Euthanasia: Lecretia Seale’s First Day at High Court: Will Busy-Bodies Butt Out Please.

 Let me be forthright: Lecretia and her supporters can’t have anything to do with me - I’m taking a liberty referencing by her first name - because look at my blog; I’m a hot head. I see no reason to be nice, or play the game, with these politicians who have proven themselves to be compassionless, cruel bastards, and yes, cowards.

One of the bedrocks of a free society is that if someone is not harming you and wants to be left alone, then leave them alone, you have no business in their life. We truly are a nation of interfering busy-bodies and nanny-statists.

I’ve written on Lecretia Seale before: she’s a 41 year old lawyer, dying of brain tumours, taking her case to die with dignity – if that becomes her wish - to the High Court. Yesterday she had her first day in court, and it was cruel farce. Lecretia has always said this is her case, for her alone, dealing with her circumstances, it’s not meant to be precedent setting, and that was wise because she doesn’t have time for a drawn out case. Yet despite this her first day was held up by three applicants wanting to have their say in her case: the Care Alliance, the Human Rights Commission and the Voluntary Euthanasia Society.

I agree with the latter group, but butt out of her trial please. This is the one venue we don’t grandstand.

What the hell is the Human Rights Commission doing here? Yet another bloated taxpayer funded commissariat sticking in its oar where not wanted: bugger off.

And the Care Society: I’ve dealt with them in the body of my original post on Lecretia: they don’t actually care much at all; certainly not about an individual’s liberty, plus they are conflicted, in my opinion, by self-interest. You lot can bugger off also: just stick to what you do well, palliative care – even though that has huge holes in it, doesn’t it – morphine is not the cure-all for pain, and often is beside the point: some of us want to die with dignity when life degrades to what is not acceptable to us individually, that may well not be related to issues of palliative care at all.

I reiterate my oft made point: we self-manage our own health issues throughout our lives; managing our deaths is merely the final decision in that adult process. More, euthanasia will be voluntary, therefore if you don’t agree, your opinion is immaterial to the law: no one is forcing you. And I say that particularly to the Stone Age Faithers who would have us all suffer for their fairy tale God – grow up and grow a heart.

[Calming myself down.]

Anyway, Lecretia, or mainly her supporters, are keeping an excellent blog, Lecretia’s Choice: please read, bookmark and support it. And note that word: choice. This is a rights issue second (a Lecretia issue first).

Yesterday Lecretia’s husband Matt, who is now on leave from work to support her, posted his impressions of their first day in the High Court. Read that in total, please, but I want to point out two matters. Firstly, pertaining to the three busy-body organisations above, wise words:

I respect that all of these parties have plenty to say on the issue, but that belongs in the realm of public debate. Nothing I heard in the court today suggested to me that they would add anything to Lecretia’s particular case except complexity. These people have agendas, and they don’t belong in the courtroom, arguing over my wife’s fate, which is all that this case is about.

What angers me is that my wife faces a long, drawn-out, undignified death, and these applicants, if admitted, will almost certainly subject my wife to a long, drawn-out and uncomfortable trial. She doesn’t have time for that.

And secondly, the point I have been making in every increasingly frustrated euthanasia post in this blog since Labour leader David Cunliffe made MP Maryan Street pull her wonderful and wise dying with dignity bill before last year’s general election – a bill now kicked to oblivion under gutless new Labour leader Andrew Little. On the cowardice oozing from our Fortress of Legislation over this important issue – for those dying, there is no more important issue - Matt writes:

The judge will make a decision by Friday as to whether the applicants will be permitted to intervene. I really hope he will agree to keep the scope of the case to my wife’s plea, and leave the wider societal debate on assisted dying to be addressed by politicians, who should be the ones looking at the issue more broadly. Their silence is starting to appear cowardly. Their inaction is precisely why my wife has been forced to spend her precious remaining days pursuing this case through the courts. It’s time for politicians to do their job, so that people like Lecretia don’t have to take these sorts of actions.

