Exploring Approach 2: Life is a gift

Summary of things a supporter of Approach 2 values

Here's a quick summary. Please let me known what needs to the added, deleted, modified if I've missed something or got anything wrong.

• A right to live - every life is valuable

• the principle that all people are equal, and should be regarded as equal, regardless of their physical or intellectual abilities

• Policies that uphold religious, moral (and perhaps other) beliefs such as embryos having souls

• Support for disabled people and their carers so that they can lead a good life

• A precautionary approach given that life is so complex with many unknowns and tests that don’t always give correct results

• Being able to prepare for the arrival of a disabled baby

• Everyone being loved, respected, cared for and included in society

You've been working hard and very well together so let's put a line under the question of what a supporter of this approach values and move onto the questions of cost, consequences, tensions and conflicts.

I'm really impressed by the amount of ground you've covered in a very short time and I hope you feel that you are learning things from each other about each other, about pre-birth testing and about this deliberative dialogue process.

What could be some of the intended and unintended costs & consequences of doing what this approach suggests and what tensions or conflicts would have to be worked through for this approach to be successfully implemented?

I think one of the tensions will be the conflict between the foetus' right to life and the right of women to have control over their bodies.

And that issue comes down to different world views. Partly that's religious - people of religion will often see this issue differently from people who are not religious.

But partly it is also a gender issue. This is an issue that impacts women far more than men because it is women have to live with the consequences of the decisions far more than men do. And that's both ways - having to bring up a child that has severe difficulties, or living with the emotional impact of having an abortion. Not that fathers aren't impacted, just that they aren't impacted as much, partly because the foetus is not actually in their body, and partly because it is women who do the majority of the child care.

Yet, oddly, it is primarily men who make the decision about what is and isn't allowed for pre-birth testing and abortion, not women. It is (predominantly) male politicians who tell women what decisions are open to them about their bodies and their futures and their emotional wellbeing, and what options are closed to them.

One of the things I like about this process is that it gives voice to far more people, especially women, the very people who are most impacted.

I agree John, the majority of these decisions should be made by women when it comes to the direct impacts. But any that relate to societal impacts (e.g., reduced diversity in schools resulting in weakening soft skills) should be made by all.

Actually that's a very good point you make on the social impacts. I think you're right that everyone should have a say on those broader social impacts.

The personal impact on mothers (and fathers/co-parents and families) is strong and immediate and personal. The social impact on everyone is less immediate, and possibly not felt as strongly, but can nevertheless have a significant impact on society and the world we live in.

That means there is another potential conflict between the personal decisions that affect mothers (and fathers/co-parents and families) and the social impacts that affect everyone.

Exactly, decisions made surrounding this issue will have long lasting emotional impact on the mother. Either it be raising a disabled child or involve in killing your own flesh and blood. It is really a complicated topic to discuss and involve with

The obvious tension is the religious one and to be honest I don’t know how you work around that. How do you impose one persons beliefs on another, especially if the person who is being imposed upon doesn’t share that particular perspective? Why should an agnostic person care what the religious perspective is? All the engagement in the world will still struggle against years of ingrained religious or cultural beliefs. This may be a case where if a policy contrary to this perspective was enacted that the usual normalisation process wouldn’t really apply. Personally, I think implementation would just have to be a cold hard “just do it” and deal with the outcome. In saying that, NZ is so diverse now that the outcry may not be as visceral as it might have been 20 years ago. Maybe part of the engagement strategy could be focused on what a NZer is, what are their beliefs, what are their values. NZ was founded on Christian values (GOD defend New Zealand and all) but I’m not sure that is who we are anymore. We are so culturally and religiously diverse that maybe the nay sayers aren’t the majority anymore? Maybe the traditional religious perspective isn’t what “we” believe. Maybe there is wiggle room? They might still be the majority but I think there should be some work done to find out if that is or isn’t the case in contemporary New Zealand.

@Daniel Brunt its true that NZ is becoming so diverse that reaching a compromise on issues that test ethical and religious values, to me is work that will take some time.

From a cost perspective, the greatest impact will be around care provision for individuals with disabilities, especially if it is no longer acceptable to abort on the basis of this. However, this will add tension to existing population growth challenges, as well as our high prevalence of family violence. In terms of preserving all embryos forever, this would lead to exponential growth in storage costs.

Implementing a policy fully aligned with Approach 2 may force others to do things illegally, and that can place further burden on the tax payer when things go wrong.

A tension around implementation is the way in which we think it needs to be done. For example, do we need a referendum, and how much of the design do we leave to the respective agencies versus co-design with service providers and communities?