OPINION:Now that New Zealanders have been passed the responsibility of decidingwhether euthanasia is to be legalised it is time to take the passion out of an impassioned debate.

Between now and when the referendum is held next year we have a moral duty to put aside our prejudices andlisten with an open mind to all sides.

We need to be conscious there will be those in thisdebateseeking to hijack ouremotions. Yet we also need to understand they'll be doing sofrom a position of absolute sincerity.

At its most basic it appears an easy choice. Should we be allowed to end our lives when we are terminally illand death is just six months away, or should we not.

READ MORE:* Euthanasia bill passes 69-51,the final decision a referendum* Historic right to die bill passes first hurdle* Should Kiwis have the right to die with 'dignity'?* Jackson: Dying with dignity should be a right

The issue is much deeper than that. Itbelies the simple yes or no answer a referendum requires.

It's the right to dignity in your final days versus therisk of being coercedinto ending it.It's individual freedom versus thestate's duty to protect the individual and the ability of medical scienceto keep us alive versus a subjective judgment on what quality of life we must have to make it worth living.

ROSS GIBLIN

David Seymour celebrates his euthanasia bill passing on Wednesday night. It will now be included on a referendum at next year's election.

It could also bethat once you've familiarised yourself with the details of the billyou realise you support euthanasia yetreject thisapproach as flawed. The same could be true for the reverse.

Thereare certainly cases where denying someone theability to end their own life appears cruel and unusual. Few could argue lawyer Lecretia Seales' last days alive weren't made more painful by her inability to end it.

The manner of herdeath was heartbreaking. Not just because of the pain she was inbut also because of how much she sacrificed pushing for change, even when it was clear she would never benefit from that change.

Her death will certainly be used to argue for the right to end your life. Suffering like that endured by Sealesis often compared to how we treat sick animals, a demonstration that animals are treated more humanely.

Yet such a statement that so aggressively grabs for your sense of outrage must also include that this "humanity" is largely extended to avoid personal cost.

Each year millions of animals die grislydeaths in this country. From any objective viewpoint they are not treated better than humans. Not even close.

Being open to understanding the gravity of this decision meansacknowledging the validity of qualified opinions, no matter how much they clash with your values.

As a GP, National MP Shane Reti's views must be recognised as having insights those outside the medical field may not be able to appreciate.

When he says he would not want the spectre of euthanasia hanging over every consultation, we should take that on board as reasonable and consider how this bill could change the doctor-patient relationship.

Yet his other comment that the world would have lost some "brightness" had Beethoven ended his life six months earlyto relievethe suffering his cirrhosis was causing, is an appeal to our emotions rather than our logic.

Euthanasia will not result in a dearth of high culture. And surely, as a nation, we don't want to prolong an individual's suffering simply to increase the range of amusements available to us.

Whatever decision the referendum yields, that we are even having it shows the current system is not meeting our needs.

It is time to talk about what those needs are. Strip away the fears, strip away the emotions, look past the simplistic arguments, keep it reasonedand be prepared to listen.

Then let your decision come from that.

See the original post here:

Euthanasia referendum best approached with a cool head and open mind - Stuff.co.nz