January 2018

Euthanasia Prevention Coalition 21 January 2018
Family First Comment: More flaws in so-called ‘safeguards’
“[Dementia] is more erratic and patients often live longer. A lot of things can happen during that period. For instance, a patient might say that she would want euthanasia if she no longer recognizes his relatives. This could happen. But at a next visit she can still recognize her partner or her children. What is the right moment to grant euthanasia? “
Exactly. Circumstances change. Conditions change. Health and well-being improve.
Make a submission today against euthanasia in NZ – www.protect.org.nz

A medical ethicist has resigned from a Dutch regional assessment committee for euthanasia over a law which allows non-consenting demented patients to be euthanised. For ten years Berna van Baarsen helped to assess whether euthanasia had been performed in accordance with the law in the North Holland region. She resigned on January 1.

BBC News 22 January 2018
Family First Comment: Safeguards? Too late now.
Make a submission against euthanasia in NZ www.protect.org.nz

A Catholic deacon accused of killing at least 10 people – including his own mother – has gone on trial in Belgium.

Former nurse Ivo Poppe is suspected of killing his victims by injecting air into their blood, causing a fatal embolism.

The offences are alleged to have taken place at a clinic in Menen, where he worked as a nurse – and later, after being ordained, in a pastoral role.

Belgian newspapers have nicknamed the 61-year-old man the “deacon of death”.

If found guilty of all the alleged murders, he would become one of the worst serial killers in Belgian history.

Mr Poppe was arrested in 2014 after telling his psychiatrist that he had “euthanised” dozens of people. All of the alleged victims were elderly patients.

He had, according to reports, initially made partial confessions during the investigation, saying he was acting compassionately for those who were terminally ill. However, he later retracted his statement and now denies the charges against him.
READ MORE: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-42780226

NZ Herald 21 January 2018
Family First Comment: So many great points in this commentary!
Make a submission today against euthanasia www.protect.org.nz

The current debate around proposed legislation that will allow for assisted dying, euthanasia and the right to die is a deeply profound distraction that suits politicians well.

It is simply palliative legislation. The definition of the term palliative includes the words “relieving the pain without dealing with the cause of the condition”.

The legislation as it stands suits the Government as the current discourse avoids the more painful subject of costs to the taxpayer of providing effective palliative services.The Government has avoided the option of more funding for effective palliative care and having hospice facilities set up all around the country to ensure access to this level of medical management because they are aware this would be expensive and scare the taxpayer/voters.

The current legislative approach has successfully by-passed this angle despite the very clear evidence that palliative care does provide quality end of life care that is responsive to the needs of patients and their families.

There are well-researched existing models of palliative care that do provide quality of life and dignity in death for those with terminal conditions. End of Life Care Plans and palliative medical care can make a huge difference to the final days prior to death from terminal illness.

I have had the privilege of seeing palliative hospice care being provided to both a family member and a friend of the family. In both situations the care, the caring and medical skill was never less than amazing. At no time was there any sense that this was not in line with the patient’s wishes or needs.

Part of my concern with the direction of the current debate is that often it seems to be more about the distress of family as they struggle with the emotions and feelings of helplessness as they watch a loved one heading towards death than about the experience of the person who is terminally ill.

This misses the whole issue of the patient’s voice in the matter of their terminal care.

The other greater concern is the language adopted by many in the pro-euthanasia debate. The talk of ending suffering, pain and the decision to die being a personal one is too much like the reasons we hear for suicide.

When young people speak of suicide as a way to end emotional pain and suffering we are dismayed but somehow the same language about older people becomes more acceptable.

This double standard is not helpful as we try to prevent suicide while in fact we seem to be saying that in some circumstances it is okay, such as when you have a terminal illness, but not okay if you don’t.

The debate also misses the point that euthanasia is a wealthy, western nations’ construct, a luxury when much of the world is struggling to survive daily life and stay alive. Perhaps this is because wealthier countries still have a strong social bias towards the notion that if you are not contributing to the economy then you are not valued? This in turn gives a negative value to age and illness reinforcing the idea that illness makes a person a burden to society?

Voicing the notion of “not being a burden” is often heard here in New Zealand from those who have serious life-threatening illnesses. We can shift that burden by acknowledging the value of quality end-of-life care and pressuring government to fund it effectively. We can be inspired by and support those who choose to say, as Dylan Thomas did, “Do not go gentle into that good night, Old age should burn and rave at close of day; Rage, rage against the dying of the light”.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/wanganui-chronicle/news/article.cfm?c_id=1503426&objectid=11978689 

NZ Herald 5 January 2018
Family First Comment: Superb commentary from Dr Paul Moon… “One of the arguments in the 20th century that convinced many people of the error of executions was that occasionally, mistakes were made in judging someone guilty, and when it came to the death penalty, one mistake was one mistake too many. Recent overseas examples of people suffering from mental illness who have sought a termination of their lives (and been granted their wish by the medical profession), only to have a last-minute change of heart, shows that the risk of error when it comes to euthanasia is very real. Do we still hold to the view that one mistake is one too many? New Zealand finally dispensed with the death penalty because when knee-jerk emotional instincts were set aside, the moral, social, and ethical arguments against legal killings proved overwhelming. It will be a test to see if the country retains that perspective as the advocates of euthanasia push for what would amount to a reversal of this enlightened trajectory.”
www.protect.org.nz – Make a submission today! 
Dr Paul Moon is Professor of History at Auckland University of Technology.

Even as the noose was being placed around Walter Boulton’s neck on February 18, 1957, New Zealanders were growing increasingly uncomfortable with the notion of capital punishment. It was a sentiment no doubt strengthened by reports that instead of Boulton’s neck snapping immediately, he was left in agony while the rope slowly strangled him to death. In 1961, on the back of growing public opinion which saw the state sanction of killing as unenlightened, Parliament abolished the death penalty (except for the crime of treason, for which the option of execution remained until 1989, when this exemption was also removed).

It is useful to reflect on the progress of death penalty abolitionists in New Zealand in the 20th century, and while it might be simplistic to transpose all their arguments to the current euthanasia debate, there are some significant themes that apply in both areas. During a 1941 parliamentary debate on the death penalty, the Attorney General and Minister of Justice, Rex Mason, described the state’s right to administer the death penalty as uncivilised and “backward”. Four years later, another Labour MP emphasised New Zealand’s reputation as a “progressive country” when arguing against capital punishment.

As concerns over the morality of the state killing certain categories of its citizens mounted, abolitionists pointed out that the death penalty had detrimental psychological effects on those administering it. The testimony of some of those present at these killings highlighted the cold-bloodedness of the process, and the effects it left on them for life. One prison psychologist wrote of the feeling of “complete revulsion” at witnessing someone having their life terminated, despite the fact that the law had warranted it. Every execution needed an executioner, and those who took on that role also became victims in a way.

Death penalty proponents, on the other hand, responded by suggesting that a life spent in prison could be worse than the death penalty, and that while people might oppose the state killing the worst of its criminals, it was sometimes a “practical” undertaking — a means of protecting society from the worst of its underbelly. However, by the 1950s, such “rational” arguments were increasingly crashing into the reality of society ending the lives of some of its members. The fact that prohibitions on public executions had long been in force was the giveaway clue that while the principle might have made sense, the practice of legally approved killings remained as abhorrent as ever.

How the liberal worm has turned since. The same arguments used by progressives for the abolition of the death penalty in the 20th century have been misappropriated by those advocating for a new age of state-sanctioned killing — this time wrapped up in the euphemism of euthanasia, or the even more morbidly saccharine and utterly misleading “death with dignity”. In cases of euthanasia, it may be a doctor rather than a hangman carrying out the killing, but there is no reason to think the psychological effects on those involved in euthanasia will be any less severe, or that the fragile value we place on human life will not again be degraded. And the principle of the state giving permission for lives to be terminated on the basis of their being “worthy” and “unworthy” applies to both areas. The distinction is only that in capital punishment cases, death was the consequence of the state deeming that the life of a person (usually a murderer) was not worth continuing, while in euthanasia, it is the state backing the individual’s determination that their own life no longer has worth for physical or psychological reasons.

