Gordon Campbell | Parliament TV | Parliament Today | News Video | Crime | Employers | Housing | Immigration | Legal | Local Govt. | Maori | Welfare | Unions | Youth | Search

 

Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt: David Seymour and the Experts

I recently attended a Health Central debate in Wellington on the End of Life Choice Bill (full debate online). Among the panellists were David Seymour and a visiting Canadian doctor, Dr Leonie Herx. Dr Herx, President of the Canadian Society of Palliative Care Physicians, had come out to New Zealand to describe her experiences with the Canadian euthanasia legislation that was passed two years ago. And, frankly, to warn us off doing the same thing.

Dr Herx detailed serious concerns about her ‘on the ground’ experience of euthanasia. These issues include failed/ignored safeguards (similar to those in the NZ Bill), limited data collection, coercion of doctors and institutions, expanding eligibility, and the use of palliative care funding to facilitate euthanasia.

Mr Seymour’s routine response to overseas documented failures has been to brush them off as ‘fear-mongering’, and the ‘spreading of lies and misinformation’, or ‘fear, uncertainty, and doubt’. It’s patronising and dismissive. Of course he’s not going to agree with all of their concerns. But he tends towards broad-sweep rebuttals, glossing over the complexities and nuances that make euthanasia a complex issue.

In the face of well-documented problems in jurisdictions such as the Netherlands, Belgium and Canada, he also continues to claim that ‘it is possible to to design legislation that gives safety and protection to those who want nothing to do with it and choice to those who do’, without engaging with practicing physicians who say that euthanasia looks far different in practice. ‘The answer from the Canadian Supreme Court is yes’, he said at the debate. “The lived experience is not that’ said Dr Herx. It’s the difference between the neatness of things on paper, and the messiness of human activity; theoretical possibilities versus the realities.



One of the central issues is the widening of the criteria for euthanasia over time; it has occurred in every jurisdiction with laws similar to what is being proposed in Seymour’s Bill. The Canadian debate about allowing euthanasia for mature minors is a case in point. Why would New Zealand be any different? It is, in the words of Dr Herx, a question of logical progression rather than ‘slippery slopes’. We can’t just avoid the fact that the widening of criteria will happen here, too.

When Mr Seymour does quote figures, one has to check them carefully. He has repeatedly said that 3.2% of people were euthanized without their consent in Belgium in 1998 but only 1.5% in 2013, pointing to the decrease as the result of improved regulation brought about by the legalising of euthanasia. However, academics such as Professor Emeritus David Richmond point out that the decrease in euthanasia without explicit request occurred by 2001, the year prior to the legalisation of euthanasia. Legalising euthanasia had nothing to do with it. It is totally disingenuous for Mr Seymour to - as Professor Richmond says - ‘misinterpret the data for the benefit of naïve audiences as a fall in rates and a triumph for legalisation.’

Mr Seymour also glosses over the rise in the numbers of people accessing euthanasia across all jurisdictions. In a lengthy online interview in August 2017, Mr Seymour asserts that the numbers of people accessing euthanasia are flatlining or stabilising; but, in fact, as the interviewer points out, the official figures indicate a steady rise. Mr Seymour’s response is, somewhat vaguely, ‘In any case, you kind of know there’s a ceiling on it, and you’d expect it to flatten out; with those conditions to qualify, it is going to be limited.’ The whole exchange is vague on Mr Seymour’s part, and there are a number of editorial insertions to correct Mr Seymour’s statements, and point out his errors. Mr Seymour quite simply does not know the facts or does not want to engage with them.

So let’s return to Dr Herx and ask ourselves why she came to NZ. Option One: She came to fear-monger and spread lies and misinformation. To impose fear, uncertainty, and doubt. Why would she do that?

So let’s move to Option Two: She genuinely had serious concerns. And those who listened closely to Dr Herx would have all come away well aware of these serious concerns, which deserve a serious response. But all Mr Seymour’s could say in his eagerness to ignore Dr Herx’s professional experience was, ‘I lived in Canada for five years, and I know many Canadian friends, and if you were to ask them about the version of events you have heard from Leonie [Herx] tonight, they would wonder what on earth you were talking about.’
That is, under the circumstances, an astounding thing to say.

Avoidance of the hard questions and dismissal from David Seymour is irresponsible and patronising. At the end of the Health Central debate, he said ‘tonight we’ve had endless speculation, fear, uncertainty, and doubt which collapses as soon as you go to the hard evidence of what happens overseas.’ The laughter of the audience exposed the fact that the reality of Dr Herx’s Canadian experience actually pointed to the opposite conclusion. Highly experienced clinicians don’t say ‘do not make our mistake’ on a whim. Let’s at least offer them the respect of paying attention to the facts.

© Scoop Media

 
 
 
Parliament Headlines | Politics Headlines | Regional Headlines

SCOOP COVERAGE: CHRISTCHURCH MOSQUES TERROR ATTACK


Gordon Campbell: On Reforming Parliament’s Toxic Culture

It would be nice to think Parliament was a forum where rationality ruled – and where policies are raised and evaluated in terms of their contribution to the greater good. Obviously, it isn’t like that... More>>

Historic Assualt Allegation: Parliamentary Service Staff Member Stood Down
Rt Hon Trevor Mallard said today: “I do not want to cut across any employment or possible police investigations, but I am satisfied that the Parliamentary Service has removed a threat to the safety of women working in the Parliamentary complex." More>>


 

Study: Guidelines Needed To Avoid Risks In Government AI

New Zealand is a world leader in government algorithm use – but measures are needed to guard against their dangers. This is the conclusion of a New Zealand Law Foundation-funded report from the University of Otago’s Artificial Intelligence and Law in New Zealand Project. More>>

ALSO:

Pike River: Families Welcome Opening Of Drift

The group representing 29 of the Pike River Families - the Pike River Family Reference Group - has welcomed the unsealing of the mine at a private family event this morning... More>>

ALSO:

Auckland Harbour Bridge: New Design For Walking And Cycling Crossing

The NZ Transport Agency has released plans for its preferred option for a shared path over the Auckland Harbour Bridge which will transform walking and cycling not only across the harbour, but throughout the city. The Transport Agency says its preferred ... More>>

ALSO:

Shaw First Reading Speech: Climate Change Response Bill

Madam Speaker, today we begin the task of amending the Climate Change Response Act [2002], to fulfil the commitment that we have made, as a country, to limit global warming to no more than 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels. More>>

ALSO:

Housing: More Unsold Kiwibuild Houses Bought By Govt

The Crown underwrite for unsold Kiwibuild homes has been triggered for a second time. Now lack of sales in Mike Greer's development in Canterbury and Auckland means the government has had to buy back seven more homes. More>>

ALSO:

camouflageGordon Campbell: Why We Shouldn’t Genuflect To Security

Reportedly most (and possibly all) of the Royal Commission investigation into the Christchurch mosque shootings will be closed to the general public and to the media… More>>

 
 
 
 
 

LATEST HEADLINES

  • PARLIAMENT
  • POLITICS
  • REGIONAL
 
 

InfoPages News Channels