Leighton Smith Podcast #294 - July 23rd 2025 - Maryanne Spurdle

Maryanne Spurdle from the Maxim Institute has produced a Discussion Paper "INTERROGATING CHOICE: Euthanasia and the ILLUSION OF AUTONOMY."

The UK has announced their intention to lower the voting age to 16.

Canada plans to include minors in its Medical Assistance in Dying (MAID) advances — even excluding parental knowledge and approval.

This follows the established pattern of absurdities in numerous fields: alcohol consumption, sex, driver licensing, education and crime.

Is it driven by an illusion of maturity or some manipulative purpose by lowering standards?

Maryann Spurdle discusses her Discussion Paper on Podcast 294.

And we wind up with the Mail Room and Mrs Producer.

File your comments and complaints at [e-mail]

Haven't listened to a podcast before? Check out our simple how-to guide.

Listen here on iHeartRadio

Leighton Smith's podcast also available on iTunes:
To subscribe via iTunes click here

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:09):
You're listening to a podcast from news talks it B.
Follow this and our wide range of podcasts now on iHeartRadio.
It's time for all the attitude, all the opinion, all
the information, all the debates of the US Now the
Leyton Smith Podcast powered by news talks it B.

Speaker 2 (00:28):
Welcome to podcast two hundred and ninety four for twenty
three July twenty twenty five years ago. In fact, too
many years ago. I formed an opinion and exercised that
opinion on radio. The subject of abortion and euthanasia were
off the menu. Off the menu unless there was an
injection into the subject of some new element of scientific

(00:51):
or moral value. This wasn't rudeness or arrogance on my part,
simply a practicality. The same old arguments can become tedious
no matter one's personal beliefs. The two subjects are connected, obviously,
because they both take a life. The most recent, of course,
was the US Supreme Court's decision in Roe v. Wade.

(01:14):
It was volcanic. In fact, it still is now. If
you ask yourself the question, which is the most acceptable,
or maybe it'd be better to say, which is the
most unacceptable? Abortion or euthanasia? And the reason that I
asked that is because I have a book, of course,
a book called Life's Dominion, An Argument about Abortion and Euthanasia,

(01:38):
written by an academic, Ronald Dwarkin. He was a very
successful academic. He was American. He became a top flying
shall we say, a professor of law, and he ended
up by spending half his year in New York and
the other half of the year in London, where he

(01:58):
taught I think at Oxford. From memory, the book is
an interesting one because of the way he manages his discussions.
But the point that I wanted to make was here,
you have a book and I argue it about abortion
and euthanasia. Now, which is the most important Well, abortion is,
of course, why because it gets five of the eight chapters,

(02:20):
and so therefore there is much more to discuss about it,
much more to argue about it. But it's not the
subject we're discussing in two ninety four. That is euthanasia.
The first reason I'll give you in a moment. This
is the second reason, and I think you'll understand why.
Four three avenues. Three avenues for using AI in the
euthanasia and physician assisted suicide practice. For those who think

(02:45):
that for those who think that AI is taking over
the world. Were this one's for you? I guess it
has four parts to it. AI in assessing euthanasia requests
Number two, AI in the execution of euthanasia. You think
they chose that word accidentally, AI in the retrospective reviews

(03:07):
of euthanasia case rips, and then concluding remarks. So have
me delivered the concluding remarks? First? AI could be used
in several avenues in the euthanasia and assisted suicide practice
in the Netherlands. In all pathways, the integration of AI
presents a landscape fraught with legal, ethical, and medical implications.

(03:29):
While AI offers promising avenues for enhancing objectivity and efficiency,
it is imperative to navigate these waters with caution, ensuring
that the protection of the core principle of human dignity
is not overshadowed by technological advancements. The debate must continue
to evolve, considering not only the legal possibilities to deploy

(03:52):
AI under current regulatory frameworks, but also the wider ethical
and societal consequences of using AI in the controversial domain
of euthanasia and physician assisted suicide. Well, I'm glad they
got to that final sentence before they left it alone.
I received an email from Tim Wilson. Everybody knows who

(04:14):
Tim Wilson is. He's been in media in this country
and beyond for most of his life. He is now
the head of Maxim Institute. The discussion paper that he
sent me was interrogating choice, euthanasia and the illusion of autonomy.
Now I'm big on autonomy, very important, so autonomy played

(04:37):
a part. But I waited because I didn't really want
to talk about it. I waited, I think four days
before I thought i'd better respond to him one way
or another, and we had a discussion. And I won't
say that he twisted me around to accept, because I
think I was on that journey anyway. But here's how
he approached it in the first place. I'm writing because

(05:00):
I think you might be interested in discussing our euthanasia
research with our research manager and the author of the piece,
Mary and Spur. The metaphor for proponents of euthanasia is choice.
I'm into that too. People need to have the choice. However,
this is premised on the inaccurate assumption that everyone has

(05:23):
the same choice. So I had a word with Mary
Anne and decided that we would do it, and I
have no regrets for doing so, and I trust that
you'll appreciate what you're about to hear. But there was
one other thing that also had a bit of input.
It's had some publicity in this part of the world,
but it's the moves that they're making in Canada, which

(05:47):
by some accounts is falling apart at the seams in
some areas, at least in Canada where they're now pushing
to introduce euthanasia available to minors. And I think that
speaks for itself. Or did I mention that that goes
hand in hand with parental consent? Not needed now after
a short break, Marry and Spurdle. Buccolan is a natural

(06:18):
oral vaccine in a tablet form called bacterial licate. It'll
boost your natural protection against bacterial infections in your chest
and throat. A three day course of seven Buckland tablets
will help your body build up to three months of
immunity against bugs which cause bacterial cold symptoms. So who
can take buccolan well, the whole family. From two years

(06:39):
of age and upwards. A course of Buckelan tablets offers
cost effective and safe protection from colds and chills. Protection
becomes effective a few days after you take buccolan and
lasts for up to three months following the three day course.
Buccolan can be taken throughout the cold season, over winter,
or all year round. And remember Buckelan is not intended

(06:59):
as an alternative to influenza vaccination, but may be used
along with the flu vaccination for added protection. And keep
in mind that millions of doses have been taken by
Kiwi's for over fifty years. Only available from your pharmacist.
Always read the label and users directed, and see your
doctor if systems persist. Farmer Broker Aucklund Layton Smith very unspurtled,

(07:29):
Welcome to the Lagnsmith podcast. Good to have you here.

Speaker 3 (07:33):
Oh thanks for having me, Laighton.

Speaker 2 (07:34):
Albeit that the subject is not one that is a
welcome subject. You are the author of the Maxim research paper.

Speaker 4 (07:42):
Yeah, it's a discussion paper from the Maxim Institute.

Speaker 2 (07:45):
What made you do it?

Speaker 4 (07:47):
The catalyst was the Ministry of Health reviewed the end
of Life Choice Acts implementation and release that report in November.
It was that and also for a few weeks before that,
two of the original three members of the review committee
that review the death reports from euthanasia publicly said that
things weren't working well.

Speaker 3 (08:08):
The report said things were working well.

Speaker 4 (08:11):
So I've looked into it and kind of evaluated what
the quality of choice we now have thanks to the
end of Life Choice Act.

