Only seeing what they want to

Martin Hanson

In the first paragraph of his column “Disabled want assisted living, not dying” (April 7), Ken Orr employs the rhetorical tactic of confusing Paula Tesoriero’s academic qualifications, sporting achievements and NZ Order of Merit with the validity of her argument. Even Mr Orr must know that the former has no connection with the latter, but it doesn’t prevent him introducing this red herring and in doing so, insulting the intelligence of his readers.

In my column of March 17, I said that a statement in Disability Commissioner Tesoriero’s submission to the Select Committee on the End of Life Choice bill was wholly without foundation. Mr Orr cannot have read what I said, which was that although all but one of the 55 points in her submission expressed concern that the Seymour bill poses a threat to disabled people, only point 10 attempts to justify this belief. And even then it fails to provide credible evidence:

“This eligibility criteria [sic] captures a broad range of illnesses and conditions. It is possible that relatively common chronic health conditions, such as diabetes, heart disease, neurological disorders, intellectual disabilities, autism and other neuro-disabilities and regional pain syndromes, if advanced and sufficiently degenerative, could fall within the bill’s scope.”

Well, yes, many of these degenerative conditions could indeed fall within the bill’s scope, if sufficiently advanced. But that is beside the point, which is that no one should be forced to go on living against their will. To argue otherwise is to imply that one’s life belongs to God, whose existence an increasing proportion of the population do not accept.

It’s clear that both Ms Tesoriero and Mr Orr only see what they want to see (regardless of whether it is there or not) and ignore what they don’t like, rendering rational discussion impossible. What is “patently false” to Mr Orr is all-too clear to an impartial reader. His next statement illustrates the power of religious dogma over objective thought:

“The writer claims that a request for assisted suicide must come from the patient. This ignores the very real threat that would be imposed on the disabled who experience periods of deep depression when, if assisted suicide was available, they could succumb to an early death.”

There is no “imposition”. People vary enormously in their response to disability. Some have the inner resources to make the best of desperately bad situations, such as tetraplegia. But some suffer from severe depression, as well they might. While there are drugs that can relieve depression in otherwise physically healthy people, in severely disabled people the source of depression is beyond help of antidepressant drugs. Does Mr Orr maintain that people condemned to a lifetime of severe disability should not have the right to end their suffering?

And later:

“The commissioner advises that the feedback she has received from the disability sector is a real concern that they cannot identify and implement safeguards which would protect disabled persons from harm; there is no provision for informed consent; and the bill gives the message that they would be better off dead.”

No provision for informed consent? Only someone who has not read the bill or whose religious fixations prevent them seeing what is in front of their eyes could manufacture such a blatantly false statement. If a severely disabled person wants to die, that is his or her right. To say the bill “gives the message that they would be better off dead” is a perversion of its real intent, which is the relief of suffering. The Catholic view of suffering, articulated by Mother Teresa and others that it is “a gift from God”, verges on sadism. If the Catholic stance on the Seymour bill prevails, New Zealand cannot claim to have fully emerged from the moral Dark Ages.