Pretty cunning mve of Seymour bringing onboardthe entire pro gun voters,theanti 1080 voters,the anti DOC voters,and many assorted rednecks, a sorry motley crew imo.
Printable View
Pretty cunning mve of Seymour bringing onboardthe entire pro gun voters,theanti 1080 voters,the anti DOC voters,and many assorted rednecks, a sorry motley crew imo.
duplication
Enlightening euthanasia bill debate between David Seymour & a Palliative Care Doctor representing the Palliative Care medical profession who have taken the unusual step of jointly signing a letter saying the bill is leaky & would expose thousands of NZ'ers to being put in an extremely vulnerable position.
Seymour awful, a complete jerk, arrogant & full of hubris, talking over the top of and patronising an obviously deeply caring medical specialist who has devoted 25 years to looking after people at end of life stage.
It is obvious Palliative Care needs more funding rather than euthanasia being the solution to an underfunded area of medicine.
All ACT seem to care about are the costs of everything, they don't seem to value anything.
After watching this, I'll be reversing the way I was intending to vote on this bill.
https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/polit...r-motives.html
Then again you might wonder why any doctor would wish to see someone in real suffering be forced to live through a long painful death against their will. I thought Seymour's views on the Nation showed compassion. I'm not sure why the doctor wants to inflict her views on anyone, when the only thing she can change is adding a little extra life, and a lot of pain. She didn't show a compassionate side.
I must say I find it difficult to believe anyone would change their mind because of anything the doctor said. She may have lifted some out of the undecided camp, but to actually change anyone's mind ...... unbelievable.
In real practice, doctors don't force people to live through long painful deaths against their will.
Think of it this way, if a specialist say an engineer with 25 years experience in a particular field told you a bridge was unsafe, but a politician said its fine, who would you believe?
If a doctors with 25 years experience in this field, supported by far the majority of medical specialists also in this field, says this bill is unsafe, I don't think it would be very wise to ignore them & support the opposite view of a politician with no experience & a vested interest in getting his bill passed.
Your previous post claims the doctor on the nation changed your mind. Now you've decide to quote the majority of doctors. (wherever you got the idea that the majority oppose it) Why did you wait until The Nation to change your mind? I doubt you were ever in support of euthanasia, and that's fine - but just say so without all the b/s about changing your vote.