End of Life Choice Bill – third reading vote: 69-51

The End of Life Choice (euthansia) Bill is having it’s Third Reading in Parliament tonight, which is the bill’s final debate and vote.

There has been a lot of lobbying and attempts to pressure MPs.

The Green and NZ First party MPs will all vote for the bill.

Labour and National MPs have been allowed a conscience vote, leaving it to individual choice.

If the vote is against the bill that will be the end of it’s life.

If the vote is for the bill it will go to public referendum next year, allowing the voting public to decide whether the bill should become law or not.

The bill: End of Life Choice Bill


The vote announced at 8:46 pm

Ayes 69

Noes 51

That’s  bigger margin than I expected.  Now on to a referendum in about year’s time.


Newsroom: Euthanasia’s parliamentary battle is won. Now the real fight begins

Euthanasia supporters have finally won the support of Parliament, with David Seymour’s End of Life Choice Bill succeeding where others had failed. But with the fate of the law now in the public’s hands, the real war may just be beginning.

Campaigning for votes could get ugly, as past referendum campaigns have done. Social media is likely to be extensively used and abused in the process.


3rd reading speeches and details of which way MPs voted:

https://www.parliament.nz/en/pb/hansard-debates/rhr/combined/HansDeb_20191113_20191113_16

Leave a comment

19 Comments

  1. Kitty Catkin

     /  13th November 2019

    The antis (who seem to miss the point of this bill; that it’s voluntary euthanasia or assisted suicide) must be furious that Philip Patston is supporting it.

    Reply
    • Thanks, I have added that to the post.

      Reply
    • Kitty Catkin

       /  13th November 2019

      One of David Seymour’s many good qualities is that he listens and takes advice as he has with anything that was remotely ambiguous about this bill.

      Reply
      • PartisanZ

         /  14th November 2019

        You mean remotely ambiguous like “grievous and irremediable medical condition” Miss Kitty?

        Gone in the purest most grotesque form of political trade-off.

        Ambiguous like “attending medical practitioner or attending nurse practitioner”?

        There goes any hope of terminally-ill people in remote rural areas, and many other places, and possibly any place at all, being able to die peacefully at home, perhaps with their loved ones gathered around them if they all so wish, depending on the readiness of the medical profession to make house-calls to “administer the medication”.

        How likely do you think that is? Do doctors make house-calls at all nowadays? They don’t where I live. Perhaps some will? (Only 10% of doctors signed a letter against EOLC).

        Readiness … or perhaps cost of a house-call?

        No, we shall all die in the sterile, clinical environment of hospitals now because, if I gather correctly from their submissions to the Bill, the likelihood of the hospice movement facilitating EOLC is even less than doctors making those house-calls? (Unless hospice is compelled?)

        I pity David Seymour. Such a good man underneath it all. Secretly he must feel this a very hollow victory indeed IMHO.

        World ‘best practice’ pointed irrevocably towards Oregon’s Death-with-Dignity Act which specifically prevents the doctor administering the medication! (The doctor can be present if requested and agreed, but generally isn’t I believe). Their DWDA has worked almost without a glitch since 1997 … for 22 years!!!

        What is about Aotearoa New Zealand that we can’t just follow World Best Practice FFS?

        Oh, I know, its Doctor Farmer and the Corporate-Political Elites, dominated as they are by Right-Wing Christian & Religious Arch-Conservative Fundamentalists.

        EOLC will be, by design, almost unworkable or at best far less workable than it could have been. It paves the way instead for endless future amendments, all perfectly sensible and humane, and all contested with the same vigor by these elites, the minuscule proportion of the population who think they know best for everyone else, and those amendments will be FUBAR just like this Bill has been!

        How’s that for an alternative opinion?

        Reply
  2. As at 8:37 pm  personal vote is taking place, I presume this is the third reading vote.

    Reply
  3. The vote announced at 8:46 pm

    Ayes 69

    Noes 51

    That’s  bigger margin than I expected.  Now on to a referendum in bout  year’s time.

    Reply
    • Gezza

       /  13th November 2019

      Good. My doc’s opposed to it. She considers there’s no need for anyone to die in pain these days & misses the point that it’s not always about pain. I want this choice to be available to me should I ever find myself in the situation where I think it’s best.

      Reply
  4. Corky

     /  13th November 2019

    I think people erroneously believe this referendum is as good as won. That will probably be the case, but the fat lady hasn’t sung yet. Still plenty of time to have second thoughts.

    Reply
    • Gezza

       /  13th November 2019

      Absolutely. But if it has any chance at all of becoming law, it had to pass this stage first.

      Reply
      • PartisanZ

         /  14th November 2019

        … and plenty of time to be encouraged to have second thoughts by a statistically minuscule but very well financed cartel of Right-Wing Christian & Religious Arch-Conservative Fundamentalists who have already mashed the Bill almost beyond recognition.