Speaker 2 (08:19):
That was three of how many?

Speaker 4 (08:21):
Oh?

Speaker 3 (08:21):
There were no?

Speaker 4 (08:22):
Two of three? So there were three on the committee.
There are three, And for several months the committee was
not functioning because one resigned and the other didn't have
her contract renewed. They had a story published in the Herald,
I think last October saying that if there was wrongdoing,
they wouldn't know it because the reporting was so shoddy.

Speaker 2 (08:44):
I could only say, how at this point, if I
knew nothing else, if that's the way they operated, how
on earth could we have any face in the outcome?

Speaker 4 (08:54):
Yes, And that is one of the points that I'm
making in this paper is how should things be not
just for those who want to access euthanasia, but for
those who were accessing end of life healthcare? Because talking
about having good choices and our choices aren't good for
a number of reasons. And that's what I'm going into
the safety aspect, though, I think is concerning because that

(09:17):
means we made very well, and there are signs pointing
to the fact that it probably has already happened. People
who are not willingly choosing euthanasia, who are being euthanized.

Speaker 2 (09:28):
In New Zealand. In New Zealand, yeah, if we look
abroad at this early stage of the discussion, if we
look abroad, Canada, of course is in the news of
recent times. Switzerland I think has used in Asia and Holland.

Speaker 4 (09:45):
Yes, they've had it longer than most.

Speaker 2 (09:48):
So looking at the success or otherwise of euthanasia in
those countries, what do we come up with.

Speaker 4 (09:56):
There are so many different ways to evaluate what successes.
I mean, the Ministry of Health review of how it's
working here was that it's largely operating well. I mean
in the sense that people who are applying for euthanasia
are now dead.

Speaker 3 (10:09):
That's correct.

Speaker 4 (10:11):
It's not correct in the sense that what we have
on paper in the legislation is actually being followed the
way it's intended. If you look overseas, some countries have
much more liberal laws. They will allow miners to access it,
for example, they'll allow people to access it for mental
health conditions. But we're only talking about a handful of countries.

(10:31):
New Zealand is one of only about ten countries that
allows both the physician to prescribe a lethal drug to
you and to give it to you. A lot of places,
like states in the US that have legalized it, and
the Canadian are the Australian states that have legalized it.
They've only legalized prescribing a lethal drug. They have not

(10:54):
actually legalized one person administering a lethal dose to another person.
So New Zealand's and quite a small pool of countries
that have legalized both, and more than ninety percent of
those who've accessed it for a physician supplying it to them,
not just prescribing it. To answer your question, it's all

(11:16):
over the show. And basically there are pros and cons
to everything.

Speaker 2 (11:22):
I understand that.

Speaker 3 (11:23):
I mean pros.

Speaker 4 (11:25):
I use that word loosely. The Ministry of Health review.
It's interesting seeing what it considers a pro and a con.
The review looks at the tension between safeguards and access,
and in every single case where it looks at a
different bit of legislation or a possible amendment, it always
goes to the side of easier and faster access and

(11:48):
it declines the option that would make things safer for
vulnerable people, things like waiting periods. Most countries that have
legalized euthanasia of one one type or another, they have
a standown period. In some countries like Belgium, very very
loose eligible requirements. However, they have put in their legislation

(12:12):
that if you apply free euthanasia, you have to be
referred to a palliative care team to find out what
your other other care options are, because it could be
that somebody needs counseling or they need better pain relief
for you know, they need someone with expertise and end
of life care. They have to be referred to a
team that specializes in that, and the legislation also writes

(12:34):
in the intention to provide it to everyone. In New Zealand,
and this is one of my big points, we have
very patchy palliative care access. We have roughly half the
specialists employee that we need. We could have more, but
there's not the funding set aside for them. And then
hospices they operate with about half of their expenses covered

(12:57):
by fundraising. It's not government funded one hundred percent, roughly
half is government funded. It doesn't cover the whole country
and it's.

Speaker 3 (13:07):
Very ad hoc.

Speaker 4 (13:08):
So each hospice has a contract with Health New Zealand
and they may or may not get funding next year.

Speaker 2 (13:14):
Looking at the list of contents is telling you start
with an executive summary. You've got an introduction. The choice
for patients comes next. The process of dying a good death,
the problems of prognosis, access to expertise, access to palliative care,
defining palliative care, barriers an accessing paliative care, funding challenges

(13:39):
for hospices, lack of support influences choices which patients are
competent to choose. Then there's a list of obstacles to
free choice. But let's just stay with that long list
actually of introductory matters. The process of dying. How do
we define the process of dying?

Speaker 3 (13:59):
Yeah?

Speaker 4 (13:59):
And I mean what do we think death looks like?
I mean we have information from movies and TV? And
I was how old was I in my early forties
before I saw somebody dying?

Speaker 3 (14:15):
Naturally?

Speaker 4 (14:15):
I was with my grandma her final ten days of life,
and I didn't know what I was seeing exactly. Her
body was shutting down slowly. And I've spoken to people
recently as I've been discussing this kind of stuff who
think that they have seen a family member starved to death.
I have thirst go through horrible suffering, and now I know,

(14:39):
And it's actually thanks to a palliative care specialist that
Maxim brought out when this was being debated about six
years ago, named after Katherine Mannix, and I've since read
one of her books as well, with The End in Mind, excellent,
excellent resource to understand what death looks like, what it involves,
and it takes away fear understanding what the process is like.

(15:02):
It's as predictable as childbirth. If somebody's body is shutting down,
whether from disease or old age, there are some very
predictable stages. Being able to identify what they are, understand
what's going on, Understand that somebody who looks like they're
in distress is actually deeply unconscious. That's why they can't
control their breathing and they're swallowing. They're not suffering. That's

(15:25):
actually really freeing to understand that, and unless somebody tells
you that, it's very confronting and very uncomfortable watching someone die.
So I understand why there are many people who think
it would be more merciful to have a lethal injection,
then go through what they've seen someone go through.

Speaker 3 (15:42):
When you've got all the information.

Speaker 4 (15:44):
You realize that the vast majority of the time those
deaths are not the kind of suffering that we're imagining
they are. There's somebody slipping into unconsciousness and that is
the way their body shuts down. They can't eat, they
can't drink, they can't process food anymore. And this is
this is a natural, predictable process. So just having that

(16:04):
information means we can make better choices.

Speaker 2 (16:07):
The word termination and it keeps coming back into my mind.
What we're doing is or what we're talking about, is
the termination of a life. Yeah, so let me ask
you a sidebark question that nobody else would have had.
If I'm wrong, you tell me. Here we are talking
about the ability to call for your own death, or
be put down, or have your life terminated, however you

(16:29):
want to frame it. Don't even think about this. Just
give me an answer quickly. What's your approach to the
death penalty.

Speaker 4 (16:41):
It's interesting, it's probably become more solidified as I've been
looking into this. One of the reasons that many many
countries now don't have the death penalty is because you
cannot be certain one hundred percent of the time that
the person who's been convicted is actually guilty, And so
there is the possibility that somebody will be killed unjustly,

(17:03):
And because it's a terminal punishment, there's no fixing it.
If you imprison somebody unjustly, it's not great, but there's
still alive and there still can be some restitution. If
you kill someone unjustly, there's no going back. And I
think that's an excellent reason to not have the death penalty.

