Bruce Bisset says think carefully about how you vote in the election referendums. Photo / File
Bruce Bisset says think carefully about how you vote in the election referendums. Photo / File
COMMENT At first glance both referenda questions we're being asked this election appear simple yes/no choices: whether marijuana should be legalised, and whether people should have the right to end their life if suffering from a terminal illness.
On the face of it, most folk would have little trouble answering yesor no in each case, because these issues have been under debate within society generally for several decades.
But the problem is that those aren't the questions. Instead we're being asked whether we think the legislation that has been drawn up around each option is fit for purpose, or not.
That's very different. Indeed, it's the first time in New Zealand legislation has been written beforehand and used as the basis on which people decide.
And in the case of the End of Life Choice Act, the referendum is binding so a "yes" vote will see that legislation enacted, unchanged.
So you'd hope it's as robust and user-friendly as practicable, given the controversial nature of the topic. But that's debatable.
I've personally always thought someone with a terminal illness, who has entered the final downhill stages toward death, should be able to pull the plug – and that's essentially what the bill allows.
So far so good. But well-intentioned as it might be, while the legislation is clear on a person's right to choose, it's not so clear when it comes to having checks and balances around that choice.
As it stands, anyone over 18 with a terminal illness could choose to die one day and be assisted to do so as little as four days later without telling anyone else (apart from medical professionals) that that was what they were doing.
Sure, they have to have received a prognosis saying they have less than six months to live, and convince two doctors they're enduring "unbearable suffering" (not necessarily including physical pain), and be judged "competent" to make such a life or death decision.
But they could also be suffering a mental illness, and only if one of the two doctors involved questions their competence will they be reviewed by a psychiatrist to judge if they're fully cognisant of the consequences.
Moreover, there's no "cooling off" period stipulated, as contained in similar legislation overseas. Critics suggest a person should have at least a week to reconsider – especially if they're depressive – before getting consent.
And while a person is to be "encouraged" by their doctor to consult with family and friends, there's no direction to do so – which seems anti-empathic.
Bruce Bisset.
It's designed to keep a person from being pressured, for or against. But if I had a child or close friend wanting to end their life I'd like the chance to say goodbye.
I certainly wouldn't want to receive the news via a death certificate telling me doctors had allowed my son or daughter to die.
Okay, that's likely to be a rarity. But because it could happen, I don't think they've got this bit right, despite there's express provision for the medical practitioners to not consent if they think there's been pressure from others swaying the person to make a choice to die.
So there's some balance missing in the processes as framed; balance that's important because death affects more than the deceased. It's a one-way trip, that everyone needs clarity on before the ticket gets clipped.
That said, I will probably vote for this because of the many folk for whom the option of dying sooner will be a blessed relief. But I'll do so in hope the bill gets amended as soon as it's passed.
Bruce Bisset is a freelance writer and poet. Views expressed are the writer's opinion and not the newspaper's.