One of the arguments in the 20th century that convinced many people of the error of executions was that occasionally, mistakes were made in judging someone guilty, and when it came to the death penalty, one mistake was one mistake too many. Recent overseas examples of people suffering from mental illness who have sought a termination of their lives (and been granted their wish by the medical profession), only to have a last-minute change of heart, shows that the risk of error when it comes to euthanasia is very real. Do we still hold to the view that one mistake is one too many? New Zealand finally dispensed with the death penalty because when knee-jerk emotional instincts were set aside, the moral, social, and ethical arguments against legal killings proved overwhelming. It will be a test to see if the country retains that perspective as the advocates of euthanasia push for what would amount to a reversal of this enlightened trajectory.

29 year-old Dutch woman is scheduled to die by euthanasia for psychiatric reasons.
Euthanasia Prevention Coalition 15 January 2018
Family First Comment: Disturbing…
“Sarah (not her real name) lives in a small town in the east of the country. She struggles with severe psychological problems from an early age. She has borderline, does self-harm, hears voices, has psychoses and is depressed. She has not wanted to live for years. On New Year’s Eve, she received permission for euthanasia after a long trajectory. That will happen on January 26, at two o’clock in the afternoon.”
#slipperyslope
Make a submission against euthanasia in NZ – www.protect.org.nz

The Netherlands RTL news published an article on yesterday about a 29 year-old healthy woman who was approved for euthanasia for psychiatric reasons. Her euthanasia death by lethal injection is scheduled for January 26. The article states (google translated):

Sarah has no terminal illness, but knows that she will die in twelve days. Surrounded by friends and in her own bed. She opts for euthanasia because of unbearable and hopeless psychic suffering. “I have been so devoured by my psychiatric disorders that I am completely broken.”

Sarah (not her real name) lives in a small town in the east of the country. She struggles with severe psychological problems from an early age. She has borderline, does self-harm, hears voices, has psychoses and is depressed. She has not wanted to live for years. On New Year’s Eve, she received permission for euthanasia after a long trajectory. That will happen on January 26, at two o’clock in the afternoon.

Sarah, whose real name is Aurelia, is a promoter of euthanasia for psychiatric reasons.

The article points to several factors that have led to her seeking death by euthanasia.

NZ Herald 16 January 2018
Family First Comment: Well said Dr Richmond! A must-read.
Make a submission against euthanasia – www.protect.org.nz
• David E. Richmond is professor emeritus of geriatric medicine at the University of Auckland.

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.

If Dr Havill’s statements are to be taken at face value and not merely as rhetoric, one can only wonder what steps the senior clinicians such as he were taking to upgrade the skill levels of the palliative care staff to whom he is referring. Or wonder how long in the past these events took place. We cannot judge the effectiveness of today’s palliative care by comparing it with what was available even just 10 years ago.

He complains that Herald commentator Dr Paul Moon made some “bizarre assertions” in “linking the state’s long-gone death penalty….. with the End of Life Choice Bill currently before Parliament” and that this has done a “disservice” to “serious debate on the issue”.

Dr Moon raised two important issues that ought to be debated. He wondered to what extent the sense of the community in the 1960s, that the execution of one innocent was one too many, remains today.

The link with euthanasia is perfectly clear. Even with the best of equipment and testing, inaccurate diagnoses and prognoses are surprisingly common. People have already died and many more will do likewise because of mistakes in the euthanasia procedures including diagnosis. Yet Dr Havill seems not at all perturbed about the lives wasted and the freedom lost in pursuit of the holy grail. Is that not worthy of public reflection?

Secondly, Dr Moon raised the issue of possible psychological damage experienced by doctors who perform euthanasia. There is no need to speculate on it: there are now many accounts of the mental trauma induced at the first such killing.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11975310

Keep up with family issues in NZ.
Receive our weekly emails direct to your Inbox.

Radio NZ News 15 January 2018
Family First Comment: “Hospice New Zealand Māori advisory group chair Ria Earp said Māori were generally more open about death. “There is more of an ability and willingness to discuss death and dying and particularly how we care for our funeral services and how we care for grief.” Mrs Earp said Hospice New Zealand does not support the bill, and would like to see more focus on palliative care.”
Make a Submission against the bill – www.protect.org.nz

MPs are being questioned about how euthanasia fits in with their Māori values, as a bill legalising euthanasia makes its way through parliament.

ACT Party leader David Seymour’s End of Life Choice Bill was drawn from the ballot last year and it passed its first reading in December with strong backing from Māori MPs across all political parties.

Reverend Chris Huriwai questioned Māori MPs on Twitter about why they support the bill.

