More Concern Over The Prothanasia Bill Before Parliament

NZ End of Life Choice Bill

Another submission against Unlawful Killing


We oppose the End of Life Choice Bill.

Reasons why.

We are opposed to the End of Life Choice Bill for the following reasons:

1. What we have read and heard from medical people about the way in which such bills have opened-up a Pandora’s box in countries where such legislation has been passed leads us to expect that the same will happen here. A bill which starts off allowing those who wish to end their life to do so, will end up taking the lives of many who do not wish to die. It seems strange that having abolished the death penalty for every crime, we should re-introduce it for the crime of being a burden on society or not being able to contribute anything useful.

2. Such legislation, if it were passed would forever change our relationship with our doctor and with the medical community.

Why Don't You Do Yourself and the Rest of Us a Favour?

"It's Best if You Cark It"

Kylee Black Does Not Want to Die

A terminally ill person has made a submission on the Death Bill now before the New Zealand Parliament's Select Committee.  Kylee Black is terminally ill.  She is a 31-year-old.  She has Ehlers Danlos Syndrome [EDS], a "genetic connective-tissue disorder that is progressive and incurable".

In fighting against and persisting in living with the disease--when there is no hope of a remedy or cure--Black raises the problem of depression.  Who would not get discouraged and depressed with such a bleak outlook preceded by years of pain? 

But Black does not want to die. And she does not want doctors suggesting death as an option to her, especially on her darkest days.  "I personally have seen over 20 specialists through my local district health board. If I was asked to consider my options as things progress by even a handful of these, I would certainly feel very pressured to consider euthanasia."  [NZ Herald]

When professionals such as doctors suggest to a terminally ill patient that it would be better for the suffering patient to die, we have to ask, Better for whom?

Submission on the Prothanasia Bill

State Assisted Dying

The text below constitutes a submission opposing Prothanasia in New Zealand, otherwise known as the End-of-Life Choice Bill.

In considering any Bill it is essential that regard be given not just to the proposed law, but also to the reasonable inferences to be drawn from the Bill.

The "End of Life Choice" Bill necessarily assumes that people deemed to be at the "end of life" have a human right to choose to end their lives.   So strong is the assumption, medical practitioners are authorised to assist and facilitate the death.  The Bill implies that not to recognize this right to die represents an injustice against the one wishing to terminate his life.

A reasonable inference from this Bill is that the purported human right to die cannot arbitrarily be restricted to old age "End of Life", nor to incapacitation or disease.  Any attempts to restrict the right in that manner will be necessarily artificial and arbitrary.  If one person has a human right to choose death, everyone must have the same right.  It is cruelly unjust to say (as this Bill effectively does) that some have a right to die, but deny it for others.

New Zealand is said to have a "problem" with youth suicide.  The End of Life Choice Bill implies that society is unjust in calling youth suicide a problem.  A human right is a human right.  If the State recognizes a human right to die that right must apply to all humans, regardless of age.  It is a sad reality that some human beings, for whatever reason, form a considered view that they no longer wish to live.  They believe they are at the end of their particular life.

If a 60 year old has a human right to a state-assisted death, so must a 23 year old--for are not human rights universal to all humans?

Prothanasia Hysteria And Emotionalism

I’ve Never Seen Unmanageable Suffering

40 Years of Terminal Care 

Dr David Richmond
McBlog

Dr Havill’s opinion piece in last Tuesday’s Herald  is a fine example of the genre of emotionalism he rails against in those who oppose his attempts to convince the public that legalised euthanasia is the holy grail of medicine.

Unfortunately he has not been able to save himself from the mire of emotionalism and exaggeration he criticises so keenly in others. He complains his opponents “typically resort to emotive misleading language”.

Excuse me, but how are we to define statements he makes such as, “People die cruel, agonisingly painful deaths…every day”. “Many suffer horribly for days….weeks… while others linger at death’s door for months….years”. “Terrible tales of family members…dying in conditions that would provoke criminal charges”. “Relatives sitting “at the bedside hoping that death will…quickly end their misery”, as anything but blatant attempts to milk the emotions of his readers?

In more than 40 years of medical practice as a physician, geriatrician and terminal care manager, I cared for many dying people. My testimony is that I have never seen a person dying with unmanageable suffering.

A Universally Available Death Pill Would Be Better

A Medical Professional Warns Against Prothanasia

We argued recently that prothanasia, which creates out of thin air a "human right to die" cannot be restricted to terminally ill elderly people.  A human right is a human right.  If you are a human being, you qualify.  

Therefore it comes as no surprise that a medical specialist, Dr Stephen Child has cut straight to the chase.  He wants the right to die to be removed from the purview of doctors, and left in the hands of the person who is wanting to die (for whatever reason).  He suggests the easiest and simplest way would be to make a "death drug" available in pharmacies nation-wide, and make it available for any person eighteen or over.  It should be as readily available as non-prescription medication.  (For that matter, it would also, inevitably be available in supermarkets and convenience stores such as corner dairies--as many non-prescription medications eventually come to be.)

Child says for those who want to end their lives with dignity, there are simpler, more logical solutions that could be considered.  "Let's make the drug available in pharmacies. And if you're aged over 18 and you sign a form of consent, then people should be able to make that choice and we leave this issue at that," he says.

"But of course that's really difficult to do because some people might go and get the medication because they're depressed."  [NZ Herald]

Child was really wanting to make the case against involving medical professionals in the whole business of prothanasia.

Reject State Sanctioned Killing

The Case Against the Prothanasia Bill

Dr Paul Moon has made the following submission, opposing the Prothanasia Bill currently being considered by the NZ Parliament.


I wish to oppose the state sanctioning of medically-assisted dying – as sought in a Petition of Hon Maryan Street – on the following nine bases:

1. While medically-assisted dying may conform to notions of individual rights, it ignores the often traumatic and potentially long-term effects such deaths have, especially on those children related to the person choosing to end their life. The rights of relatives and friends are ignored in the potential legislation for medically-assisted dying, and are left to the person choosing to end their lives. People
in that position are not likely to be in a state of mind to balance rationally the intricacies of the conflicting rights of their decision;

2. From a community perspective, medically-assisted dying diminishes the absolute value of human life by introducing criteria for the legal termination of life. This is the same argument that New Zealand successfully applies against the death penalty;

3. There can be no guarantees that the psychological counselling received by a person considering a medically-assisted death would be adequate.

Those Hating Wisdom, Love Death

Prothanasia Arguments Cannot Be Limited To One Class of People

A euthanasia debate is now underway in New Zealand.  Parliament is now considering a bill which would make the practice lawful.  

In writing about "euthanasia" we can't help but feel the lily has already been gilded.  The word is derived from Greek.  "Thanatos" means death; "eu" is an adverb meaning "good".  Thus, euthanasia means, literally "good death".  Since we believe that there is nothing good about the deliberate killing of another human being, we propose a new word would serve us much better.  Instead of "euthanasia" we will refer to "prothanasia", which literally means "for death", or "in favour of death".

Philip Matthews summarises what the new Bill intends:

The details may change but the bill presently would allow for a New Zealand citizen or resident over 18, who is suffering from a terminal illness that is expected to end their life within 6 months or has a grievous and untreatable medical condition, to opt for an assisted death. There are safeguards of informed consent and assessment by two doctors.  The pro-euthanasia camps argue that civilised countries like ours at this point in history should allow for death without suffering, a painless option. You hear a lot about the dignity of the dying.  [Stuff]

One of the strong advocates for the prothanasia is Maryanne Street.  She quickly exposes the Achilles heel of the position: