Voting With a Catholic Conscience: Referendums
By John Kleinsman
At the upcoming election voters face two referendum questions: one on whether to implement assisted suicide and euthanasia and the other on whether to legalise recreational cannabis. For many, the default starting point for deciding how to vote will be individualistic: “How do I feel about this issue?” “Is this something I want for myself?” A more “Catholic” stance takes a different starting point, one that prioritises the impact a law change will have on others, asking: “What are the consequences for society and, in particular, for the most vulnerable?”
BINDING REFERENDUM QUESTION: “DO YOU SUPPORT THE END OF LIFE CHOICE ACT 2019 COMING INTO FORCE?” The EOLC Act 2019 makes assisted suicide or euthanasia available to people with a terminal illness who are 18 or over, are thought to have six months or less to live and experience “unbearable suffering that cannot be relieved in a way the person considers tolerable”. The group most at risk if we legalise euthanasia and assisted suicide are those vulnerable to the suggestion they would be “better off dead” – our
23
elders and disabled people who find themselves fitting the eligibility criteria. The referendum question is not about the idea of assisted death. Voters are being asked to vote on a proposed law that outlines a specific approach to regulating assisted death. As noted by one group: “Even people who support euthanasia in principle have good reasons to vote “NO” to the EOLC Act [because it] is flawed and riskier than similar overseas laws.” The following points provide further insights into the rigour of the End of Life Choice Act 2019: • The NZ law is broader and more liberal than one recently passed in Victoria, Australia, as well as laws in the United States. • The EOLC Act is not just for the “exceptionally difficult cases”; it does not require that a person make use of available treatments or receive palliative care. • MPs proposed 114 amendments to make the Bill safer. Only three passed and most were voted down without being debated. • Quality palliative care is effective but there is no corresponding right to access such care. Overseas, people choose assisted death when they don’t really want it because of a lack of other choices. This will happen in New Zealand because quality palliative care is not universally available.
AUTHORISED BY JOHN KLEINSMAN, THE NATHANIEL CENTRE FOR BIOETHICS, 15 GUILDFORD TERRACE, WELLINGTON 6144.
