Louisa Wall MP Ignores Public Opinion with Flawed Euthanasia Bill
Media Release 22 November 2016
Right to Life questions Louisa Wall MP on taking the highly unusual step of presenting a bill to a select committee. On
Friday 18 November while making an oral submission to the Parliamentary Health Select she presented the Committee with
her bill to amend the Crimes Act to allow doctors to kill their patients or assist in their suicide. The title of the
bill is the ‘Authorised Dying bill”. It was drafted by Louisa Wall with the assistance of her wife, Prue Kapua, a human
rights lawyer.
The title of the bill is misleading as it is euphemistically disguising the purpose of the bill which should be named
the “Authority to Kill” bill. Ms Wall continues to be in denial about the real endpoint of euthanasia, which will
inevitably be the killing of the weak by the strong.
Why is Ms Wall ignoring public opinion which is overwhelmingly opposed to euthanasia as clearly shown by the balance of
submissions? By her action she is saying to the community and the Health Committee, that she does not care about public
opinion and that she knows what is best for us. She is determined to inflict this flawed bill on our community and
subject our will to hers. Ms Wall should be well aware that there were 21,435 written submissions made to the Health
Select Committee on the issue of euthanasia and that a select analysis of the submissions revealed that 78 per cent were
opposed to euthanasia. There are also 1,800 oral submissions, the vast majority of those heard to date are
overwhelmingly opposed to euthanasia. Ms Wall’s hope that her bill will be incorporated in the Committee’s report to
Parliament is fortunately just not going to happen.
Ms Wall has unwittingly exposed the myth promoted by the pro death movement, that euthanasia is all about having
compassion for those “suffering intolerable pain” in a terminal illness. It is not. it is a smoke screen that is
intended to deceive us. Ms Wall’s bill, paragraph 6 Eligible Person states in section [c] “is suffering from a terminal illness.” There is absolutely no requirement in her bill to consider pain let alone intolerable pain.
The bill requires that applications to have one’s life terminated by a doctor should be approved by an ethics committee.
This is another smoke screen intended to confer ethical legitimately on the murder of a patient by a doctor. Ms Wall
must be aware that the New Zealand Medical Association has consistently made it clear that euthanasia, the killing of a
patient, is always unethical. Why is Ms Wall trying to impose her will on the medical profession?
The Bill claims that the conscience of medical practitioners is protected. This is manifestly untrue. The bill requires
that when a doctor refuses to terminate the life of his patient he is obliged under Paragraph 9, to send the patient’s
file and all relevant information to another doctor who is. This is an intolerable violation of the conscience of any
doctor who wishes to care and not kill his patient
Ken Orr
Spokesperson,
Right to Life.