Speaker 3 (17:22):
And I think it applies.

Speaker 4 (17:23):
Here as well, because mistakes are made with prognosis and
diagnosis all the time.

Speaker 3 (17:28):
It's actually incredibly common.

Speaker 2 (17:29):
So that's a legal matter, a judicial matter. And I
have never been able to see why you can't introduce
an upper level of murder where there is no doubt
at all.

Speaker 4 (17:43):
Like the Christ Stretch shooter, perhaps, where you like, you've
got witnesses, you've got something where there's absolutely no shadow
of a doubt. I could see an argument for that,
and I could be persuaded either way. I don't have
a strong opinion about whether or not people like that
should suffer the death penalty or be in prison for life.

Speaker 2 (18:03):
Well, it's at a cost to the rest of us. Yes,
the fact that some of my tax money and yours
is going to sustaining the life of this person is
an offense or it's offensive to me.

Speaker 4 (18:17):
And what we're talking about is an exception.

Speaker 2 (18:20):
And there are exceptions.

Speaker 4 (18:22):
Yeah, but you don't write legislation for exceptions. You might
write things in there that apply to exceptions, but legislation
that applies to every single individual shouldn't be geared for
the outliers to take them into account, but it shouldn't
be written specifically for them.

Speaker 2 (18:38):
Let me just tell you that over the years of
talkback radio, it's been decades of it, when the subject
of either euse in asia or abortion came up, we
got to a point where I wouldn't entertain discussing it
unless there was some fresh new input into why it
should be discussed. Just because somebody wanted to raise it

(19:00):
wasn't good enough because it brought out the worst in
a lot of people, and to be blunt, it ended
up getting very boring and tedious because it's the same old,
same old. So it was something that got a bit
of abuse from on the other occasion, because you know,
people said things they wanted to say, but there was
no point in pursuing it because there was nothing new,

(19:23):
nothing fresh. What would you say was the most contributive
matter that has arisen recently that covers what we're discussing.

Speaker 3 (19:34):
I think that.

Speaker 4 (19:36):
The combination of the ministry reviewing the implementation and its
take on it, combined with the two former members of
the review committee saying that the safeguards are not safe,
I think it's the perfect time to revisit this and say,
is this the legislation that we voted for? And since

(19:59):
the legislation is called the End of Life Choice Act,
let's evaluate how good the choices are. Because when I
looked at that, I thought it's choice and name only
when I looked into how well palliative care is provided,
that's not a choice that probably half of Kiwis have
decent access to. So there would be being given the
choice between death without adequate support or euthanasia. You can

(20:23):
get euthanasia anywhere in the country, so in that sense,
it's a universally offered choice. But for people who don't
have other good end of life choice offered to them,
it's a bit of a game of would you rather
where none none of the options are actually what they
would most like. Palliative care offers the things that people
would most like. Universally, ninety percent of us are probably

(20:45):
going to reach a time when we will benefit from
valiative care. And because palliative care supports family members as well,
probably close to one hundred percent of us will benefit
from it because we will be supporting people who are
accessing it. So the fact that it's not universally funded,
I think that's a question. See what they're framing around
what I've written. It doesn't matter what somebody's assumption is

(21:08):
about whether or not euthanasias should be legal. I don't
address that at all in this. There've been discussions about that.
We've got the law. Now I'm addressing things that I
think we can all agree on. We all think that
good choices are good for us. We all think that
people should have good care at the end of life.
So I'm taking that as the assumption, and then going,

(21:31):
is what we've got good enough? Or is the Ministry
of Health giving itself a free pass on substandard choices?
That is it? Yes, Yeah, universally funpalliative care, which is
a cheaper option. And then hospices are on a contract,

(21:52):
you know, by contract basis, where they may or may
not get approximately half of the funding they need. There's
really a low level of commitment to making sure that
people can access the best possible death.

Speaker 2 (22:04):
Something ironic about talking about the best possible death.

Speaker 3 (22:07):
I know.

Speaker 2 (22:09):
From your executive summary. New Zealanders who meet certain criteria
have been able to end their lives since the End
of Life Choice Act twenty nineteen came into effect on
November of twenty twenty one, three years on. A Ministry
of Health review required by law, highlighted gaps in the legislation,
but also advocated for loosening some restrictions. They're the first

(22:33):
dangerous words that I came across loosening some restrictions. The
rationale for its recommendations is that making one choice easier
for patients to access will improve the overall quality of
end of life care. However, free choice is largely dependent
on the quality of options and information available. Clearing the

(22:53):
path to a single option does not automatically improve the
quality of people's choices. Now, there's a couple of questions
that come out of that, but hitting the next paragraph,
New Zealanders do not have equal access to end of
life life care. And then you talk about make the
comparison between euthanasia and palliative care, et cetera. Which has

(23:16):
the most money spent.

Speaker 4 (23:17):
On it, paliati cure or euthanasia, Well, it would be
palliaship care by far, because we're having about one person
a day euthanized roughly palliative care. About a third of
people who die natural deaths would access hospice.

Speaker 3 (23:36):
Care in a given year.

Speaker 4 (23:38):
So far, far more people are accessing palliative care. Like
I said, ninety percent of us are going to need
it someday. Whereas even if we got to the higher
end of what international is in Norman countries that have
had euthanasia for a long time, you might get three
or four percent of the population, well, three or four

(24:00):
percent of deaths that year being by euthanasia.

Speaker 2 (24:03):
The other thing I noticed about the difference between the
two is that you can get you you can have
euthanasia any where in the country. Pelleative care is not
necessarily so available. Is it likely that the bureaucracy is
looking at the figures and suggesting that loosening up on
the restrictions or limitations of euthanasia. Making it easier to

(24:28):
get is an effective way of working within the limits
of their finances.

Speaker 4 (24:37):
I mean, if you're looking at it from a bureaucratic
point of view, the answer is obvious, isn't it.

Speaker 2 (24:43):
I thought i'd ask anyway.

Speaker 4 (24:44):
Yeah, I mean I can't read people's minds. I can
tell you what they actually said in the report, and
that'll give us a glimpse into their minds, because if
it's about choice, you would expect them to say, well,
you know, obviously there's budget priorities. Everybody can't have everything,
but to the best of our ability, you can choose
what you want. However, the tone of the review is

(25:09):
very much favoring some choices in not others, and that's
even at the expense of people's own opinions and beliefs,
which do not impact healthcare at large.

Speaker 3 (25:21):
You know, you can choose what you like.

Speaker 4 (25:23):
They're actively opposed to people who would not actively choose euthanasia.
So I write in the report that the Ministry of
Health does not acknowledged that there are valid reasons to
opt out of participating in euthanasia, and that can be
either as a physician or you know, somebody who's preaching
the end of life. It identifies that and I'm quoting

(25:44):
the report here, some communities TOI Kunga customary values are
not aligned with or supportive of assisted dying, and that
some held the view that the waidrua spirit belongs to
God and the body should be allowed to perish naturally
end quote. And then I'm saying this belief, shared not
just by many Mari but also by many faith communities,

(26:05):
is one that the Ministry considers misguided regarding MARI final
who consider euthanasia to be the same as suicide.

