End of Life Choice Bill passes second reading 70-50

End of Life Choice Bill passed its second reading last night in Parliament last night, by 70 votes to 50.

That is a comfortable margin, but it doesn’t mean that the euthanasia bill is a done deal. It will now proceed to the third reading, and a lot of Supplementary Order Papers will be debated on and voted on before we know what the final form of the Bill will look like. Then Parliament will make it’s final vote for or against.

NZ First are pushing for the final choice to go to a referendum to be run at the same time as next year’s general election. Whether that will happen is yet to be decided.

There are some strong views and emotional feelings on this issue on both sides of the debate. Unfortunately there are also some outlandish claims being made.

I think the key thing in this is Choice.

I personally would like that choice, if I was ever in a situation of terminal illness.

I understand that others feel strongly against euthanasia. I hope the End of Life Choice Bill will allow them to opt out, while giving choice to chose who want it, with sufficient safeguards.

Parliament has to decide whether to give a legal end of life choice to people.

NZ Herald has a list of How your MP voted on the End of Life Choice Bill

* Denotes MPs who have changed their vote since the first reading


SUPPORT – 70

  • Amy Adams – National – Selwyn
  • Ginny Andersen – Labour – List
  • Jacinda Ardern – Labour – Mt Albert
  • Darroch Ball – NZ First – List
  • Paula Bennett – National – Upper Harbour
  • Chris Bishop – National – Hutt South
  • Tamati Coffey – Labour – Waiariki
  • Judith Collins* – National – Papakura
  • Liz Craig – Labour – List
  • Clare Curran – Labour – Dunedin South
  • Marama Davidson – Green – List
  • Kelvin Davis – Labour – Te Tai Tokerau
  • Matt Doocey – National – Waimakariri
  • Ruth Dyson – Labour – Port Hills
  • Paul Eagle – Labour – Rongotai
  • Kris Faafoi – Labour – Mana
  • Andrew Falloon – National – Rangitata
  • Julie Anne Genter – Green – List
  • Golriz Ghahraman – Green –List
  • Peeni Henare – Labour – Tamaki Makaurau
  • Chris Hipkins – Labour – Rimutaka
  • Brett Hudson – National – List
  • Gareth Hughes – Green – List
  • Raymod Huo – Labour – List
  • Willie Jackson – Labour – List
  • Shane Jones – NZ First – List
  • Nikki Kaye – National – Auckland Central
  • Matt King – National – Northland
  • Barbara Kuriger – National – Taranaki-King Country
  • Iain Lees-Galloway – Labour – Palmerston North
  • Andrew Little – Labour – List
  • Jan Logie – Green – List
  • Marja Lubeck – Labour – List
  • Jo Luxton – Labour – List
  • Nanaia Mahuta – Labour – Hauraki-Waikato
  • Trevor Mallard – Labour – List
  • Jenny Marcroft – NZ First – List
  • Ron Mark – NZ First – List
  • Tracey Martin – NZ First – List
  • Kieran McAnulty – Labour – List
  • Clayton Mitchell – NZ First – List
  • Mark Mitchell – National – Rodney
  • Stuart Nash – Labour – Napier
  • Greg O’Connor – Labour – Ohariu
  • David Parker – Labour – List
  • Mark Patterson – NZ First – List
  • Winston Peters – NZ First – List
  • Willow-Jean Prime – Labour – List
  • Priyanca Radhakrishnan – Labour – List
  • Grant Robertson – Labour – Wellington Central
  • Jami-Lee Ross – Independent – Botany
  • Eugenie Sage – Green – List
  • Carmel Sepuloni – Labour – Kelston
  • David Seymour – Act – Epsom
  • James Shaw – Green – List
  • Scott Simpson – National – Coromandel
  • Stuart Smith – National – Kaikoura
  • Erica Stanford – National – East Coast Bays
  • Chloe Swarbrick – Green – List
  • Fletcher Tabuteau – NZ First – List
  • Jan Tinetti – Labour – List
  • Tim van de Molen – National – Waikato
  • Louisa Wall – Labour – Manurewa
  • Angie Warren-Clark – Labour – List
  • Duncan Webb – Labour – Christchurch Central
  • Poto Williams* – Labour – Christchurch East
  • Nicola Willis – National – List
  • Megan Woods – Labour – Wigram
  • Jian Yang – National – List
  • Lawrence Yule* – National- Tukituki

