Blog description.

Accentuating the Liberal in Classical Liberal: Advocating Ascendency of the Individual & a Politick & Literature to Fight the Rise & Rise of the Tax Surveillance State. 'Illigitum non carborundum'.

Liberty and freedom are two proud words that have been executed from the political lexicon: they were frog marched and stood before a wall of blank minds, then forcibly blindfolded, and shot, with the whimpering staccato of ‘equality’ and ‘fairness’ resounding over and over. And not only did this atrocity go unreported by journalists in the mainstream media, they were in the firing squad.

The premise of this blog is simple: the Soviets thought they had equality, and welfare from cradle to grave, until the illusory free lunch of redistribution took its inevitable course, and cost them everything they had. First to go was their privacy, after that their freedom, then on being ground down to an equality of poverty only, for many of them their lives as they tried to escape a life behind the Iron Curtain. In the state-enforced common good, was found only slavery to the prison of each other's mind; instead of the caring state, they had imposed the surveillance state to keep them in line. So why are we accumulating a national debt to build the slave state again in the West? Where is the contrarian, uncomfortable literature to put the state experiment finally to rest?

Comments Policy: I'm not moderating comments, so keep it sane and go away with the spam. Government officials please read disclaimer at bottom of page.

Thursday, September 13, 2012

Euthanasia Redux - For Mott's Sake, Support Maryan Street's Bill

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.


  1. 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.

    1. Thanks Maryan. As I said on Twitter I'm willfully ignorant on process.

      It 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.