Whole House (CWH) gets to vote on a range of amendments.
There will be a large number of these, some coming from David Seymour himself but most from those opposed to any law change to permit medically-assisted dying. Maggie Barry has already said she plans to raise 120 amendments intending to get the Bill talked out — a method known as filibustering originally introduced by some long-discredited American politician. The filibuster tries to talk a bill to death so that it runs out of Parliamentary debating time.
However, for those who listened to the 20 MPs who spoke on the subject during the second reading (passed by 70 votes to 50), it was clear that there are honestly-held doubts on both sides of the argument — whether the bill goes far enough or if it provides enough safeguards — which make it worthy of an honest debate.
The nearest place to New Zealand which has a similar law is Victoria in Australia and it is worth comparing it to the proposed bill.
Many of its fundamentals are similar; to qualify a patient has to be a resident of the state, aged 18 or over, suffering from terrible pain as a result of a terminal illness and demonstrably not being coerced.
But the Victorian law has at least 68 safeguards, making it the most conservative of all international legislation, some of them pretty strange. Firstly, the patient’s doctor cannot tell them about the potential option of assisted dying. This is a bit like Basil Fawlty’s “Don’t mention the War”. So a dying and suffering patient may be informed about a range of options from palliative care to terminal sedation (oh yes — that’s legal) but not a word about medical-aid-in-dying.
It was argued that if a doctor mentioned this, it could be viewed as coercion. Therefore, people unaware of this possibility will not be permitted to find out about it. Unfortunately, David Seymour appears to think this proviso will persuade one or two additional MPs to vote for the bill and so has scooped up this clause into his own Supplementary Order Paper.
A further level of craziness in Victoria prevents any discussion of assisted dying by phone, text, Internet or, presumably, via carrier pigeon. This means that a dying person living far away from Melbourne and already approved for medical assistance, is barred from discussing any concerns or queries with their doctor. It is to be hoped that we can avoid this problem.
Further, once a patient has been approved for assisted dying in Victoria, the process ceases to be the business of the patient’s doctor or nurse practitioner and is handed over to a pharmacist from the main Melbourne hospital which has been given sole responsibility for dispensing the required lethal drug.
At this point, the dying person is expected to travel to Melbourne to collect the drug and instructions on how to administer it. If the patient is unable to do this, the law says the pharmacist will take it to them. How they can find out that this is necessary, if they wish to avoid federal prosecution for a forbidden discussion, is not clear.
Now, I have the utmost respect for the pharmacy profession as I lectured in a pharmacy department for 20 years, but having to understand and remember a number of complex instructions about a series of drugs which have to be measured and mixed and ingested in a desired sequence is asking too much of most of us. Let alone if we were on the point of death.
Furthermore, pharmacists’ instructions are probably the most ignored of any profession in a day-to-day sense. The pharmacist is also not required to be present while the dying patient attempts to mix and swallow the medication. Will they remember to take the anti-nausea draught first? Will they choke with no one there to help them?
As our MPs prepare to debate this issue again, I ask them to remember that a clear majority of their constituents (two-thirds to three-quarters, according to all reputable scientific opinion polls) want a law change to allow the suffering sick to end their lives painlessly and with dignity.
I also beg them to think compassionately and sensibly about those 2000 New Zealanders who die in unremitting pain every year and allow the tiny proportion who are likely to opt for medical assistance to die, to have the choice this bill would provide.
Back to the top
© End-Of-Life Choice • PO Box 321, Gisborne 4040 • Email: email@example.com