OPPOSE 50

  • Kiritapu Allan*- Labour – List
  • Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi – National – List
  • Maggie Barry – National – North Shore
  • Andrew Bayly – National – Hunua
  • David Bennett – National – Hamilton East
  • Dan Bidois – National – Northcote
  • Simon Bridges – National – Tauranga
  • Simeon Brown – National – Pakuranga
  • Gerry Brownlee – National – Ilam
  • David Carter – National – List
  • David Clark – Labour – Dunedin North
  • Jacquie Dean – National – Waitaki
  • Sarah Dowie – National – Invercargill
  • Paulo Garcia – National – List
  • Paul Goldsmith – National – List
  • Nathan Guy* – National – Otaki
  • Joanne Hayes – National – List
  • Harete Hipango* – National – Whanganui
  • Anahila Kanongata’aSuisuiki – Labour – List
  • Denise Lee – National – List
  • Melissa Lee – National – List
  • Agnes Loheni – National – List
  • Tim Macindoe – National – Hamilton West
  • Todd McClay – National – Rotorua
  • Ian McKelvie – National – Rangitikei
  • Todd Muller – National – Bay of Plenty
  • Alfred Ngaro – National – List
  • Damien O’Connor – Labour – West Coast
  • Simon O’Connor – National – Tamaki
  • Parmjeet Parmar – National – List
  • Chris Penk – National – Helensville
  • Maureen Pugh – National – List
  • Shane Reti – National – Whangarei
  • Adrian Rurawhe* – Labour – Te Tai Hauauru
  • Deborah Russell* – Labour – New Lynn
  • Jenny Salesa – Labour – Manukau East
  • Alastair Scott – National – Wairarapa
  • Aupito William Sio – Labour – Mangere
  • Nick Smith – National – Nelson
  • Jamie Strange – Labour – List
  • Rino Tirakatene – Labour – List
  • Anne Tolley* – National – East Coast
  • Phil Twyford – Labour – Te Atatu
  • Louise Upston – National – Taupo
  • Nicky Wagner – National – List
  • Hamish Walker* – National – Clutha-Southland
  • Meka Whaitiri* – Labour – Ikaroa Rawhiti
  • Michael Wood* – Labour – Mt Roskill
  • Michael Woodhouse – National – List
  • Jonathan Young – National – New Plymouth

Leave a comment

24 Comments

  1. Corky

     /  27th June 2019

    Interesting in many way.

    1- I didn’t expect the support so many Maori and Pacific Islanders have given this bill.
    2- The high number of votes from National MP’s against the bill. Isn’t this the mob who are accused of only worrying about the dollar? Maybe they are all sadists and want people to suffer as much as possible before checking out of this mortal coil? Or maybe it points to a quiet religious belief and conviction that is never expressed publicly Who knows..

    One things for sure….ACT are back in business.

    Reply
    • Mortal coil doesn’t mean life as such, it’s the burdens and worries that life brings (‘shuffle off this mortal coil’, Hamlet’s ‘To be or not to be’ soliloquy) and this is obvious when it’s seen in context.

      Reply
  2. Zedd

     /  27th June 2019

    Thumbs up to David Seymour, for getting it this far.. 🙂

    Reply
    • Zedd

       /  27th June 2019

      btw: Jenny Salesa is a Labour MP; listed here as Natl

      Reply
      • Kitty Catkin

         /  27th June 2019

        It’s sad that there is so much scare-mongering and misinformation about it. People who are in wheelchairs wouldn’t be able to have it even if they wanted it ! The talk about pressure being brought to bear on such people is nonsense, as the bill makes it clear that the ONLY people who can have it are those with terminal illnesses.

        Reply
        • Zedd

           /  27th June 2019

          As with other law reform issues; a small step forward, has to be better than status quo .. unless that is what the majority still want ? :/

          Reply
        • Duker

           /  27th June 2019

          Nope .it doesn’t say only terminal illness at all.
          The other bit says “grievous and irremedial illness” also qualify.
          These are people who may live for a very long time, sure they only have to say ‘its intolerable suffering’

          Reply
          • My mistake, i forgot that bit, but it’s probably academic to the sufferer. My point was that it was for those who have illnesses rather than conditions like paralysis that won’t kill them as cancer or other things will.