                                                                                       

Let me be forthright: Lecretia and her supporters can’t have anything to do with me - I’m taking a liberty referencing by her first name - because look at my blog; I’m a hot head. I see no reason to be nice, or play the game, with these politicians who have proven themselves to be compassionless, cruel, heartless bastards, and yes, cowards.

So:

To Labour leader (albeit anything but) Andrew Little for quashing Maryan Street’s excellent bill: you cowardly callous bastard.

To Prime Minister John Key for promising in the heat of the moment last year a watered down version of Street’s bill, now totally forgotten: you cowardly callous bastard.

To David Seymour, leader of New Zealand’s supposedly only classical liberal party who’s only reply to me so far is he’s a bit offended at my approach: you cowardly callous egotistical bastard. You of everyone stand for an individual’s rights, David, pull your head out of your arse and do something other than toadying up to big government and sending me newsletters.

Each of you men is happy, yes, happy, that’s the only word I can think of, to leave this crucial issue to souls with no options left, such as Lecretia,  consigning them to waste the remaining journey of their lives to pleading for a right which should be theirs – ours - of right. You rotten brutes; seriously, why are any of you even in politics if not for this?!

And you bet this is important with every survey conducted showing New Zealander’s overwhelmingly want this right:

That is a perfect example that #euthanasia conversation needs to happen in. May not become law but needs open convo. pic.twitter.com/Fj6zfKdnl4
— Logan Morton (@LoganMorton94) April 21, 2015

To Lecretia, her husband and supporters; may you get the humane treatment by a judge at the High Court that seems impossible from that waste of space in Wellington, the minds of our elected officials in the Fortress.

Further Reading:

Lecretia Seales Fight for the Right to Die: RNZ Interview.

Lecretia Searle Takes Her Case to High Court | MIA Our Politicians.

Why this Government Urgently Needs to Pick Up Maryan Street’s Bill.

Email to Dr. Mark Peterson, Chair of New Zealand Medical Association I.

Email to Dr. Mark Peterson, Chair of New Zealand Medical Association II – The Response.

Bureaucratic Horror Files: Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC). Who's On First ...

In the modest number of claims I’ve made on private insurance policies over the last quarter of a century, I have had no issues with process or result, some claims dealt with only via a phone call and emailed photo. Not so Government EQC in Christchurch which after over four years of wrangling we’ve given up on; they will pay up to their cap on our earthquake damaged house, we - with no recourse to our private insurer, somehow, (don't ask me how) - will pay the $70,000 remaining required to fix our house, and then there’s our mandatory government insurer Accident Compensation Corporation – for my overseas readers –  ACC. There’s a bit of a fracas amongst the know-all Crusader class residing in the Fortress of Legislation currently regarding ACC’s funding; just as there is only the micro level in economics – you and me voluntarily transacting – no macro, I reckon on the micro-level I’ve discovered ACC's problem, although one point to Labour Leader Andrew Little first …

So Labour allege overcharging ACC is costing jobs ... um, then your higher taxes @andrewlittlemp : why won't they? http://t.co/P7N7ajYnTU
— Mark Hubbard (@MarkHubbard33) March 8, 2015

The Scenario:

Here’s the problem facing me. A farming couple, client, beef finishing, life time of low(ish) profits, some year losses, but they loved the lifestyle, (and they were exceptional about animal welfare – which I respected them for), have been paying ACC on default option (which worked fine: if you’re an insurance broker, please don’t contact me, and yes, most of my clients are on Coverplus Extra, and as great as you probably are, every time you happen to pick up one of my clients, no, I don’t want you dropping in for a cuppa to try and sell me on your services; I know what they are ... sorry, back on track).

All swimmingly well until they sell their farm and retire. They have enough from farm sale to retire comfortably, but modestly, as the income tap is now turned off, however, they find to their horror after I file their final (partnership) tax returns, the two biggest ACC bills they’ve ever seen, and face having to pay these in their retirement, knowing they will never have a claim on ACC.