Speaker 3 (26:12):
They write, and this is from the report.

Speaker 4 (26:15):
This points to a lack of awareness and acceptability of
assisted dying within MARI communities and an urgent need for
assisted dying to become familiar, understood, and accepted.

Speaker 3 (26:28):
End quote.

Speaker 4 (26:28):
So the Ministry it's not just wanting to offer this,
it wants to normalize this as a practice for people who,
for various reasons cultural and spiritual, see it is the
same as suicide. And because you know, we're not supporters
of suicide as a general rule, people have those reasons
for thinking, No, I don't want to participate in it,

(26:49):
and I don't want to access it. The ministry doesn't
think that's good enough.

Speaker 2 (26:54):
Well, this is what I mean about the bureaucracy. Yeah,
they are less concerned with the with the well being
of the patients than they are about, shall we say,
the inconvenience of keeping them alive. And having just said that,
to me, it's almost it's almost obscene. But in conjunction
with them, we've got the situation where doctors must wait

(27:15):
for patients to request Useinasia before discussing it with them. However,
the Ministry of Health recommends that doctors be allowed, even
in courage to offer it to eligible patients. This is
in total conflict with the with the doctors.

Speaker 4 (27:34):
Well, yeah, many doctors feel that way now that they
are not actually I think that they're not actually suggesting
the legislation be changed so that doctors have to suggest it,
but in their recommendation that the lobby changed so that
they're allowed to suggest it. They go on to say
that because this is a consumer rights issue, consumers should.

Speaker 3 (27:56):
Know all their options.

Speaker 4 (27:58):
Now, I've read medical journals from from overseas were doctors
are arguing against this and saying this is not something
in i'll the areas of care where you're supposed to
actually lay out every single option that a patient might access.
The physician has their own, in their own professional opinion,

(28:20):
the ability to say, these are the things that I
think you should consider. And for the many doctors who
don't think that their patient should be considering killing themselves,
it's perfectly valid to not offer it. The reason that
in the law, and this was one of the concessions
that those who are pushing this through made in order
to get it over the line. They made a few

(28:40):
concessions that they're now trying to roll back because they'd
like it to be more liberal. But one of the
reasons that it was put in there as a concession
to those who didn't want doctors to be able to
suggest it is that that changes the patient doctor relationship massively,
and it also changes the way that a patient approaches

(29:01):
the way they are dealing with, whether it's terminal or
possibly terminal, approaching their true As soon as someone says
to you, whether it's a child or your doctor, have
you thought about euthanasia? Well, from a doctor, you're hearing
you might be better off dead than facing what you're
going to face, and that really undermines the kind of hopefulness,

(29:24):
encourage that you need, especially given that a lot of
conditions that are scary as people face them. When you
read stuff by palliative care physicians, there are means of
making people comfortable. And actually the main reason people apply
for euthanasia by far, This is from surveys out of Canada.
It has to do with fear of losing autonomy and

(29:46):
being a burden. The fear of suffering physical pain is
way way down the list, and usually that can be
mitigated just fine. It is people's psychological fears that usually
are the reason that they're applying for euthanasia. Well, if
you've got a doctor putting that fear in your mind
by saying this might be a better option for you

(30:06):
than dying a natural death, it changes the way you're
approaching everything. So there's a very good reason it's in
the law of the ministry. Doesn't address any of the
reasons why you might not want to have a doctor
suggesting that to a patient. They say, it's a consumer
rights issue. This is an option as good as any other's.
Doctor should be able to go for it.

Speaker 2 (30:25):
Okay, I have for each one of these sub subjects,
I've got examples in my head of experience one way
or the other. For instance, I'm aware of somebody and
this is not in New Zealand, but of somebody who
in their late nineties was desperate to die. It was

(30:48):
against the law, Austrainen. It was against the law, and
in the end, at the will, based on the will
of the patient and immediate family, the doctor put an
end to his life. And that's the argument that is
used quite frequently, probably the most frequently used argus in

(31:08):
favor of euthanasia. When you get to a point by
the way, his mind was working perfectly, Yeah, well close
enough to perfectly, and he begged for it and he
got it. Now, that did cause some ruction in the
family because not everybody was in attendance of that particular time,

(31:30):
but that's another matter. Yeah, is that a satisfactory argument
for changing for loosening up?

Speaker 4 (31:39):
Loosening up with you here, because in that instance, I
think if euthanasia had been legal, he would have known
about it and the doctor wouldn't have raised it with him.
If a doctor said you have less than six months
to live under oral ezz then yes he could have
accessed it. Might not have changed things with the family stories.
I'm hearing from people who know people who accessed euthanasia

(32:01):
very mixed feelings, unlike those who had family die in
hospice care, which is universally a positive, glowing report of
the experience. So there are some things that are always
going to be issues. There are some things once it's
made legal, without instance, wouldn't be an issue because he'd
be able to apply and probably be eligible. The loosening up.

(32:28):
And this is why I mentioned the exceptions and why
legislation shouldn't be targeted at exceptions. The safeguards all mean
that some people who want to access it won't be
able to because of a safeguard. But the safeguards are
there because once you legalize one person killing another, it

(32:48):
opens the door for people who don't have people's best
interests to do what they shouldn't do. So and also
this is another thing I go into the paper. Some
people feel like they want to die, and then when
they get the care that they need, they change their mind.
And there's no knowing. You know which patient is going
to be which, but you put it into the law

(33:09):
with the understanding that we want to keep vulnerable people safe,
even if it means that some people who are suffering
and really want to die, either have to wait longer
or can't access it because they're not eligible. It's a
trade off. The reason that I think the trade off
should be in favor of vulnerable people who might be

(33:31):
taken advantage of is because that is actually somebody being
killed against their will. Whereas somebody who ends up dying naturally.
It's not a great thing if they have to suffer,
but we're not making them suffer. That's just the result
of illness and age and laws and not being able

(33:53):
to give us everything we want all the time. So
there's no good outcome for everybody all the time. But
the government's job is to protect life and protect the vulnerable,
not to give us everything we want. So by partectecting
the vulnerable and protecting life, there have to be if
you're going to have euthanasia, there have to be safeguards.

(34:14):
At the moment, we have no stand down period overseas.

Speaker 3 (34:18):
A lot of places have a couple of.

Speaker 2 (34:19):
Weeks stand down period, a delay, yeah.

Speaker 4 (34:24):
Cold on period, so you apply and then before it
can progress, generally like maybe two weeks. It's not huge,
but it's long enough that for instance, you could be
referred to a palliative care team, or you could have
your GP refer you to somebody who's got expertise in
pain really so a thing or counseling. Like I said,

(34:44):
most of the applications come from people who are afraid
of future things.

Speaker 3 (34:48):
They're not currently suffering.

Speaker 4 (34:50):
They're afraid that they're going to lose abilities, be a burden,
things that with the right care and conversations, their minds
can actually be eased. They don't need to die, they
just need to have a better outlook on things and
possibly often support. So that's why the quarter period exists. Overseas,

(35:12):
we have none. The fastest time from application to death
so far in New Zealand is two days. I don't
know how you can check for coercion and do everything
else that the legislation requires in two days, but apparently
it's been done. I don't know how many times because
the Ministry hasn't released that information, but an OIA that
was put in showed that even though the average is

(35:32):
about three weeks from application to death, that's being skewed
by outliers. The most common timeframe is two weeks. The
shortest is two days.

