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.
There are things which can be done to manage pain for the 6 months time window of this bill.
Those in chronic long term pain would not be helped by this proposal. Not a fan of the spokesperson either so will be voting against but yes for cannibas (two plant per household limit).
Not liking the spokesperson must be the best reason I've ever heard for opposing this bill. Well done. Presumably you don't think much of anyone you've ever known, barely existing in extreme pain, either. Make them suffer - keep in mind you don't like 'the spokesperson'. Tell them that at their bedside.
What problem will it solve given it's 6 months and either they will recover or die anyway? Plus as I said the pain can be managed in that timeframe rather well or kept in a medical coma for that time.
I'm sure medical experts know more and we should listen to them preferably.
Whoa...take a deep breath before you start shooting from the hip & jumping to conclusions. No need for the crude personal attacks.
If you listen to the interview, Dr Donnelly the Specialist Palliative Care doctor states..."the Palliative Care Nurses NZ, Hospice NZ & the Palliative Care Doctors of NZ, are all deeply concerned about the risks this act has in it.".... "everyday we look after people who are dying, people who are extremely vulnerable."
1700 doctors have signed a petition against the bill, and the way I see it, it would be foolish to ignore all of this advice from dedicated specialists working in this field.
As I said, prior to seeing this interview, I was going to vote for the bill, but I'm inclined to follow the advice of specialists and dedicated people who work in palliative care rather than my own preconceived ideas.
As a person presently undergoing cancer treatment myself I previously thought euthanasia would be a very good option to have, but I can also now imagine how vulnerable you might feel, and I also know from direct observation those working in the palliative care field do not 'let people die long painful deaths against their will', in fact nothing could be further from the truth.
If you don't see it that way, that's fine, just vote for the bill, but please don't presume you know what I am thinking and less of the personal attacks just because you disagree.
Fair enough, but I there are a large number of health professionals with the opposite view. I remain surprised that one program influenced your opinion - which is not a personal attack. I have a number of nurses in my circle of acquaintances, and they overwhelmingly support the bill, most having spent many years nursing end of life patients. It took me a long time to decide what to vote, and had decided I would abstain, but after further consideration I have decided it's unfair to withhold my support from anyone opting for that choice. I have settled on yes. I have met and spoken to Seymour, and I like him. He's certainly intelligent and I don't see the arrogance that you do - but that's just our personal viewpoints. Best wishes with your treatment.
All good, cheers.
I'm finding it a difficult decision & can see arguments both for & against, not so much against euthanasia but the way the bill is written.
I suppose the two things which got to me were the arguments 1) the safeguards in the way the bill is presently written as not being considered safe enough or workable by many in the palliative care sector.
2) like a jury decision, needing to be 100% certain the bill in it's current form is not ever going to result in any suffering or injustice to anyone in an extremely vulnerable position.
However, I'll continue to think about it.