The reason for big premiums are ACC ‘now’ – because I’m sure they didn’t use to – class depreciation recovered on sale of the various farm assets, in this case $88,000, as income. I ring ACC and ask how ACC are defining ‘passive’ depreciation recovered as ‘personal exertion’ assessable for premiums under the governing act (as that legislation nowhere states depreciation recovered as ‘personal exertion’). Answer on the phone was it is considered ‘mental exertion’. So, I have filed request for review form ACC33 with the department based on following:

Limb I: selling the farm was done by an agent, it did not involve ‘mental exertion’ hence ‘personal exertion’, and so was passive income and therefore not assessable. (I don’t expect to win on this limb - 23 years of being broken down by bureaucracy has taught me this, even though this particular instance seems a change of policy by ACC.)

Limb II: if this does constitute ‘personal exertion’ then selling the farm asset is not the activity of farming, with its very high risk and premium rate, thus the premium should be set on the most lower ‘holding property’ premium rate. This reflects the process of a farm sale, and also how for management purposes stewardship of the farm asset is different to farm trading (hence many farms traditionally owned in family trusts and leased to farming trading entity.)

Given wife and husband’s cases are identical in every respect – 50/50 partners; identical premiums charged; identical principles involved – I simply wrote both of their details on the ACC33 form, with a letter stating their case. I also put on this I was taking my clients’ case for no fee (principle), I would soon either be on holiday, or attending to my father’s affairs (who has been given, a week ago, between one week and six months to live, and no, that timeframe is not helpful), thus I wanted to keep this brief, succinct, and conducted by email, not telephone as I won’t be in Geraldine for near on three months.

Bureaucratic Problem the First:

On receiving my ACC33, an ACC legal advisor emailed me the following:

Dear Mr Hubbard

We have received the application for review for your above clients dated 27 February 2015.

We note that you are the authorised contact person for the accounts.

 While we acknowledge that the application is for a married couple, the application relates to two separate accounts. An application for review must be filed for each separate account. Should the matter proceed to a review hearing the reviewer will more than likely require each hearing to be heard separately.

 Please also note that for an application for review to be valid, the application must refer to a specific decision and the date of that decision must be completed at section 2 of the application. I see that this has not been completed on the current application.

 An application for review must be received by ACC no later than 3 months from the date of the decision or else ACC has no jurisdiction to review its decision.

 For your convenience I attach an editable word version of the ACC33. We look forward to receiving the application for reviews shortly.

			[Name Reacted], Legal Advisor, Legal and Commercial, ACC

In case you missed that, I haven’t got to first base yet because a) I put both clients’ names onto same form (given their cases are identical); I need to file a separate ACC33 for husband and wife, and b) I didn’t write into the ACC33 filed the date of the decision – (noting this was because the review was not vis a vis ‘a decision’, but simply the basis of levying two premium invoices.) I emailed the following in reply:

You've got to be kidding!!!

My review with attached letter contains, succinctly, everything reasonable people will need to look at the issue. It is not in relation to a 'specific decision', it is in relation to the levies my two clients (identical cases) have been charged. My submission is very clear on this.

I have no time for doing all this again, and in duplicate, [snip] … Again, the form and substance of what I sent is wholly sufficient for the requested review.

Please advise, noting that if my original ACC33 is still deemed unacceptable, then I want a phone call, please, from a very senior officer from your legal.

