Voting With a Catholic Conscience: Referendums
Photo by Element5 Digital on Unsplash
WRITTEN BY:
By John Kleinsman, Nathaniel Centre for Bioethics
READ TIME:
6 mins
At the upcoming election, voters face two referendum questions: one on whether to implement assisted suicide and euthanasia and the other on whether to legalise recreational cannabis.
For many, the default starting point for deciding how to vote will be individualistic: “How do I feel about this issue?” “Is this something I want for myself?” A more “Catholic” stance takes a different starting point, one that prioritises the impact a law change will have on others, asking: “What are the consequences for society and, in particular, for the most vulnerable?”
Binding Referendum Question: “Do you support the End of Life Choice Act 2019 coming into force?”
The EOLC Act 2019 makes assisted suicide or euthanasia available to people with a terminal illness who are 18 or over, are thought to have six months or less to live and experience “unbearable suffering that cannot be relieved in a way the person considers tolerable”.
The group most at risk if we legalise euthanasia and assisted suicide are those vulnerable to the suggestion they would be “better off dead” – our elders and disabled people who find themselves fitting the eligibility criteria.
The referendum question is not about the idea of assisted death. Voters are being asked to vote on a proposed law which outlines a specific approach to regulating assisted death. As noted by one group: “Even people who support euthanasia in principle have good reasons to vote “NO” to the EOLC Act [because it] is flawed and riskier than similar overseas laws.”
The following points provide further insights into the rigour of the End of Life Choice Act 2019:
The NZ law is broader and more liberal than one recently passed in Victoria, Australia, as well as laws in the United States.
The EOLC Act is not just for the “exceptionally difficult cases”; it does not require that a person make use of available treatments or receive palliative care.
MPs proposed 114 amendments to make the Bill safer. Only three passed and most were voted down without being debated.
Quality palliative care is effective but there is no corresponding right to access such care. Overseas, people choose assisted death when they don’t really want it because of a lack of other choices. This will happen in New Zealand because quality palliative care is not universally available.
Overseas research shows that the choice of euthanasia is not driven by pain but by a range of personal and emotional reasons, including the fear of being a burden and/or disabled.
The current law already allows people to say “no” to any treatments and to receive whatever level of pain relief they need, even to the point of being sedated if need be. No-one needs to die in pain.
It is estimated that approximately 10% of our elders are the victims of abuse, mostly from their own families. Passing the EOLC Act in this context is dangerous.
Key medical groups including the New Zealand Medical Association, Hospice New Zealand, palliative care nurses and palliative medicine doctors all oppose the EOLC Act as unsafe.
Medical groups have publicly stated that it will be impossible for doctors to detect if persons are being pressured.
Requests for an assisted death are typically driven by depression, something that is extremely difficult to detect.
The EOLC Act does not require a patient to talk about a decision to end their life with a family member or other significant person.
In Canada, what was initially promoted as an important safeguard – limiting assisted death to those facing a “foreseeable death” – has now been judged by a superior court to be an obstacle to free choice for people with long-term conditions or disabilities. The same changes will occur in New Zealand.
Non-Binding Referendum Question: Do you support the proposed Cannabis Legalisation and Control Bill?
The Cannabis Referendum is about whether to legalise recreational cannabis. It is not about medicinal cannabis. New regulations to provide and improve access to quality medicinal cannabis products were passed in April 2020.
Neither is the question about those who use cannabis for medicinal purposes. Under an amendment to the law in 2018, people using cannabis to alleviate their pain or suffering are already exempt from prosecution.
The current law treats cannabis use, growth and/or supply as a criminal issue. A more recent amendment – the Misuse of Drugs Act 2019 – means that the police are able to use their discretion: either charge persons with a criminal offence or direct them to a health-based intervention. However, one of the problems associated with the current legal situation, which relies on police discretion, is that Māori youth are three times more likely to be arrested/convicted for cannabis-related offences than their non-Māori peers, an indication of systemic racial bias.
It is argued by many that the group most vulnerable to the legalising of recreational cannabis are our rangatahi – our young New Zealanders – in particular those still at school.
If the intention of legalising recreational cannabis is to shift users from the black market to legal outlets, to reduce the harm caused by cannabis use and to reduce the demand for cannabis, it needs to be asked: “Will making cannabis more widely, easily and legally available in the community really give greater control over the risks to our rangatahi – our young people?”
The current referendum question ignores the merits of decriminalisation as an alternative way of moving from a criminal-based approach towards a more health-based approach.
The following points provide further insights for reflection:
As with many other countries, the use of cannabis by teens in New Zealand has already been dropping steadily since 2001.
Making cannabis more easily accessible while expecting that prohibition will restrict its availability to our rangatahi and reduce demand sends a mixed message – young people will access it in the same way that under-age adolescents currently access alcohol and tobacco primarily through friends and family rather than retailers.
Overseas, the legalisation of cannabis has not led to an end of the black market supply, primarily because regulated cannabis costs more as a result of being subject to testing and taxes and has lower THC levels.
The proposed legislation will allow cannabis to be available in a range of edibles.
Cannabis is not a benign drug and can cause various physical ill-effects, particularly in the cardiac and respiratory systems.
Adolescents may be uniquely susceptible to lasting damage from marijuana use into the early or mid-20s while the brain is still developing.
Cannabis impairs driving ability. Drivers who tested positive for cannabis are five times more likely to die and forty times more likely when cannabis is combined with alcohol.
The legalisation of cannabis will lead to a commercial industry with a vested industry in promoting its use. The young will be particularly susceptible to being targeted, as was the case with tobacco and alcohol and, more recently, with vaping.
Authorised by John Kleinsman, The Nathaniel Centre for Bioethics, 15 Guildford Terrace, Wellington 6144