Speaker 2 (35:41):
Let me make a comparison. It's the extensions that follow
change that have been aware of for wealth for a
long time. And so most people probably did you make changes,
you loosen up. That's only the step, that's only one
step to the next step. Yeah, So the next step
after taken abortion as an example, and the ease with

(36:03):
which you can have that now and in some parts
of the world, And dare I say it, but it's true,
right up to the right up to the birth canal moment,
you can exterminate that child. So those extensions which are
really uncontrollable would extend to this. So you have a
patient who's or you have a person on their DESKBD

(36:25):
who doesn't really want to die but is really in
the way, whichever way it might be, but in the
way putting them down in their sleep would be easy.
And once you and once you've extended it to the
point that we're talking about now, with the changes that
are suggested, it's only a very short step from there
to for anybody's conscience, even to the next stage.

Speaker 3 (36:48):
Right or wrong, it's yes.

Speaker 4 (36:52):
I mean, there's an argument about the slippery slope and
is there one and is there not? And I think
Oregon's pretty much held the line with this legislation and
other places. Most of the places haven't here, we already
have a member's bill in the wings that would remove
the six month prognosis, so that opens it up to

(37:12):
people who are not I mean in a sense, we're
all criminal. So it's a bit of a fuzzy line
with a triminal diagnosis, but you wouldn't have to be
given six months to live now, even with six months.
I've got a friend who was given six months to
live in two thousand and six and he's still walking
around with lung cancer.

Speaker 3 (37:27):
But it's in check. So it's always going to be
a little bit.

Speaker 4 (37:31):
Fuzzy, even though on paper it looks very defined, and
once you do, yeah, open it up to oh, they
probably want to die in Belgium. And these are old numbers,
so it's it's probably worse than this.

Speaker 1 (37:44):
Now.

Speaker 4 (37:45):
Two thousand and seven, one point eight percent of old
deaths were euthanasia without explicit consent and two percent were
with consent. Now that tells you that the culture has
accepted it to the point that if somebody expressed a
wish at some point, even when they're not capable of

(38:07):
assenting and saying, yeah, this is the time I want
to go. It's been normalized that that happens. The efficiency
of it has been reframed as compassionate, and that, I
would argue, goes against our valuing of people's choice because
they're not making that choice. Somebody else is making it

(38:29):
for them. And I think that getting into that territory
opens up a whole lot of risk that's not worth it.

Speaker 2 (38:36):
Where is it now? Legally a person on their deathbed
who is not going to die anytime soon because so
because of the nature of their suffering or their illness,
a person on their deathbed doesn't want to die, but
there is pressure on medical services for that life to
be terminated.

Speaker 3 (38:56):
Do you mean here?

Speaker 4 (38:57):
Yeah, yeah, No, somebody has to request it. So anybody
who hasn't requested it and had two doctors say yes,
you probably they have less than six months to live,
you have a terminal condition, you have unbearable suffering, and
the unbearable suffering. If somebody says they're suffering unbearably, then
that's what it is. But if two doctors sign off

(39:20):
on that and say they're mentally competent, then they're eligible.
Now you've got people who decline slowly. They don't have
a terminal illness. There's no reason to think they won't
be around still in six or twelve months, they won't
be eligible and so their suffering will have to be managed,
you know, palliative care with pain relief and symptom relief.

Speaker 2 (39:40):
That's the situation at the moment, two doctors signing off. Yes,
they keep slipping my mind. The obvious to me is
you loosen up a bit, and that gets loosened up
a bit, so it's only one doctor who might need
to and let me, let me extend it this way.
At the moment, you can be you can you can
put a pillow over someone's head and suffocate them and

(40:01):
you'll be held up for murder as the value of
life lessons as we move into this new era, then
how can you argue that somebody who says that their
parents wanted out and I just assisted them and then
you discover a course of the's ten minion dollars waiting
for them.

Speaker 4 (40:20):
At the moment, there'd be in big trouble if we
get to the point that Belgium is at and that
person has done an advanced directive where at this point
in time I don't want to live anymore, then it
would be no problem for them legally, well, not with
a pillow, but if a doctor was giving it the

(40:42):
legitimacy it needed. Then in Belgium that kind of scenario,
if the person has expressed at some point presumably I
don't actually know, in Belgium, if they double check that
those without explicit consent had at some point expressed a wish,
you'd hope so. But with these things, the more you
look into them, the more you realize. Even the two doctors,

(41:04):
and I was going to say, the Ministry of Health
would actually like to change to the optional third referral,
which if somebody there's questions about mental competence, then they
are referred to a psychiatrists. Very few are most of
the GP or whoever signs off generally says are mentally competent.

Speaker 3 (41:23):
If they get referred to.

Speaker 4 (41:24):
A psychiatrists to double check that, then they have a
third referral. There's an argument that everybody should be referred
to psychiatric care if they want to end their lives,
but that obviously was not written into the law here.
The Ministry would like to change it so that optional
third referral to check competence doesn't have to be a psychiatrist,
so they like to make it a little looser, and

(41:45):
I think it's just a The fact of the matter
is there aren't many psychiatrists and it could delay access
and so that like this would be easier. So again
it's whatever is easier and quicker that ends up being
the norm, and not what is safer.

Speaker 2 (42:02):
So we haven't actually mentioned up to this point the
shortage of both money and medical staff in New Zealand.
We're short changed on both fronts. So it stands to
reason that that that on its own makes loosening up
more desirable. Yeah, efficiency, that efficient death, you know, I'm

(42:26):
looking at I'm looking at the executive summary. The emphasis
on an efficient death undermines the kind of consideration and
care that an informed choice requires. Efficient death didn't they
have that in places in Austria? And you've got to
argue that that's that's an efficient death or is that
an unfair question?

Speaker 4 (42:47):
I mean, I can't answer for them. From the review,
you see that efficiency wins over safety. We do have
and I was actually.

Speaker 2 (42:56):
Talking to but sorry, but I'm really referring to the
breakdown of resistance to morality right when I when I
make that comment, they thought they had an efficient death
back in the forties. You know, Yeah, it's got an
interpretation to it that squirms my stomach.

Speaker 4 (43:18):
Yeah, I think that what the review that the Ministry
put out shows, and efficiency is one of the words
in there. It's also just quite a materialistic view of humanity,
and I think this is one of the reasons that
they pointedly said that some Arow communities disagree for those reasons.

Speaker 3 (43:39):
If you believe that we are.

Speaker 4 (43:42):
Like machines, just the summer of the building blocks, and
that there's nothing more to us than that, then it
does make sense to do the most efficient thing because
there is no moral discussion to be had. There's no
deeper meaning to death. Whereas for those of us who
believe that there's you know, mind, body, and soul, that

(44:02):
we actually are integrated beings who live in community with
other integrated beings, and that there are questions beyond simple
ones of are you in pain or not? Are you
suffering or not? Because that becomes quite simple. If you're suffering,
suffering is bad, it's in the suffering. If it's too hard,
in the suffering, we in the sufferer. It's just a

(44:23):
very logical, materialistic view of things, and if you are
looking at things through that lens, this all makes sense.
There are no moral problems. It just comes down to
if it's legal, it's good. If it's legal, you should
be able to do it. We have by law made
something good, and it wasn't before it is now. This

(44:47):
is the field we're in. So those of us who
don't see it as that simple, and who do think
there are bigger questions here are never going to come
to the same conclusions as the Ministry of Health did
in its report.