Mark Hubbard

(Partial) Resolution The First:

Per phone call with a senior from their legal department, it appears the problem is with a dispute resolution service ACC use called Fairway Resolution – (that word ‘fair’ again; meaning you’re probably not going to see any of it.) Fairway Resolution governs all these procedures, apparently, and doesn’t want to see my client’s review knocked out on a technicality. Of course we have to put the client through hoops for good of the client. It was thus decided, as follows:

Firstly, that I shall photocopy the copy of the ACC33 I originally filed – thankfully I kept a copy. I shall strike out the wife’s name on that copy of the original copy I kept; on the copy of that copy I shall strike out the husband’s details; I shall then re-file both ‘separate’ copies, but not before I take a copy of the wife’s-name-redacted copy, now the husband’s copy, and a copy of that copy’s copy, now the wife’s copy, with husband’s name redacted, the further copying of which I will do, of course, for safety sake, (FFS), in case I get forcibly looped back into this process again. Or something gets lost. I shall thus be filing a separate copy of the original ACC33 for each spouse, with the other spouse’s details redacted by ‘lining them out’ – technical term: ‘to put a neat line through’ - with a copy of my original letter stating their case attached to each separate copy of the ACC33s refiled. To be precise, I shall send two identical copies of my original letter, one copy each attached to both the new spouse-redacted ACC33s, which are copies of the copy of each spouse’s, spouses’, sorry original joint copy – no! I got that wrong; they will be copies of the original form filed. I was wrong in that latter part because the original form filed with ACC was not a copy: the copy was the document I kept which has allowed me to shortcut the whole longer process by copying it again. The whole process, vis a vis spousal separation, now technically correct, so no technicalities lurking like a pond of poo on the farm they sold for us to fall into at some future date.

From memory, I believe while ACC were capable of performing the copying of the original ACC33 filed with them, the further necessary redaction of spousal names was totally beyond their comprehension. Either that or with no lump sum payments for trauma anymore, they couldn’t allow a staff member to deal with that (ref: Section 404, clause 58 of Department’s Work and Safety Manual).

Secondly, that I would write onto the husband’s copy of the original copy, and on the wife’s copy of the copy of the original copy, before both the copy and the separate copy of the copy are re-filed, the date of their invoices, that being the ‘date of the decision’ my review was requesting reassessment of, thus fulfilling this requirement (per officer’s original email to me). Fortunately the second officer via our phone conversation was able to give me both dates given the invoices were issued by, well, by ACC obviously, meaning they hold that information anyway.

On the positive side, we are now on first base. On the negative side when I asked re the initial email, if this goes through to hearings will I REALLY have to ‘litigate’ both husband and wife hearings separately, meaning at each stage in what I suspect may be a labyrinthine process leading up to such hearings having to repeat all my points twice to their points which will be twice made, presumably, despite both cases are identical?  The answer was, as near as I could tell, yes, I would have to do just that. To repeat myself, I will have to repeat myself, often.

I don’t think this is going to go well, and it may be foolish to believe it will be going quietly into the night as some poet said. Anyway, coincidentally on my email just in, I see a useful upcoming CCH course, ‘Managing Difficult People’: I’ll send it onto the nice officers at ACC with my re-submitted review.

Sorry, review(s). Two, separately, one for each spouse (the other redacted by lining the other spouse’s details out, like so.)

Further Misadventures.

Well, I guess this was predictable. After coming to the aforementioned agreement with ACC, and writing this blog entry sound in the knowledge I had a copy of my original submission, I went to copy that copy of the original ACC33 to find that my memory was playing tricks with me and I didn’t take a copy of the original ACC33, proper, at all, I simply posted it to ACC without copying. As if this blog post needed to find proof of the sanctity of copying, there it is.

So, I am not yet on first base. Fortunately I now have an email address for the senior ACC officer concerned; I’ve just emailed her the following:

Hi [name redacted]

I guess this was predictable given the course of last week, but continuing from our phone call Friday I find I have not kept a copy or scan here of the ACC33 submission on behalf of my client. Between writing that, and this, I have changed computers and while transferring all my data, that data did not include a temporary folder I always keep on computer being docs, etc, for issues such as this that I don't need to keep long term in respect of matters with Inland Revenue.

So, could you scan and email back my submission in order than I can copy here, twice, redact appropriately, then scan and send back to you.

Sorry for inconvenience.

