I appreciate that the Courts did not take legislative change into their own hands this past week, determining that legislative changes are not for the Courts to make, when Justice David Collins ruled that a doctor could not assist to end LecretiaSeales' life without the risk of prosecution.
However, onan issue of such personal importance as doctor assisted death, I must disagree with the Courts' statement that the decision making jurisdiction falls to Parliament. Of course, I have a strong personal opinion on euthanasia, but that shouldn't matter. Such a personal matter should not be determined by the private opinions of one-hundred-and-twenty-one people out of the more than four and a half million, and growing, all of which are affected by policies on euthanasia.
Let the people decide. The choice on whether or not New Zealand changes the current law to allow doctor assisted deaths should be determined by binding, national referenda. We are, after all, a Democratic Republic. As Members of Parliament, our authority is derived from the voters that elect us. So, it's important in these cases of such great and personal importance that we turn to those who elected us and ask - not assume - what they think. The majority will decide. For better or worse, this is the system under which we have chosen to be governed - a system of collective governance.
Currently, Euthanasia is legal in the Netherlands, Belgium, Colombia and Luxemburg.
Assisted suicide is legal in Switzerland, Germany, Japan, Albania and in the U.S. States of Washington, Oregon, Vermont, New Mexico and Montana. Euthanasia has been criminalised in Mexico, Thailand and the Northern Territory of Australia.
Euthanasia is normally defined as intentionally ending a life in order to relieve pain and suffering. Non-voluntary and in-voluntary euthanasia is illegal in all countries. Voluntary and doctor-assisted suicide in a painless manner is what the euthanasia debate in New Zealand is normally centred around.