Speaker 2 (45:02):
You've given me entree to another approach, and that is
you take care doctors who have refused, who have refused
to prescribe the pill or certainly recommend an abortion, and
they find themselves under threat of losing their license in

(45:23):
various cases, various circumstances, but various cases. And they have,
they have, and I know of a couple. Why would
we not then extend that same approach to changing the
changing the rules, loosening up, doing what the what the
department wants. And you've got doctors who hold strong beliefs

(45:45):
in religion and think that this is totally out of order,
and they won't participate in it, and as a result
they end up losing their licenses because they won't do
what they're what they're told.

Speaker 3 (45:57):
Either.

Speaker 4 (45:58):
Are two areas where contentious objection rights are are stated
in healthcare. One is abortion and the other is euthanasia.
Not surprisingly so technically doctors do have conscientious objection rights,
and actually I would say that far more doctors than
just those who hold faith will not participate in euthenasia.

(46:19):
There's actually a very small number of doctors who are
on the register of those who offer it, and a
few more have provided it, but it is not something
that they went into that profession intending to do, and
most do not want to do it. Some for very
deep conscience reasons, will never do it. What the Ministry

(46:42):
said in its review it would, in my view, imped
on conscientious objection rights because it sees referring a patient
on for euthanasia, providing all the materials for referral. It
doesn't see that as offending somebody's conscience. At the moment,
all a doctor has to say is there is the

(47:05):
Ministry of Health a department where you can get information
from point them in the direction of where they can
get information and then they can do their own calling
around to find out who will assess them and all
the rest.

Speaker 3 (47:18):
They don't have to do it themselves.

Speaker 4 (47:20):
The Ministry would like to nudge that forward a little
bit and say, well, you need to refer them on,
you need to provide the materials for some doctors that
will offend their conscientious objection rights. And the Ministry would
like to go further and require all care homes, hospices,
anybody where that's the patient's residence to allow euthanasia on site,

(47:43):
so dictate what can can't happen on site, or in
the Ministry's view, they should lose their registration, which is
quite heavy handed because you're giving a hospice an option
between shutting down or allowing euthanasia on site.

Speaker 3 (47:57):
Now.

Speaker 4 (47:57):
I know for a fact that the one hospice in
New Zealand that does allow it on site when it
made that decision, lost its charged nurse and over a
dozen staff instantly. They didn't want to work in where
euthanasia is being offered. I know from somebody who works
in palliative care in hospice care that there are patients

(48:18):
who actively don't go to that hospice because they don't
want to be in a facility where that's on the table.
If the Ministry is interested in people having choice, then
they should extend that choice to people who live in
care homes so that they can choose to go to
ones that do or don't offer euthanasia on site. It

(48:40):
says in its review that one of the options is
for a care home to be upfront when somebody begins
living there, to say, look, we do or don't offer
this on site, and then then the patient can decide
whether or not they want to live there. That seems
like a reasonable solution. The Ministry said, no, that's not

(49:00):
a reasonable solution because it will hinder access for people
living in care homes that don't allow it on site.

Speaker 3 (49:07):
So you see where this is going.

Speaker 4 (49:09):
It's very much everybody must participate mindset, which I think
actually limits people's choice.

Speaker 2 (49:17):
I'm going to take it one step further. We're all
well aware of the compulsion that came into play during COVID.
Why wouldn't we Why might we not reach a similar
situation down the track where the escape hatch that you've
just described for doctors is eliminated, that it's becomes compulsory

(49:39):
for whatever reason, from whatever whatever type of government might
have found its way into the beehive.

Speaker 3 (49:46):
Yep.

Speaker 2 (49:47):
In other words, I'm one for looking at the downside
of things a lot of the time, not looking so
much at the upside, because the downside can be a
downside worse than what you've got.

Speaker 4 (49:59):
Yeah, I mean your reference COVID. I don't think any
of us before that could have imagined that the compulsion
could have gone as far as it did. And I
think some people still say, I think that it wasn't
particularly bad, but we know the level of compulsion that
can be put on people to you know, the complete

(50:20):
disregard of their conscience, among other things. They shouldn't be
in law that the Ministry can pull the plug on
a hospice which provides excellent services that most of us
will need someday based on the fact that it won't
allow people to be euthanized on site.

Speaker 2 (50:41):
At the end, you let me try that again. At
the end of the executive summary, you say, neither this
stants by the Ministry nor the legislation as it stands,
support independent, informed and free patient choice to improve the
quality of end of life care in New Zealand and

(51:03):
to ensure meaningful choice. We make a number of recommendations
they aim.

Speaker 4 (51:09):
To what Well, if the law is going to stand
as it is, then those recommendations are that the safeguards
be short up so what is on paper is actually enforced,
which it's not being.

Speaker 3 (51:23):
On paper.

Speaker 4 (51:24):
Doctors are to do their best to detect coercion. Well,
I know for a fact that at one hospice they
had about seventy odd patients who applied for euthanasia over
a year, and they had I think a total of
three phone calls from the assessing physician. So they're not

(51:44):
contacting caregivers and saying tell me about this patient. It's
hardly ever happening. How are they detecting coercion? I mean
it is by nature behind closed doors and subtile you're
not going to ask a patient or are you being coerced?

Speaker 3 (51:58):
No, I'm not. Okay, We're all.

Speaker 4 (51:59):
Good that efforts are not being made to do even
what's in the legislation. And then the legislation should have
things that are standard overseas, like a cool down period,
like referral to palliatsive care specialists that would actually improve
the quality of choice. And as far as the other recommendations,

(52:24):
end of life literacy training, and funding palliative care specialists,
and obviously like funding hospices that would make a massive
difference to people's options right away, improving palliative care in
hospitals in homes and improving access to hospices.

Speaker 2 (52:41):
Or requiring money that we can't find.

Speaker 4 (52:44):
Well, this is the interesting thing with hospices. For every
dollar that the government funds them, they provide a dollar
fifty nine in services, because those are people who are
not ending up in the er, they're not ending up
in and out of hospital. Palliative care can provide care
for people in their own homes where they're not taking
up a bed anywhere at all. So hospices actually it's

(53:09):
a pretty good bang for your buck, and it's better
care than any other option. So if we're going to
find money for anything, that should be one of the
things we find it for. If we can find it
for euthanasia, and this is my argument, nobody should be
given a choice between euthanasia and not having palliative care.
They don't have palliative care services, then saying that you

(53:29):
can in your life is just a really shoddy option.

Speaker 2 (53:33):
In conclusion, you put a lot of work into this,
and I imagine you were confronted by things that you
hadn't thought of before, or at least not to the
extent that you needed to. What is your personal approach
after doing all this research and writing this report.

Speaker 3 (53:51):
I think the thing that I've come away with.

