Media Release Wed August 16th 2017
Right to Life recognises that reports made by the Attorney General should be treated with great respect. However the report of the Attorney General on the End of Life Choice Bill is questioned. Those who are opposed to the murder of the most vulnerable members of our community, the aged, the disabled and the seriously ill, will claim that the report violates our human rights.
The Attorney General’s report says that on the question of the right not to be deprived of life, David Seymour’s bill is consistent with the principles of fundamental justice.”
Right to Life respectfully disagrees with this conclusion.
We believe that our human rights are protected by the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights. The Declaration states in Article 3, ‘Everyone has the right to life and liberty and security of person.’ The preamble of the Declaration states,
“Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world.”
New Zealand is a signatory to this Declaration. These rights are inalienable, which means that our right to life may not be taken from us nor may we give it up. It would be a grave injustice for Parliament to pass the End of Life Choice bill, which would permit doctors to kill us or assist in our suicide.
It was that great American statesman, Thomas Jefferson who said, “all men are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life.”
Human rights are conferred on every human being at the moment of conception by our Creator. Our human rights are not conferred on us by Parliament. It would be a great injustice for our Parliament to usurp the Creators authority and to play God by to deliberating on the End of Life Choice bill. This bill provided for the murder of the weak by the strong. God will not be mocked by those in Parliament who seek to undermine and deny our inalienable right to life.
The report also states that, “The Bill protects the right of medical practitioners to choose not to participate in assisted dying procedures, requiring them only to provide a referral to a willing medical practitioner’. These requirements have been found to be consistent with the rights of those medical practitioners.”
This conclusion is a violation of the right of medical professionals not to be involved in the murder of their patients. How is it that the protection of the consciences of medical practitioners, who refuse to participate in the murder of a patient, are protected when they are in fact obliged to refer the patient to a doctor who is prepared to do the killing?
Right to Life requests that all the Members of Parliament recognize that they have a serious duty to protect the inalienable right to life of every member of our community by voting against the End of Life Choice bill that would empower the strong to kill the weak.
Right to Life.