Regards Mark Hubbard

I’ll keep you updated on my ultimate failure. In the meantime file this under post-structuralism, and a final thought, ACC could also stand for Abbot Corresponding with Costello, those guys must have dealt with a few government departments in their time:

David Seymour and ACT’s Continuing Desertion of Classical Liberalism. Expositions of Cowardice & Cruelty: Seymour; Andrew Little; John Key. #Euthanasia:

 Faye Clark has a problem, rather, a death, none of us want to think about for ourselves or loved ones:

TO END her life with dignity, without violence and at a time of her choosing is Hamilton woman Faye Clark's final wish as she helplessly watches terminal cancer eat its way through her bones.

The 71-year-old's new reality of intense medication, chemotherapy and constant pain has been slowly closing in on her since her 2009 diagnosis.

A new study shows New Zealand is overwhelmingly in support of people like Clark ending their lives legally, with the help of a doctor. Auckland University researchers published their findings in the Journal of Palliative Medicine last month.

[Snip]

Clark doesn't have depression and is thankful for the interventions that have kept her alive - but she can feel her body has had enough, and so has she.

Her incurable form of blood cancer has meant her recent life has been a cycle of chemotherapy, stem cell transplants and radiotherapy to repair holes in her bones. Pain saps her energy and morphine sucks her strength. She has cruel muscle cramps, sweats profusely and has a compromised immune system.

Clark no longer has control of her bodily functions and finds it very difficult to walk. "I want my family and friends to remember me as a person who loved life, somebody who was 'alive', not a bedridden, pain-racked and drugged shell of my former self, totally dependent on others . . ."

But with assisted death not available to her, she has had to weigh up her options. "I can refuse food and drink, slowly starve myself to death. In the absence of legalised euthanasia my other option is self-inflicted suicide, a lonely, perhaps violent and uncertain death by my own hand, using pills, poison, a rope or knife."

And Faye is not an isolated, not-to-be-repeated case; remember Mrs Mott? Faye, Mrs Mott, countless others: dying is axiomatic to the human condition. All of us may have to face the hell Faye finds herself, forced into such heinous circumstances because every compassion-challenged MP, sitting and historically, other than some very few such as Labour’s Maryan Street, have not given us the basic right of euthanasia. And that despite latest polling shows 82% of New Zealanders want this civilised right, and just this week Dr Havill of our Voluntary Euthanasia Society asked for Maryan’s Bill to be put back into the ballot after  Canada has overthrown their ban on ‘physician assisted dying’.

I was gutted when the new Labour Party leader, Andrew Little, in a failure of leadership, ordered minion Iain Wowser-Galloway to sadly, criminally, drop Maryan’s euthanasia bill because he felt there were more votes in pin-pricking the National Party over  labour law, even though as Opposition there is nothing they can change about Labour law over the next three years, while they could get Maryan’s bill through via the ballot, and save so much suffering and angst.

Quite apart from it’s possible to needle the Government on labour law and have kept Maryan’s euthanasia bill alive, I don’t think Faye cares much for the ins and outs of labour law debate just now.

And our conservative – too many of them Christ-afflicted - MP’s are worse. Including the new chap cloistering himself already inside the Fortress of Legislation, thinking he’s playing Dungeons and Dragons, or some such damned game, ACT’s David Seymour.

David Seymour is ACT’s only MP and leader of what I thought was New Zealand’s only classical liberal party; that’s the assumption many Libertarianz voters would have voted on when the Libertarianz Party disbanded before the 2014 election and gave their vote to ACT. Unfortunately, as the below exchange with Seymour proves, it’s merely another party of social conservatives at best, cynical political game-players at worst: regardless, a wasted vote for every social liberal who is also a capitalist and who has no representation in New Zealand politics. On Andrew Little’s cowardly dropping of Maryan Street’s euthanasia bill by his Labour Party, ACT equally cowardly won’t be picking it up. There are no options - read enlightened politicians who give a shit - from which a euthanasia debate will now be had. Further proof of how dysfunctional – as in how far removed from voters - our democracies have become, even for those who accept the tyranny of majoritarism (which no properly functioning democracy should have succumbed to).