Speaker 4 (53:55):
That stands up the most is respect for people who
work an end of life care. Speaking to palliative care physicians,
reading books and articles by them, they do amazing work,
and even within medical circles people don't really like talking
about death. Most doctors are there to keep people alive
as long as possible. It's an amazing specialty. Talking to

(54:17):
people who've had family members pass away in hospice care
have said the most wonderful things about the experience. I
had no idea how good the service was, what a
difference it makes in people's lives, and how dedicated the
people working in it are. So I just my respect
for them has grown, and my understanding of end of

(54:37):
life care options is way better than it was when
I started this.

Speaker 2 (54:43):
All right, I've got one last point actually that have
slipped me. You haven't experienced death your own I haven't.
These are Abbie's statements. I know, but when you're on
your desk bed, and you might even be on the
last legs on the way out, is it possible that
you can have a personal conversion before you go, which

(55:05):
some would believe would have a very great effect.

Speaker 3 (55:09):
On what follows on a conversion to what well I'm.

Speaker 2 (55:12):
Thinking of I'm thinking of religious people or people who
who aren't religious, but maybe maybe in a position to
reconsider in those last but in those last few moments, I.

Speaker 4 (55:26):
Don't think it's uncommon because I imagine again I can, I'm
sure everything will look quite different from that perspective of
looking back and knowing it's over. So I've heard stories
and I imagine that it's quite common for people to
have a completely new outlook on faith and other things
from that perspective.

Speaker 2 (55:44):
Would that apply also to Eusinagia?

Speaker 4 (55:47):
Do you think, as in being on your deathbed and thinking, oh,
I wish that that I'd supported it because I want
it now that confusion.

Speaker 2 (55:55):
No, I'm meaning on your deskbed being euthanized and not
having not having that as far as i'm aware, not
having that that personal time available because you have curtailed it.

Speaker 4 (56:12):
Yeah, it'd be a very different death when you've got
a countdown clock, good way to put it. You don't
have a countdown clock. If it's a natural death, you're
just rolling with it.

Speaker 2 (56:20):
I think that you've produced an extremely good taper. How
does anybody get hold of it?

Speaker 4 (56:25):
It's on our website so maxim dot org, dot and
z and there's a tab with our research. It'll probably
pop up on the homepage at the moment. And we've
got other resources as well.

Speaker 2 (56:37):
They're well done, very good. Thank you very much, and
I appreciate your.

Speaker 3 (56:41):
Time, and thank you so much for having me Later.

Speaker 2 (56:44):
Mary Anne Spirtle from Maxim and it was a pleasure.
Thank you, and missus producer. We are here for podcast

(57:10):
number two hundred and ninety four edits mailroom, and we
haven't got long because you're being picked up. We're being
picked up at four o'clock.

Speaker 5 (57:20):
Fantastic, can't wait.

Speaker 2 (57:22):
But are you packed?

Speaker 3 (57:23):
Unpacked?

Speaker 2 (57:24):
You sure? I think so.

Speaker 5 (57:26):
I put seven eighths of the wardrobe in there, so
it should be okay.

Speaker 2 (57:30):
You need a whole room for that. Why did you roll? Laden?

Speaker 5 (57:34):
Jim says, I find it ironic that throughout the recent
American election, the Democrats labeling Trump a threat to democracy. Yet,
as David Bell said, the real threat to democracy is
the small group of elites who use scam research, falsehoods,
and fears to coerce us into giving up our freedoms.
Just the week before, DearS Gorman said the same thing,

(57:56):
a culture of fear causes us to surrender our freedoms.
I was surprised at how this seemingly charming Ashley Bloomfield
turned out to be New Zealand's Anthony Farci. He used
the wholly intersectionality of health, climate change and religion to
propel the insidious COVID narrative of fear into the hearts
of New Zealanders. Today, the WHO and the UN are

(58:20):
still trying their damnedest to confiscate New Zealanders of our freedoms.
Our response to the who's dictatorial international health regulations needs
to be unswerving, unrelenting, and uncompromising, as David Seymour's response
to the UN's criticism of the Regulatory Standards Bill. New

(58:40):
Zealand's business is none of the Who's nor the UN's.
The limp wristed UN was formed to prevent World War three,
and they can't even prevent all the lesser wars of
the past decade. In the meantime, both have a blessed
and enjoyable trip.

Speaker 2 (58:55):
You deserve it. In Carol Agen, thank you and for
all your input. This has written to Muriel Newman, but
been sent to me by Tim from Lenham. A very short,
very accurate. The problem with National is its leadership. The
membership and quite a few MPs are frustrated as hell

(59:17):
with the ladder fluff inaction and management speak coming from
the front bench. We want action on what we were
elected to do, but as usual the brains trust don't
listen to us. And we don't have political science and
or PR degrees. And we live in the real world,
not the bubbles of Wellington and Auckland. Keep up the

(59:37):
great work, Leighton.

Speaker 5 (59:39):
Jim says, I have just finished the above book, and
by the above book he means the storm before the
calm George Freeman's book, and I must say a fascinating read.
A lot of history that I hadn't put together like this.
What I find interesting is the parallels to New Zealand
and where they where I see us today, but also
across the world. I now have a greater understanding of

(01:00:01):
Trump and his support base and what he is trying
to achieve. Thank you for the weekly insights Storm before
the Calm, George Friedman.

Speaker 2 (01:00:10):
And from Jim Jim Jim Jim, if you want to
expand on that at any stage, go for it, because
I'm appreciative of what you've written. From Brett A. KEYW
Chap has done the costings for the UK. I see
someone has done the AU costings, the Australian costings, which

(01:00:31):
I haven't looked into. Costings have been done for the planet,
both in dollars and earth resources. Not sure where we're
going to find an additional plant to supply everything. Not
forgetting wind and solar and batteries have to be replaced
every fifteen years or so or they just rip them out,
which is what they're doing in a number of places

(01:00:51):
around the world now. So you have that cost every
cycle to find whether agree with the figures as worked
out or not, is of no importance as high or
low it is unachievable. Then you have to measure the
observed difference to climate warming that you have made if
it can be done at all. Not forgetting, half the
world is increasing emissions the whole time. None of it

(01:01:15):
will work out and we will have achieved nothing. Oh
yes we will. We will have thrown away so much
money that will be bankrupt. What does it cost the
New Zealand economy and the taxpayer so far? What will
it cost in the coming years and decades? What will
we have to show for it all the dollar return

(01:01:35):
on investment and cost benefit? What will that look like?
New Zealand governments have lost all their faculties pushing this stuff.
We do not have the technology or the money to
meet the ambitions of governments. Bred pretty good.

Speaker 5 (01:01:51):
Layton Nairi says thank you for your wonderful podcasts. I
have become a dedicated follower since moving north from Canterbury
in time for the lockdown and being introduced to them
by my daughter. They're the perfect accompaniment to my regular walks.
They also give me lots to dec gussen debate with
my four eighteen to twenty one year old grandsons from politics.

(01:02:13):
It education never too old or too young to learn
from each other. I was very sorry to hear of
the recent death of Professor des Gorman. To hear the
replay of your discussion with him was an excellent reminder
of earlier times. Such well spoken messages and insights from
the man, he will be sadly missed by many. I

(01:02:33):
wish you both a wonderful upcoming holiday. Please you finally
got your Turkish visa?

Speaker 2 (01:02:38):
So am I?

