Media Release 14th January 2018
Right to Life is opposed to the proposal that should the contentious End of Life Choice Bill be passed at its second reading, that Parliament should authorise a binding referendum before the third reading of the bill. The most fundamental medical ethic of not killing or helping patients kill themselves, must not be reduced to a popularity contest.
Right to Life is disappointed that the nine members of the caucus of NZ First voted to support the first reading of the bill on the condition that the author of the bill, David Seymour, would support a binding referendum. NZ First had a duty to protect life by voting against this evil bill and voting for it, even at first reading increases the prospects of the bill becoming law.
Euthanasia is about doctors killing their patients or assisting in their suicide. Euthanasia is intrinsically evil and no referendum can legitimise that which is evil. The prohibition against taking the life of another human being is the foundation of the law and medicine. It is always wrong to kill another innocent human being. The approval of the community, even if supported in a referendum, can never make murder acceptable. Such a referendum is an attempt to seduce and implicate the whole community in the murder of the vulnerable.
Right to Life is implacably opposed to a referendum because it is based on the false and dangerous premise that the community has a right to decide who shall be allowed to be killed. This presumption is a violation of the inalienable right to life of every member of the community. The community has a collective duty to protect the inalienable right to life of every member of the community from conception to natural death.
A binding referendum that resulted in support for the Seymour bill would impose an intolerable burden on the conscience of Parliamentarians who are opposed to the murder of the vulnerable.
Parliament has a sacred duty to protect the lives of every member of the community. It has no authority to preside over our destruction. Parliament has a serious duty to protect the community, especially our most vulnerable members, from the serious threat to life presented by this evil bill. It can protect the community by voting decisively to defeat this bill at its second reading. It would be a serious dereliction of duty to pass the second reading and a further dereliction to then vote to support a binding referendum. Parliament must not shamefully shirk its responsibility to protect the lives of the community by cowardly washing its hands and imposing what is their responsibility, onto the community.
Right to Life earnestly requests that Parliamentarians vote to defeat any resolution seeking to authorise a binding referendum that seeks to implicate the whole community in the murder of its most vulnerable members. Its advocates claim falsely that it would be democratic to allow every citizen to vote on this life and death issue.
Right to Life believes that in the event of a binding referendum on the issue of the End of Life Choice bill that the correct moral position would be to refuse to participate in a referendum that is morally indefensible.
Right to Life