            Reply
            • Kitty Catkin

               /  27th June 2019

              I forgot….

              It also says that they have to have ‘unbearable suffering that cannot be relieved in a tolerable way’ and that they have to be in an ‘advanced state of irreversible decline in capability’…..

            • PartisanZ

               /  27th June 2019

              Stole my thunder Miss Kitty … but I guess another clap won’t hurt.

              I gather its more-or-less already accepted that “grievous and irremediable illness” will be removed during the Whole of House Committee stage?

              Perhaps this will be for the best? Like some words in a written Constitution “grievous and irremediable” would be open to endless interpretation before the Courts … or perhaps in General Practices throughout the country …

              But no … It will be removed to appease the Secular-Christian Right-Wing Conservative minority who wield power in this country far, far beyond what their numbers should allow them to … or in other words undemocratically.

              Because Clause 4 of the EOLCB requires that the grievous and irremediably ill person must –

              AND be “in an advanced state of irreversible decline in capability;

              AND experiences unbearable suffering that cannot be relieved in a manner that … the person considers tolerable

              AND has the ability to understand—

              (i) the nature of assisted dying; AND

              (ii) the consequences for … them of assisted dying.

              So I hope it stays in. We should have laws that are challenging and challengable … and corporate-political elites should not wield the power they do.

            • Kitty Catkin

               /  28th June 2019

              I don’t like the idea of euthanasia, but don’t see this as euthanasia so much as what it is; assisted suicide. People now who are incapable of killing themselves when their illness is intolerable have to starve themselves to death like a woman whom we saw on the news.

              It was incredibly irresponsible of whoever put out the lie about the Dutch teenager being given euthanasia to do so.

              The truth about what happened in the past will never be known, but I have the impression that some doctors would warn the person and/or family that the safe dosage was X and that if Y was taken by mistake….

            • Duker

               /  28th June 2019

              Ever heard of Liverpool pathway?
              Its (was) used in UK hospitals for palliative care terminally ill
              Withdrawal of nutrition and fluids was often part of the ‘pathway’

            • It seems to have been used, in some cases, in a way that it was never meant to be used.

              I had heard of Liverpool Care Pathway regime but didn’t know the name.

              I remember the US case where the husband of a woman who had been in a coma for years had to make the decision to stop her being fed. She was NOT on life support, nobody’s on it that long. This was made out to be the act of a callous swine who had cashed in the insurance and now wanted to let his wife die. In fact, the insurance money had gone on her care, the hospital (or wherever she was being cared for) had not offered to keep her free of charge and the husband didn’t have the money. The people who were protesting did not seem to be offering to either look after themselves or provide the money for her to be cared for professionally.

              As a young nursing student, I had a patient who had been in a coma for years and was being kept alive with drips. We had to clean him as if he was a baby, and I can assure that this is a disgusting thing to have to do for an adult. It might well have been kinder to simply stop feeding him (he would have known nothing) and let him die with a modicum of dignity, but this wasn’t possible as it would have been murder, I suppose.

  3. oldlaker

     /  27th June 2019

    If the “grievous and irremediable ” clause is removed, it’s hard to see how opponents like Disability Rights Commissioner Paula Tesoriero will go on opposing it on the grounds of protecting the disabled. But of course they will because they are deeply opposed to any form of assisted dying (perhaps for religious reasons). John Campbell asked Tesoriero whether she was opposed to assisted dying “per se” and she wouldn’t answer.
    My biggest surprise was Deborah Russell switching her vote from yes to no. Since the select committee didn’t amend it, it is nearly exactly the same bill that was presented at first reading and changes are almost certain to narrow its scope.

    Reply
    • Kitty Catkin

       /  28th June 2019

      She wants to make the decision on behalf of someone else whose life is intolerable from the sound of it. She is fully entitled to oppose assisted dying, but not to deny it to an intelligent adult whose life is full of pain and indignity and who wants to end it on their own terms.

      In an article I read about the Oregon situation, all of the people who had the overdose ready in case of need WANTED to die; they all liked their lives. But they didn’t want to reach the stage of being helpless and in agony and having no quality of life. I believe that most people there who have the drug don’t reach the stage of needing it, but appreciate knowing that it’s there in case they do.