Speaker 5 (01:02:39):
So am I?

Speaker 1 (01:02:39):
Iri?

Speaker 3 (01:02:41):
I hope you don't.

Speaker 5 (01:02:42):
I hope I don't have similar fun in games for
my Azerbaijan visa As a New Zealander, I thankfully don't
need one for Armenia, Georgia and Turkey leaving in two weeks.
I hope you have a fantastic time.

Speaker 3 (01:02:54):
I'm sure you will.

Speaker 5 (01:02:55):
Nri goes on to say I look forward to catching
your podcasts with your son in London. I haven't heard
your dates yet, but I may pick them up from
France in September. I love to travel, but in spite
of my criticisms of much of what is happening in
New Zealand, I love to come home, as do I
and Iri ps the outraged expression I can't believe it

(01:03:17):
has become a joke and is banned. Have a fabulous
time and best wishes.

Speaker 2 (01:03:21):
Quite a lot to comment on in that if you
can remember what it was, just just with regard to you,
know you love New Zealand and you love coming home whatever.
I don't disagree with that. Coming home wherever your home
is is always pretty much a welcome thing. And I
can remember, I can cast my mind back where I am,

(01:03:43):
and I can remember when everything changed to me here.

Speaker 5 (01:03:46):
I don't know, it's periods of your life. I suppose
I can remember in my twenties going with my friends
to Spain or Portugal on holiday and coming back miserable
to London and sitting around saying, should we just go
and buy a bar and Fangerolla or Malagara or somewhere,
you know, because it.

Speaker 2 (01:04:01):
Was warmer over there. That was youth talking.

Speaker 5 (01:04:04):
That was youth talking, and I'm jolly glad that we
never did it.

Speaker 2 (01:04:08):
The other aspect is regular exits. I haven't been apart
from Australia, apart from Sydney. I have been back to
Europe for two years and with family there. It's something
that is now on the agenda pretty much every year.
But you are chuing time off late for the moment. Yeah,
well that's true. I agree. Let's just not forget one

(01:04:30):
important thing. Life is what you make it.

Speaker 5 (01:04:32):
Life's wonderful.

Speaker 2 (01:04:33):
Okay. So finally from John Great interview with David Bell.
I have sent the link to a lot of people
who should hear what he has to say. Read the
who scam Simon is certainly very low wattage. Read there's
gorman from me. One of the most salient points he
made was in response to your question. You asked him

(01:04:54):
if there is one thing that you were in a
position to do to achieve one thing? What his answer was,
I'd probably focus on health in this case in New Zealand, Layton,
and I would look for a reform that was driven
from the eyes and the voice and the experience of
the consumer. This is exactly what's required, and until that happens,

(01:05:16):
it'll be more of the same. If only Dez had
remained with us to provide the leadership that will be
necessary if we ever achieved. This a very good example
of why we the people should have a voice for
many many people have known this for years, but standard
of care makes a lot of money for Farmer. And

(01:05:39):
then he concludes with you mentioned that you will be
on a cruise visiting Turkey. I am very envious. I
love ships, so do we believe me? Thank you John,
A very good input, missus producer. Thank you for your input.
Thanks Layton, and I'll go and I call up your
bag Layton Smith now for a podcast update. I actually

(01:06:08):
can't think of a more appropriate time to visit the UK,
London in particular, where there is change afoot. It's been
building for some time. Immigration will ruin the UK if
it isn't arrested. All manner of social issues seem uncontrollable, violence,
crime in general, anti Semitism, and of course the battle

(01:06:31):
over so called climate change. So we shall be away
for a few weeks away, but not absence. I've selected
a few interviews from earlier times that are worthy of repeat,
along with some fresh material and whatever might be forthcoming
from London. But let me leave you with this, just
in case you hadn't noticed, the same attitudes have been

(01:06:54):
adopted in the Anglo sphere no matter who's in charge.
The Left is in charge in Canada, left is in
charge in Britain, Left is in charge in Australia, and
you could argue there's not a lot of difference here,
but we live in hope. Nevertheless, the people who are
in charge are all morons. Specifically when it comes to

(01:07:19):
climate change. Net zero is the most idiotic policy that
anybody could have invented, and it's being pushed beyond belief
in spite of the evidence against. Let me quote you
something to round out this podcast. Climate denial should not
be legal. That's the headline of a Spectator piece from
London back on July sixteenth. You can tell the environmentalists

(01:07:43):
are on the back foot. Energy Secretary Ed Miliband is
issuing doomsday proclamations in Parliament, branding reform and the Tories
unpatriotic for refusing to go along with his deranged which
is a better word than the one I used deranged
net zero policies, and now labor donors are also calling
for climate denial to be criminalized, because nothing says we're

(01:08:07):
winning the argument like locking up your opponents. Green tycoon
Dale Vince, a man whose woeful politics can be accurately
inferred from his appearance and donated five million pounds to
Labor ahead of the last general election. Ever since, he's
been publicly dispensing increasingly crazed and often totally self serving

(01:08:27):
advice to the government he helped put in office. After
Milliband announced this week that he was to give the
first of what he intends to make an annual climate
statement in Parliament. Vince took to X to congratulate the
Energy Secretary and urge him to go further. Quote good
move from ed. It's time to tell it like it is.

(01:08:50):
I'd make climate denial a criminal offense, given the incredible
harm it will cause, even by slowing down progress to
NED zero. This isn't a new idea. Deep greens have
been agitating for it for years. Last month, the UN
Special Rapperteur of for Human Rights and Climate Change, Elisa Mulgera,

(01:09:11):
called for media and advertising firms to be held criminally
liable for amplifying disinformation and misinformation by fossil fuel companies, because,
as we all know, the scientific method is all about
some bureaucrat deciding what the truth is and then imposing
that on the press and civil society. These are not

(01:09:33):
the proposals of a movement that's confident in its argument.
The more that voters bristle against elite greenism, refusing to
accept that their lives must be more expensive and less
free in order to meet arbitrary climate targets, the more
green stuff panticizing about the deniers being led away in handcuffs.

(01:09:53):
Ordinary people care about the environment, but they're just not
buying the eco austerity the elites are selling, and rightly so.
And skipping to the end of this piece from the
fossil fueled workers who backed Donald Trump with drill maybe
drill to the revolt in France against Emmanuel Macron's punishing

(01:10:14):
eco taxes. Ordinary people have had enough of being made
worse off to selve the consciences of Rich Green's posing
as saviors of the planet. No wonder Vince is rattled now.
The environmentalists hope to do with censorship what they have
failed to do with persuasion. Do not let them get

(01:10:34):
away with it. And all of the above is applicable.
And that'll take us out for two ninety four. We
shall return in a week with something very interesting. I
think you'll I think you'll appreciate it. Our great thing actually,
so if you want to write to us, we will
be checking the mail occasionally. Latent at Newstalks atb dot

(01:10:55):
co dot enz and Carolyn at Newstalks ab dot co
dot nz. So until we meet again, as the saying goes,
thank you for listening, and we shall talk soon.

Speaker 4 (01:11:08):
M hmmmmmmm.

Speaker 1 (01:11:15):
Thank you for more from News Talks at B, listen
live on air or online, and keep our shows with
you wherever you go with our podcasts on iHeartRadio