On Wednesday the 5th August Salient attended a panel discussion on the End of Life Choice Bill. The Bill is a part of one of two referenda coinciding with this years General Election.'

The legislation according to the Act aims (a) to give persons who have a terminal illness and who meet certain criteria the option of lawfully requesting medical assistance to end their lives; and (b) to establish a lawful process for assisting eligible persons who exercise that option.

Three panelists participated in the discussion, including Dr Clive Aspin, a senior lecturer in health at Victoria University of Wellington, Paula Tesoriero MNZM, the Disability Human rights Commissioner, and Hon Ruth Dyson, veteran MP for the Labour party and a member of the Health Select Committee.

The panel, hosted by VUWSA along with VUWLSS and led by One News journalist Mei Heron, critically analysed the meaning and purpose behind this piece of legislation.

Tesoriero stated that in a poll conducted by Curia Market research during 2019, the results stated that 70-75% of people did not understand this legislation.

The same poll also stated how three quarters of participants also believed that the End of Life Choice Bill would enable patients to have life saving machines turned off as well as being able to refuse resuscitation.

However this is not the basis of the legislation as these things are already legal.

Renee Joubert, an executive Officer for Euthanasia-Free NZ said that the intent of the bill is to legalise assisted dying.

This includes patients from the age of 18 and according to the act itself does not require an eligible person to have tried any pain relief or palliative care before requesting a lethal dose.

For Aspin, it was the inequalities present within the current health system that was most concerning in relation to the bill.

We are dealing with a health system based on significant disparities.

Mori have a lower access to palliative care at the end of their lives in comparison with non-Mori, said Aspin.

Aspin said until such time as these disparities are eradicated, how fair is it to pose End of Life to the population.

Dyson questioned the complex criteria that patients had to meet in order to access assisted dying medication.

I want everyone to live their life the best they possibly can but also to die the best they possibly can.

In relation to the current bill Dyson believed that there would be people excluded which I personally would have liked to have been included as well.

A key area of discussion during the debate were concerns around safeguards to ensure that the implications of the bill were safe and knowledgeable.

Tesorieros main concern around this legislation was in regard to the adequate safeguards in order to protect against wrongful deaths.

Dyson said I believe there are much more rigorous safeguards than I would have had in.

I would like to be given the confidence that I as a Mori and anyone else in this country would have the same access as everybody else, said Aspin.

In retrospect, all of the panelists encouraged a familiarisation with the legislation.

The act has currently already been passed but in order to be introduced as a law, the outcome of the upcoming referendum will decide this.

See the original post here:

Panel Discussion on the End of Life Choice Bill Salient Magazine - Salient