        Another ‘held to ransom referendum’ from Winston Peters, who insists on ending his career by mocking one of the mechanisms by which democracy might be improved.

        I’ll never vote for David Seymour, obviously, but I do have tremendous respect for him pursuing this on behalf of roughly 75% of the population

        Reply
        • Corky

           /  14th November 2019

          I usually enjoy giving you a ‘good serve,’ Parti. However, for once, you have given credit where credit is due. A question Seymour may be asking himself – will my heroics convert into votes for ACT?

          Reply
          • PartisanZ

             /  14th November 2019

            You have a delusional over-inflated opinion of yourself if you think you’ve got a “good serve” Corky. They’re double-faults mostly, the rest lets or nets.

            I heard on talkback the other day National Party stalwarts deserting the sinking ship after Doc Farmer & The Corporate-Political Elites backed the Zero Carbon Bill. To a man and woman those Nats were defecting to ACT.

            How many defectors are also Right-Wing Christian Arch-Conservative Fundamentalists is another question entirely? They would surely go to The New Conservatives? (Whatever happened to Aotearoa New Zealand’s proud tradition of Christian Socialism?)

            Vernon Tava timed his debut announcement with precision inaccuracy. National defectors are hardly likely to go to a more conservation-minded Blue/Teal party, are they?

            Votes for ACT? I reckon he’ll win a few and lose a few …

            Reply
            • Kitty Catkin

               /  14th November 2019

              Heroics doesn’t mean heroism but the opposite, so David will not be asking himself that question; he doesn’t go in for ‘heroics’ and never has.

            • PartisanZ

               /  14th November 2019

              🤣 He doesn’t go in for votes either!!! 😂😁 He gets gifted them by the National Party!

  5. PartisanZ

     /  16th November 2019

    Home death anyone?

    The forces of arch-conservatism have made a dog’s breakfast of the End of Life Choice Bill (EOLCB). No ‘International Best Practice’ for we citizens of Aotearoa New Zealand.

    Not content with removing “grievous and irremediable medical condition” from David Seymour’s compassionate, progressive legislation, the Right-Wing Judeo-Christian Fundamentalists have stipulated that any doctor or nurse practitioner who signs up for EOLC must, if requested, be prepared to administer the medication themselves, and either be in the same room as the eligible person or in “close proximity”.

    The first of these will surely maximize conscientious objections, the second likely rule out ‘home death (with dignity)’, especially in remoter rural areas?

    Contrast this with Oregon’s Death-with-Dignity Act (DWDA) which has operated almost without glitch for 22 years! A generation no less! There the prescribing doctor is specifically prohibited from administering the medication even if present by arrangement at time of death. This automatically ameliorates the Hippocratic Oath dilemma.

    During 2018 a whopping 88.6% of Oregon’s DWD patients died at home. Doctors attended just 16.7% of these deaths, while another 22% had some other healthcare professional present, “i.e. hospice nurse” (says the DWDA report), although none of the 168 patients who used their medication died in a hospital or hospice. Not one! Zero.

    168 terminally-ill people exercising EOLC (67.46% of 249 prescribed the medication) in Oregon, with similar population size and demographics to ours, is hardly a “vulnerable person” holocaust.

    Now these same perverse forces, staunch defenders of economic, religious and self-expression ‘freedoms’, have 12 long months to mount their unworthy campaign to deny this freedom of choice to their fellow citizens.

    We have Winston Peters to thank for that.

    Reply
    • Duker

       /  16th November 2019

      Cant you count ? It wouldnt have passed – even in the watered down form -without the referendum option , which has been NZF policy for some time ( even if one its MP ‘forgot’)
      “The Greens and NZ First both agreed to vote for the bill on-bloc once certain conditions were met.
      For the Greens those conditions were more safeguards to make sure only the terminally ill were covered, and could not be coerced.
      NZ First meanwhile demanded a referendum on the subject, an amendment entered by a tight vote won 63 to 57.”

      You should be thankful that it lives to ride again in 12 months.
      Losing the vote this week would have killed it off ( pun intended) for another generation.

      Reply
      • PartisanZ

         /  16th November 2019

        Yeah, yeah … “Thankful” … people said this kind of thing about Labour’s Clayton’s Medicinal Cannabis legislation too … “It’s a start” … “Small steps” …

        So how come Oregon got Death-with-Dignity right first time?

        But I have to agree with you, this is New Zeal Land after all, let’s just live on entertaining only the lowest possible expectations of our politicians … Why ever would we expect international best practice?

        That’s what I’m decrying … and incidentally, I’m very happy to live in a country where I have the freedom of speech to do so.

        I didn’t say I wanted it to die. I said we’ve made a dog’s breakfast of it.

        Reply

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