I have more to say at the end of this piece, but first look at what the shonky political game playing in Epsom has dealt to us:

@dbseymour What political reason would stop ACT championing a #euthanasia law? What philosophic reason? #ClassicalLiberalism
— Mark Hubbard (@MarkHubbard33) December 20, 2014

@MarkHubbard33 far too nuanced debate for 140 chars, but.... Individual freedom vs abuse of individuals and class lib position not obvious
— David Seymour (@dbseymour) December 20, 2014

@dbseymour I don't agree at all there being any classical liberal position against euthanasia. It operates fine elsewhere. So u won't 1/2
— Mark Hubbard (@MarkHubbard33) December 20, 2014

@dbseymour ... pick this up? One way to finally give ACT relevance, and define it as socially liberal against Nats conservativism.
— Mark Hubbard (@MarkHubbard33) December 20, 2014

@dbseymour Are you aware of Chief Coroner's actions to change death certification to 'catch' doctors unofficially over-prescribing pain 1/2
— Mark Hubbard (@MarkHubbard33) December 20, 2014

@dbseymour ... relief in judged circumstances? Which will negate NZMA's unethical position against euthanasia?
— Mark Hubbard (@MarkHubbard33) December 20, 2014

@dbseymour If there was ever time we deserved an adult debate on this in Wellington, it's now. So you're going to squander 3 years? #Cowards
— Mark Hubbard (@MarkHubbard33) December 20, 2014

@MarkHubbard33 I don't think that's how you call for an adult debate
— David Seymour (@dbseymour) December 20, 2014

@dbseymour Because I'm so sick of the political cowardice and duck-shoving over this. Which you've just done on that tweet. Prediction: 1/2
— Mark Hubbard (@MarkHubbard33) December 20, 2014

@dbseymour ... your political career is going to be yet another waste of the time continuum as we are herded along our road to serfdom.
— Mark Hubbard (@MarkHubbard33) December 20, 2014

@MarkHubbard33 lots of things in politics are frustrating, but abusing people rarely helps achieve your objective
— David Seymour (@dbseymour) December 20, 2014

@dbseymour Nothing else works. Are you a social liberal?
— Mark Hubbard (@MarkHubbard33) December 20, 2014

@dbseymour Name me single other issue of individual rights more impt & applying 2 *everyone* than issues around options to die with dignity?
— Mark Hubbard (@MarkHubbard33) December 20, 2014

@dbseymour 4 social/classical liberal party the need for #euthanasia debate is not a hypothetical, it's a given. Are u a social liberal?
— Mark Hubbard (@MarkHubbard33) December 20, 2014

@dbseymour Coz of Chief Coroner's current actions even pain remediation regimes 4 ter. ill will become conservative meaning more pain 1/x
— Mark Hubbard (@MarkHubbard33) December 20, 2014

@dbseymour ... for the terminally ill (forget euthanasia). But u won't interact on it coz yr feelings are hurt. Are you a social liberal?
— Mark Hubbard (@MarkHubbard33) December 20, 2014

From this point the ideologically crippled ACT Party and I permanently part company, and this time I mean forever. If you are a social liberal and a freedom loving laissez faire capitalist, any vote for ACT is wasted. Such a pity Jamie Whyte didn’t stand in Epsom: he was that party’s only hope. On Seymour’s refusal to answer to whether he is a social liberal - because he never did - I have to conclude that as with Andrew Little, he is a social conservative – an alarming knowledge to many Labour Party voters as well, one would think (noting no one in their right mind would’ve believed National MPs could get themselves out of the superstitious Middle Ages on social policy issues.)

And again, despite decisions around our deaths need be nothing more than an extension of how we self-manage health issues throughout our adult lives, not a single MP in the infantile sandpit in Wellington will give us that volition, that basic individual right, ownership of our bodies in death. And for those looking at deaths which horrify them, such as Faye Clark, it’s too late. For reasons which are unfathomable to the humane, every sitting MP is prepared to leave Faye to the dreadful options of her last paragraph – ‘ I can refuse food and drink, slowly starve myself to death … my other option is self-inflicted suicide, a lonely, perhaps violent and uncertain death by my own hand, using pills, poison, a rope or knife.’

