Muller opposes End of Life Choices Bill

Todd Muller believes the bill, if passed, would undermine relationships between the elderly and their families.

Bay of Plenty MP Todd Muller has confirmed his opposition to David Seymour's End of Life Choice Bill that has been drawn from the Member's Ballot.

Todd says the bill risks putting social pressure on vulnerable people to end their lives.

“There is a real risk that this bill, if passed into legislation, would produce an erosive, looming social pressure on very vulnerable people to consider ending their life,” he says.

“I think this would fundamentally undermine the relationships between elderly or dependent relatives and their families, with an overwhelming pressure, whether it is real or perceived, being felt by those most vulnerable to not be a burden.”

Todd also praised the work palliative care staff who he says do an amazing job supporting those with life-limiting illnesses with nothing but care and compassion.

“I have spoken to many of these carers about their approach and see no reason to radically redesign that framework,” he says.

Todd believes the debate will open up profound ethical issues and a broad spectrum of opinions right across society, but needs to be approached in a respectful way.

“For some this will be a very emotive discussion with perspectives ranging from those who have experienced a loved one suffering more than they felt was fair, through to those with deep values based opposition.

“This bill will be a conscience vote, as opposed to being voting along party lines”.

“To me, life is precious and should be treasured. I will be staying true to my values and voting against” he concludes.

-Newsie



24 Comments

Dear Muller

Posted on 15-06-2017 19:39 | By MISS ADVENTURE

Perhaps "termination" in three months may assist you to get some level of experience with terminal illness, suffering and pain. Then you might understand a little bit and not make a silly stand as now.

A question for Summerfreeze.

Posted on 14-06-2017 13:58 | By morepork

Currently 8 countries and some US states have legalized Euthanasia or "assisted suicide". The Netherlands was an early pioneer and it seems to work pretty well there. (They haven't revoked the legislation.) You say that it can slide into "just because they are old, depressed or disabled". I thought about that and my question for you is this: "If the legal right to Euthanasia (or assisted suicide) has been granted by the State, what possible relevance does the REASON why someone wants it, matter?" Being old, depressed or disabled might well be good enough reasons for deciding to end it, for SOME people. It is not for anyone else to judge. My point is that it is the decision of the individual concerned, and not the society they live in, to make decisions about their own life.

@Captain Hottie

Posted on 13-06-2017 17:10 | By morepork

You make a very good point. I've never thought about it like that but you are right that MPs are SUPPOSED to represent their constituents and not use their position to pursue personal agendas. "Thus conscience doth make cowards of us all, and thus the native hue of resolution is sickly'd o'er with the pale cast of thought..." (Macbeth) Conscience voting in the House of Commons may well be a "bad thing".

@Tomahawk Kid

Posted on 12-06-2017 14:24 | By morepork

I'll try and clarify. At the moment it is ILLEGAL for any health professional to assist anyone in ending their life. As this is a matter of Law, it could be voted on and the Law either gets changed or it doesn't. There is nothing on Earth that can stop you exercising your personal right over your personal life, it is just a question of whether anyone who helps you is a criminal or not. My point in this regard was that the referendum has to be carefully worded, so that all the emotional red herrings (both religious and secular) are not part of it. A simple matter of Law and only that. You ALREADY have the right to do with YOUR life whatever you want. (de facto). No politician can take that away. It is about whether others can help you. I see no contradiction.

Conscience votes pfffft

Posted on 11-06-2017 23:23 | By Captain Hottie

Conscience votes should be OUTLAWED. We vote our MPs in to represent the people who elected them, not to push their own personal barrows. And conscience votes tend to be for issues that are highly emotive and subjective, e.g. abortion, drugs, homosexuality etc. Don't just vote with party lines either - vote for who your constituents want. And that means ignoring people NOT in your electorate. So you people who live in Matua or Merivale can go and hassle Simon Bridges instead. A referendum would be a great idea, something important for a change instead of non-issues like fire service funding and flags.

@Morepork

Posted on 11-06-2017 20:34 | By The Tomahawk Kid

I agree with what you say "My life SHOULD be exactly that! My Life" However, You contradict yourself saying "A referendum would be a good thing"!!!!You know that a referendum is when other people have a vote on a topic dont you?I am confused. You want the right to chose what you do with your life, but in the next breath you are HAPPY to give other a people as say in what you can and cant do! There should be NO referendum where your individual rights are concerned. and we certainly should not have immoral muppets like Todd Mueller and Simon Bridges etc etc making those choices and destroying our rights. They do not know the meaning of the word. My life and how I chose to live or end it should not be their concern.

@Rusty Kane

Posted on 10-06-2017 14:26 | By morepork

A referendum (as long as it is binding on the Government) would be a good thing, BUT you have to be VERY CLEAR EXACTLY what it is you are voting on, and there needs to be fair publicity of both sides of the argument. Don't let the issue become about sidelines like "Value of Life" or "Religious commandments". It is about personal responsibility and what should be "the inalienable right of every individual to be responsible for their own life." Really, anyone who currently wants to commit suicide, probably can, but proper legislation would ensure that it is not required to be "messy" and the impact on those remaining can be far less traumatic than it currently is. It should be painless, legal, and with no stigma or shame for the person concerned or those connected. In other words, an individual's dignity should be preserved.

@Nashville

Posted on 10-06-2017 14:11 | By morepork

Your approbation for Mr. Muller is misplaced. It never takes "guts" to "go with the flow"... especially when the "flow" is a known core of religious people who have a stated position that will not change, and who exercise a vote. But mostly, you have missed the point. The "value of life" is not being debated; that is axiomatic and you would search a long time before finding ANYONE (sane) who thinks that Life has no value. My objection to Mr. Muller's position is that my life is exactly that: "MY life". I don't believe that ANYONE (politician, or even the Community as a whole) has the right to tell me I can't end it if I want to. Just as I have the right to live it, I also have the right to end it (or should have...). It's a personal decision.

