Check the Detail
Maggie Barry
National Party MP
As deputy chairwoman of the justice select committee, I've been listening to some very well considered submissions on the controversial euthanasia and assisted suicide bill before Parliament.
There were 36,000 individuals and groups who wrote to Parliament with their views on the End of Life Choice Bill. Ten per cent have indicated that they would like to be heard in person, which the committee has promised to do.
So we have extended the reporting deadline from September to next March. While I will listen attentively and respectfully to everyone's viewpoint, I remain concerned at the lack of adequate safeguards to protect our most vulnerable.
A troubling aspect emerging from the public discussions is the large number of people who say they are in favour of the bill but who admit that they have not actually read it, claiming they don't care about the detail, they just want to have the option.
Have you ever heard of anyone who did not want to die with dignity or be treated with compassion? Rather than being lulled by the wording around this poorly drafted bill, I've been urging people to delve deeper - it's vital to know the details when stakes are so high and protections for the vulnerable so low.
Many incorrectly assume the law only applies to the terminally ill, but it would actually licence doctors to end the life of anyone with a "grievous, irremediable condition".
Showing posts with label State Assisted Death. Show all posts
Showing posts with label State Assisted Death. Show all posts
Monday, 31 December 2018
Tuesday, 20 March 2018
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.
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.
Friday, 2 February 2018
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?
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?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)