Rather than compassion for Faye’s horror, John Key and the National MPs are in church worshipping a fairy tale, or some other form of moral cowardice; Andrew Little wants to ineffectively snipe away at comparable irrelevancies he can’t change – comparable, that is, to Faye’s fate - rather than achieve something tangible which would bring his party the saturated exposure surrounding the debate on that bill – which further makes him a dolt; and David Seymour already wants only to play the cynical game of politics, without the humans, thus humanity at all. And this because … why? WHY! For fucks sake. What’s wrong with you rotten bastards? Every one of you, why did you enter politics? How does Faye’s dreadful circumstances, and everyone who will follow her, not fit into that answer?

A last, heart-felt, reasoned and humanistic plea to the conservative foggies which appear to comprise ACT’s board: what is the game-plan? You can, via the ballot, achieve a worthy piece of classical liberal legislation that will get you blanket coverage for the entire period of the debate, including first and second readings then through to hopeful enactment, allowing you to differentiate yourselves from the National Party, or … what? Is the strategy to simply remain the school-boy joke the MSM rightly treats you currently, as you toady up to a statist, pinko government? Talking about game-playing, do any of you have a shred of political instinct?

If my challenge to give New Zealand individuals what they, what we, want, in the form of a civilised, compassionate euthanasia law, is not taken up by any party, then to every sitting MP, a pox on your state-worshipping soulless and pointless careers. As you go to your graves, understand you made life worse for we subjects, not better.

And for reporters: every story like Faye’s, please, go to Key, go to Little, go to Seymour, go to every party leader, put her life and dreadful death in front of them, and ask what the hell are they doing?

Update 1:

Peter Cresswell kindly featured the above post on NotPC.

In respect of that Seymour has penned a ‘right of reply’ which Peter has posted this morning.

I’m afraid Seymour answers to nothing, still won’t tie himself down even to whether he is a social liberal or conservative - and the lengths he has gone to avoid that now gives me the answer - and worse, he seems to believe the National Party is a ‘defender of freedom’.

ACT is dead.

Scroll down on Seymour’s right of reply post above to comments and you’ll see my responses, although they are as follows. A bit scattergun, sorry:

My first comment:

Weasel words David.

Peter's header post linked to my own blog post here:

http://lifebehindtheirondrape.blogspot.co.nz/2015/02/david-seymour-and-acts-continuing.html

That post has one specific purpose, to ask your reason for not championing a euthanasia bill via the ballot?

From that, the question of are you a social liberal on issue of euthanasia, drug legalisation, et al, or a conservative? "Flourishing' tells me nothing.

You know, after all this, you still won't even place yourself on the line on if you personally, even, agree with assisted dying legislation, and the basic individual right transacted by that?

Do you? Forget the politics: do you personally believe in that right?


Though I hate politics and 'public' I'll offer all the back office support I am able to for you to get the equivalent of Maryan Street's Bill into the ballot.

My second comment:

Addendum: I'll offer the back office support for that one bill, but I certainly won't be joining ACT with this wishy washy nonsense.

My third comment:

Jesus, re-read. Helping 'the National Party as the defender of freedom' !!! Really?

And you have no desire to even try and differentiate ACT. What's the point of you or ACT?

Cynical political game playing career building, at best, clueless at worst.

I can’t think of an easier question, and thus a better litmus test, for a classical liberal than do they believe in euthanasia as a basic, inalienable right: take it for granted me and ACT are over.

Related Posts:

The Nightmare of Mr and Mrs Mott

Why it is so urgent we have euthanasia law based on Chief Coroner’s actions.

The unethical stance of the NZ Medical Association against euthanasia I

The unethical stance of the NZ Medical Association against euthanasia II