      Reply
  4. Kate Savage

     /  28th June 2019

    If I was a tetraplegic and had to reply on others to feed me and toilet me I should have the right to choose not to continue to live with indignity. Terminal illness is not the only reason to choose to end your suffering. What gives someone else the right to decide what is best for me? How patronising and superior!

    Reply
    • I can easily imagine not wanting to go on living like that, still less like those who spent years in an iron lung – I was appalled that some people did. The idea fills me with horror. This bill may allow for that in the other section about grievous and irremediable medical condition.

      I know that some people make lives for themselves even after becoming paralysed, but can’t imagine myself being able to.

      No wonder that man in Christchurch killed his best friend when the friend was paralysed from the neck down. I remember Alan Duff (probably speaking for many of us) saying that he hoped that someone would do it for him but that he also hoped that no one would ever ask him to do it for them.

      Many of the people who are pro David’s bill seem to saying variations on what you are saying.

      I will freely admit that I was worried about the ‘slippery slope’ but once I had read the bill and heard David talking about it, I couldn’t see how this could possibly happen.

      Reply
      • Kitty Catkin

         /  28th June 2019

        You will have noticed that someone feels it necessary to downtick any comment that I make; I can guess who this drear is. The PDT/s (Phantom Down Tickers) will downtick a comment by me or one of their other targets but not the one it’s agreeing with; it’s too pathetic 😀

        Reply
    • PartisanZ

       /  4th July 2019

      Kate Savage, in New OrangeLand, a country ruled by Orange people in which Blue people and Red people are discriminated against in different ways, the Red people are saying the Blue people should not be liberated from discrimination until the Red people are too.

      Better for both to remain oppressed, despite the fact they’re struggling for different sorts of liberation and that the Blue people, once liberated, are likely to assist the Red people’s freedom struggle …

      This is bizarre huh?

      Blue people are going to die anyway, and in the short-term. They’re at the end of their life and, strangely enough, the Bill is called The End of Life Choice Bill.

      “Consent of the governed” gives someone else the right to decide what’s best for me; and, or course, it gives me the right to oppose their decision.

      I’m not disagreeing with your position – (believe it or not?) – because the “disability card” is currently being played conversely to yours. It’s being played to prevent anyone at all having End of Life Choice.

      Does your theoretical tetraplegic genuinely have a “grievous and irremediable medical condition” AND “is in an advanced state of irreversible decline in capability” AND “experiences unbearable suffering that cannot be relieved in a manner that … the person considers tolerable” AND “has the ability to understand — (i) the nature of assisted dying; and (ii) the consequences for … them of assisted dying?

      It would be really interesting to hear from a real tetraplegic on the subject?

      Reply
  5. oldlaker

     /  28th June 2019

    The politics are going to be interesting as Maggie Barry does everything she can to stop the bill’s progress, or, if she can’t do that, to water it down to the point it is unworkable. The public are not going to like that and neither is a big chunk of the National caucus who will find themselves tarred by her zealot’s brush. And possibly into an election year as well. No wonder Bridges was angry about it possibly going to a referendum alongside the election. Sixty-five per cent of National voters are in favour of assisted dying for the terminally ill so it’s going to be very tricky waters for the party to navigate.

    Reply
    • Kitty Catkin

       /  29th June 2019

      I hope that people will see that she is using scaremongering and misinformation. if 65% are pro, her campaign has failed. I respect her right to her views, but don’t respect her tactics.

      Reply
  6. oldlaker

     /  4th July 2019

    PartisanZ… you have articulated the bizarre position advocated by the likes of Paula Tesoriero very well. No one in the media seems to have picked up on it: “Until everyone has nice things, no one can have nice things!”
    When the “grievous and irremediable” clause was in play, the argument was that disabled people felt threatened by the prospect of being encouraged to die; as soon as that clause looks like being removed, the argument has shifted to: “We need to make disabled people’s lives more valued before anyone else can be offered a merciful death when they are dying because part of the wish to be spared the last few days and weeks of torment may be based partly on a fear of being effectively disabled and that devalues the lives of the disabled.”
    It’s a very weird kind of logic — and a sneaky kind of blackmail.

    Reply
    • PartisanZ

       /  5th July 2019

      A fine nutshell summary there oldlaker … or is it Old Laker?

      Reply
  1. End of Life Choice Bill passes second reading 70-50 — Your NZ – NZ Conservative Coalition

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s