Otago law professor Andrew Geddis highlighted important realities about law-making in a response to Maxim Institute chief executive Alex Penk’s concerns about the End of Life Choice Bill currently awaiting a second reading in Parliament. T
Some of Penk’s concerns are misplaced, Geddis said. Others are missing some important context.
Penk’s article, headed MPs should examine facts on euthanasia, rather than crystal balls, notes that David Seymour’s End of Life Choice Bill – if it passes the parliamentary process – is likely to require a referendum at the 2020 general election.
In other words, the public will get to decide on the legalising of euthanasia and assisted suicide. This should take care of the doubts Penk raises about the extent of public support for voluntary euthanasia.
But another of Penk’s problems is that the public haven’t been given good information.
View original post 820 more words