Mercifully,
Auckland man Evans Mott, who helped his multiple sclerosis suffering wife to
die, happened across a compassionate judge today:
An Auckland man who helped his wife
die was her "hero" and ending her suffering from multiple sclerosis
was a "courageous" act, his lawyer has told a court.
Evans James Mott, 61, was discharged
without conviction in the High Court at Auckland this morning after he pleaded
guilty to a charge of aiding and abetting the suicide of Rosemary Mott, who
died at her home in Paritai Dr, Orakei, on December 28 last year.
A packed public gallery of
right-to-die advocates applauded when Justice Patricia Courtney announced Mott
would not face a penalty.
However,
I take little succour from this, for a few paragraphs down is the cold text
that should chill the heart of every warm blooded man or woman who has ever
loved:
Rosie was suffering from an aggressive
form of multiple sclerosis that gave her tremors, making it hard for her to
feed herself, incontinence, and made it hard to walk.
She resolved to take her life in 2010.
Mansfield said Rosie needed someone
who would listen to her, help her, and not betray her by reporting her to
authorities.
He asked the court to consider what it
must have been like for Mott to have to say goodbye to his wife and leave the house while she took her life,
so he could not be charged in relation to the death.
My
advocacy in this blog that a civilised society must go about its rule-making by thinking on man’s condition from within a morality of man qua man,
heightens the rage I rightly feel when reading such a state-coerced tragic, because separated,
ending for Mr and Mrs Mott. Mr Mott most certainly was his wife’s hero.
For
me, the issues surrounding euthanasia have always been about two things:
Mrs
Mott’s right to die with dignity, but also, equally:
Mr Mott’s right, which was denied
him, to be in the same room, embraced with his loved one, Rosie, so she would not have to pass away, completely alone in the world.
It takes no effort of imagination
to be able to put myself in either of their minds and lives to understand how stricken
they must have each been at that moment he had to leave their house, closing the door
behind his still living, breathing, loving and brave but obviously desperate wife.
Put yourself there: Mrs Mott watching her husband’s back from her bed, leaving;
Mr Mott closing that final door behind them, and the sum of their lives together (as they were not allowed to be in death).
All
those who made, and would continue to make, Mr Mott leave his wife to her last
moments, alone, staring at the damned wallpaper, not into her husband’s eyes, the warmth of him next to her, are
cruel, unfeeling, cold-hearted monsters. And this issue is no more complicated
than that.
Repeat: and this issue is no more complicated than that.
Compassionate,
loving and thinking human beings will support Labour MP Maryan Street’s upcoming euthanasia legislation. I think you can read between the lines on what I think
about those who don’t, and how ironic a great many of them will be found pontificating
from the pulpits of what they would try and convince me is a merciful God.
Excuse me for my derision, and my contempt. No, no I don’t understand your merciless
position: not one bit.
Finally,
to the head of the doctor’s union - or whatever the name of that organisation is - whom I saw
interviewed on the TV recently arrogantly saying that ‘doctors’ were against euthanasia:
you are, on top of brutish, wrong: I know you’re wrong by deduction – doctors are
humans also, of course there will be some who would have been willing to help
Mr and Mrs Mott (and Maryan’s bill doesn’t make it compulsory for doctors to provide this
humane service, they have choice to: you do understand that?) And don’t think
you’re speaking for your patients either: a no doubt deeply distressed Mr Mott could
have told you that if you’d been standing with him on his lawn outside his home, on 28
December last year – you see, his wife was inside dying, alone.
Update 1:
Mr Mott's own words state the case for euthanasia law: 'Rosie should not have died alone':
"For Rosie to be that sick and to die alone by her own hand, that's not
right. Our family should have been around her to say goodbye."
As a result of the court case, Evans has become the reluctant public face of the campaign to legalise euthanasia.
He advocates that New Zealand should allow euthanasia by a medical
professional, as in some Scandinavian countries, and subject to tight
controls.
"Imagine if you had a dog which was old, can hardly walk and in constant
pain. The SPCA would charge you with animal cruelty. If you can be
merciful to an animal and put them down, why does society say no when
it's a family member? The system is flawed.
"
Evans rejects the assertion of those who oppose moves to legalise euthanasia.
"I have the right to choose for me and equally those people have the
right to choose for themselves. Just as I have no right to choose for
them".
Update 2:
I really can be a bit thick at times, or rather, I pay scant attention to the workings of Parliament because what goes on there makes me so angry, but anyway, after a Twitter discussion with MP Maryan Street - who on this issue is excellent - I now find out that her Euthanasia Bill is only one of 60 Bills in the ballot, and may never come up. So on top of all the other
problems with our social democracies, now I have to add morality by raffle.
Anyway, the final ignominy on this issue is that to get this legislation up for vote, even, and have control of my death, I would have to vote Labour, who want complete control of my life, via my wallet, while I'm living.
In the face of contradictory nonsense like this, we need a Western Spring.
.
Good blog Mark. Further to our Twitter conversation, issues like this are always conscience votes. That means that MPs are free to vote according to their conscience and there is no party position on it. That's why the government would not take this up as a government measure, so asking a National MP to 'sponsor' the bill will make no difference. It doesn't matter if it's a Nat or a Labour MP or one of any other hue. Sometimes members' bills are taken up by government and then they take precedence on the Order Paper because government controls the Order Paper. But that won't happen with this bill so it falls to the ballot box as the remaining device to introduce such a measure. The only other one is for the House to give leave for me to introduce my bill and it only takes one MP to say no, for that not to happen.
ReplyDeleteThanks Maryan. As I said on Twitter I'm willfully ignorant on process.
DeleteIt angers me so much that a basic right such as we are dealing with here, and as I've blogged on, is down to a process that is so out of my control, and essentially turns morality into a raffle. A civilised society would not work like this.
All the best with it, and as farcical as it is, I guess I keep my fingers crossed your Bill comes up.