Submission on the Prothanasia Bill

State Assisted Dying

The text below constitutes a submission opposing Prothanasia in New Zealand, otherwise known as the End-of-Life Choice Bill.

In considering any Bill it is essential that regard be given not just to the proposed law, but also to the reasonable inferences to be drawn from the Bill.

The "End of Life Choice" Bill necessarily assumes that people deemed to be at the "end of life" have a human right to choose to end their lives.   So strong is the assumption, medical practitioners are authorised to assist and facilitate the death.  The Bill implies that not to recognize this right to die represents an injustice against the one wishing to terminate his life.

A reasonable inference from this Bill is that the purported human right to die cannot arbitrarily be restricted to old age "End of Life", nor to incapacitation or disease.  Any attempts to restrict the right in that manner will be necessarily artificial and arbitrary.  If one person has a human right to choose death, everyone must have the same right.  It is cruelly unjust to say (as this Bill effectively does) that some have a right to die, but deny it for others.

New Zealand is said to have a "problem" with youth suicide.  The End of Life Choice Bill implies that society is unjust in calling youth suicide a problem.  A human right is a human right.  If the State recognizes a human right to die that right must apply to all humans, regardless of age.  It is a sad reality that some human beings, for whatever reason, form a considered view that they no longer wish to live.  They believe they are at the end of their particular life.

If a 60 year old has a human right to a state-assisted death, so must a 23 year old--for are not human rights universal to all humans?

Some will argue that young people are too inexperienced to decide to end their lives.  But if a person is sufficiently mature to vote, to be drafted into a war, and to pay taxes at adult rates, society has already determined he or she is sufficiently mature to carry adult responsibilities.  The right to choose to live or die, since it is granted to a senior must equally be recognized for a sixteen year old.

I believe that the End of Life Choice Bill is grounded upon a pseudo human right; if the law were artificially to create such a right, it will not be able to restrict it's application only to the terminally ill.  "Good and necessary consequence" will inevitably require that it be extended to people of all ages and conditions.

It is the individual's desire and choice to die which will direct cases in the future, if this Bill were to pass.  The State would have already conceded to citizens the principle or right to die in the time and manner of their own choosing.  Any State imposed limitations upon that right would be judged arbitrary, cruel, and unjust.  The End of Life Choice Act would have already recognized a human right to choose death.  The entrenched higher authority of the Bill of Rights will ensure that this will be the case.

Conclusion:   That the Committee reject this Bill on the grounds that there is no Human Right to "Choose to Die".