It would be watered down

Posted on 10-06-2017 11:37 | By Summerfreeze

Any legislation to bring in Euthanasia would be watered down over the months and years to eventually allow any person to be euthanized just because they are old, depressed or disabled. It has happened in Holland so do we want that here. I think not.

Another National Party Muppett

Posted on 09-06-2017 20:13 | By The Tomahawk Kid

I will not vote for ANY politician who wants a say in how I run my life and ESPECIALLY not those who stand up and say "I dont care about your rights - I am happy to take and destroy them.They are not interested in having a say in who should be allowed to bring children into the world, but they want a say in how people can chose to leave it. I hope what appears to be a party decision is the downfall of National.

hang on a minute

Posted on 09-06-2017 19:33 | By old trucker

Why does Todd whats his name have to put his spoke in the wheel, always getting his nose in someone elses,Agree with Rusty Kane,Tod believes this todd believes that, wished he minded his PEAS AND QQQQQs, just stay out of it todd, and go back and POLISH your Bosses shoes, my thoughts only,No1 is Sunlive,Thankyou,10-4 out.

MY LIFE IS PRECIOUS, not for you to decide

Posted on 09-06-2017 18:10 | By Colleen Spiro

Not for you to decide Todd. You say you value life and life is precious...QUALITY of life is precious to me, NOT QUANTITY. I hope when I have had enough, that NZ would have grown up, so that myself and my health professional can have a relationship to decide when the time is right for me.. MY LIFE

Not there say

Posted on 09-06-2017 17:13 | By roseh

I have nursed my termailly ill Daughter and Husband and they both begged me to put them out of there misery,mY dAUGHTER AT THE TIME HAD TwO YOUNG GIRLS AND FOUGHT HARD TO STAY,But all the care that is avaliable dosen't stop them from suffering.Who do these people in Parliment think they are trying to run our live Just hope none of them have to see what I have watched,They may see it different if they do.If you make animals suffer like that you end up in court,Dosen't make sense to me

mr ken

Posted on 09-06-2017 15:08 | By pamken

you have lost my vote, your party leader has to much influence on you think for yourself.

Let the people decide .. not MPs ..

Posted on 09-06-2017 14:30 | By Rusty Kane

I don't think this is for the MPs to decide .. It is an issue that should be decided by the people through referendum .. this election ..

Lost my vote

Posted on 09-06-2017 13:18 | By Kancho

I am very focused on not voting for party or person who votes against this bill. I commend Todd on making his stand and await others making their opinion known so I don't waste my vote on them. I have lost family and know first hand that palliative care doesn't alleviate the pain. I have also been in the cancer lodge for treatment and seen people bravely suffer and I always remember someone saying he would pay to have a good heart attack. I was lucky to survive and am quite adamant that had I become terminal I would wish to shorten what may be left to ease my inevitable death both for myself and for my love ones. I generally admire people's religious convictions but not when they being about torture of others who are dying in great pain.

arrogant politicians

Posted on 09-06-2017 13:16 | By Captain Sensible

How dare these politicians be so arrogant as to think they know best. They should keep their noses out of peoples business and concentrate on what has now become a foreign concept....'democracy'.

Highly debatable.

Posted on 09-06-2017 13:11 | By morepork

I'm in favour of Euthanasia because I have seen the stress and pain that is caused (to the whole family) by prolonging life when there is no longer any joy in it. I still think "life is precious and should be treasured". The point is what you mean by "Life". If you can't see, can't hear (so no reading or TV or movies) or you are mentally absent, AND you are in a drug induced haze from medication to numb the continuous pain of deteriorating joints, then what kind of "Life" is that? We have the technology to prolong bodily processes long after Nature intended them to be closed. But we should never kid ourselves that we are prolonging "Life". I see no problem in deciding when I've had enough and it should be possible to end it painlessly, with dignity and legally. I agree with Alquro.

Guts

Posted on 09-06-2017 12:46 | By Nashville

Well done Mr Muller. Takes courage to adopt a positive stand on the value of life.

stevieboy

Posted on 09-06-2017 12:22 | By steveh

Who really cares what Todd Muller thinks. He was voted in by his constituents to represent the views of said constituents. Methinks he should get the minions in his electorate office to carry out a telephone poll to guage the views of the electorate, and then he should vote according to the collective "conscience". Not his own.

Confirming my Opposition to Todd Muller

Posted on 09-06-2017 12:14 | By Kaimai

What arrogance - couldn't give a damn how I live or the conditions in which I live but wants an input in to how I die. My life Todd, not yours!

Bit extreme Alquro,

Posted on 09-06-2017 10:05 | By R. Bell

There is nothing sadistic in Mr Muller's comments. There are good arguments on both sides of this issue. Personally I am for the status quo for now, based on society not yet ready for the responsibility of euthanasia. Robin Bell.

Practical response

Posted on 09-06-2017 09:43 | By 1 4 GK

Todd Muller's position is the right one - as far as the present wording of the Bill goes. Perhaps the submission process through the Select Committee will see some changes to the Bill that might remove the reservations held by some MPs - not just Mr Muller.

Sadistic politician

Posted on 09-06-2017 09:08 | By Alquro

Well see how you feel about it when you're 80 and in constant pain. If we let an animal live in pain we get taken to court, do we deserve any less?

Leave a Comment

You must be logged in to make a comment. Login Now
Opinion Poll

If you could vote online, would you?

Yes
No

VOTE
VIEW RESULTS
Bay Today


Sunshine at Yatton Park. Photo: Michael Lucas.

Send us your photos from around the Bay of Plenty. kendra@thesun.co.nz