Media Release Thursday 26th October 2017
Right to Life is opposed to the proposal of New Zealand First that Parliament give approval for a referendum to change the law to allow doctors to kill their patients or assist in their suicide. The issue of euthanasia is simply too complex to be put to a public vote. We believe that any change to the Crimes Act will ultimately lead to a “slippery slope” of assisted dying policies. Right to Life does not think this is a matter that should be decided by individuals within the community.
We believe that the ground whereby doctors can kill their patients or assist in their suicide would be constantly widened if a referendum led to a Euthanasia bill being passed. There are no possible safeguards that could ever ensure adequate protection for the vulnerable. There is ample evidence from overseas that once the law against killing is relaxed that the grounds for killing continue to expand. This is very clear looking at the evidence from the Netherlands and Belgium.
Right to Life is concerned that the question that is asked in this proposed referendum will be worded in such a way, as to achieve the objectives of those who are promoting euthanasia. We also are concerned that should the result of the referendum support euthanasia, this will impose pressure on the conscience of those members of parliament who are opposed to it, and who want to protect the community.
New Zealand First and Labour are ignoring the voice of the people clearly expressed by the 21,277 persons who wrote submissions to and the nearly 1,000 oral submissions made to the Parliamentary Select Committee in its two years consideration of the petition of the Hon Maryan Street. An analysis made by the Committee revealed that 77 per cent of those who made submissions were opposed to the law being changed to allow doctors to kill their patients or assist in their suicide. The Street petition asked, “That the House of Representatives investigate fully public attitudes towards the introduction of legislation which would permit medically-assisted dying in the event of a terminal illness or an irreversible condition which makes life unbearable.” The petition asks for a change to existing law.
New Zealand First and Labour are aware that the Committee in its 48 page report to Parliament did not recommend a law change. The report also stated that many members of the committee, after considering evidence from overseas were concerned that decriminalising euthanasia would be a threat to the vulnerable in our community. Why is the government now ignoring this important and authoritative report?
The cost of the proposed referendum would be an estimated $26 million. Why is this money not being invested into our world class palliative care system where it could be put to much better use.
Ken Orr
Spokesperson
Right to Life.
Thank you for this excellent post, Right to Life, it is much appreciated. As well as the rampant expansion of “limited” criteria for euthanasia and assisted suicide in Belgium and the Netherlands, there is also the fact that referenda were used to introduce and maintain access to euthanasia in Oregon, Washington state and Colorado in the United States, and maintain access to it, as well as to overseas visitors, in the case of Zurich.
New Zealand First’s pro-referenda stance is deeply dangerous for impoverished, disabled and elderly New Zealanders under threat from euthanasia. The time has come for all sanctity of life advocates to withdraw our support from the seductive mirage of ‘binding referenda’ and any organisations that support it. As for Labour, it is still not impossible that with enough lobbying, we can persuade more Labour MPs to withdraw their support from the End of Life Choices Bill. There are already six Labour MPs who have said they will vote against it.
And of course, as the excellent article above on the Irish pro-life amendment repeal campaign shows, binding referenda are just as much of a threat to the right to life of the unborn child in other instances. This is one problem that I have with co-belligerency with other ‘social conservatives’ sometimes- we can be reticent about raising issues and objections to potentially counterproductive tactics and strategies.
I strongly admire and respect Bob McCoskrie for his work against the decriminalisation of euthanasia and assisted suicide and abortion and for the right to life of the disabled, poor, elderly and unborn, for example. Sadly, however, Family First does seem committed to introducing binding referenda into New Zealand because it believes that it is still an appropriate strategy when it comes to some criminal justice issues and repealing corporal punishment bans. I cannot support them in that, given what we now know about events in Switzerland, the United States and now Ireland. At least Bob listens, however.
As for the ‘Conservative Party’, many ‘social conservatives’ clearly abandoned it because they concluded that while they paid lip service to ‘opposing’ euthanasia and abortion, their binding referendum obsession threatened to introduce or provide greater access to those profound social evils. I have no doubt that some of its membership are very sincere, but the problem is, their obsession with expedient tactics like binding referenda blinds them to the dangers that it poses.