The Gisborne-based reverend said he does not back the bill because of personal beliefs, but he wanted to spark a wider discussion on euthanasia.

“Not necessarily discussions for or against euthanasia but just keeping those … Māori concerns in our minds as we continued to grapple with something as big as this.”

Mr Huriwai said euthanasia might affect traditional practices such as tangi or funerals.

“How does a kaikaranga respond to calling on the body of someone who elected for themselves to die?

“How does someone who’s doing whaikōrero mihi to the departed with that sort of ever-present reality in the background.”

He said there were traditional Māori concepts including whare mate – where those who were sick or dying lived outside of the main village, similar to a hospice.
READ MORE: http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/te-manu-korihi/348127/reverend-questions-euthanasia-bill-s-impact-on-te-ao-maori

No Euthanasia.org 11 January 2018
Family First Comment: This is significant.
“Prior to the (Canadian) legislation being passed, 48% of doctors surveyed indicated a willingness to participate in assisted suicide, with a further 30% saying they would do so with certain conditions being met, making a total of 78% of doctors supporting legalised killing. After the legislation passed, these numbers inverted, with most doctors admitting that they were unable to stomach the idea of killing their patients: …77% refused to actively participate in their patients’ medical-aid-in-dying process.”
Make a submission: www.Protect.org.nz

A survey of Canadian doctors reveals that the support of medical professionals for assisted suicide drops significantly once the process becomes legal, with most physicians now refusing to participate in the administration of lethal drugs to their patients.

According to the December 2017 edition of Magazine Le Spécialiste which details the survey, the objections from physicians “were far more frequent than we had anticipated based on our pre-Act survey.” Prior to the legislation being passed, 48% of doctors surveyed indicated a willingness to participate in assisted suicide, with a further 30% saying they would do so with certain conditions being met, making a total of 78% of doctors supporting legalised killing. After the legislation passed, these numbers inverted, with most doctors admitting that they were unable to stomach the idea of killing their patients:
…77% refused to actively participate in their patients’ medical-aid-in-dying process, all of them using the “conscientious objection” clause, thus requiring a substitute physician be identified so as to provide the intervention required.

The number of physicians invoking the “conscientious objection” clause (77%) far exceeded our expectation of the use of this kind of refusal based on our afore-mentioned physician survey.

However, the report also noted that only a small number of these doctors fit the status for conscientious objection, as their reasoning did not involve “a true moral or religious objection”:

Results from the interviews revealed that only a minority of physicians (22%) had a true moral or religious objection to MAID [Medical Aid in Dying]. Among those opposed, the most frequent concerns expressed were feelings that MAID conflicted with medicine. They declared they had been taught to save lives, not end them. They also said they viewed end-of-life care as focusing on alleviating suffering. They expressed fear over the power to end of life that was being given to them.
READ MORE: http://www.noeuthanasia.org.au/doctor_support_assisted_suicide_drops_radically?utm_campaign=180111_digest2&utm_medium=email&utm_source=hopeaustralia

Keep up with family issues in NZ.
Receive our weekly emails direct to your Inbox.

NZ Herald 8 January 2018
Family First Comment: “…However, it would also apply to those disadvantaged by age, physical or mental disability, sickness and poverty, and sadly those without the compassionate support of family.
Ill health is known to affect mental health, happiness levels and the ability to see a future without pain or despair. In a depressed or affected state I believe that one’s ability to make a definitive choice of this magnitude is compromised.”
Make a submission today – www.Protect.org.nz

Before the Christmas break, Parliament debated David Seymour’s End of Life Choice Bill.

The bill passed its first reading and is now sitting with a select committee which will open for public submissions in the new year.

I cast a “No” conscience vote in the first reading. I respect that many of you will have a different position.

The euthanasia and assisted suicide debate is extremely emotive. It asks us to question some very fundamental beliefs and examine long-held moral codes. Death is often a taboo conversation subject in our society.

Some would say Parliament is at its best when members speak their own minds and from personal experience, and party politics do not play any role. We each have our own viewpoints and I would like to explain my vote to you.

David Seymour’s bill supports the death of patients in two different ways. The first is called euthanasia. Euthanasia is an ancient Greek concept which in a broad sense means a ‘good death’. In our society, euthanasia has come to mean a doctor delivering a lethal injection to a person, usually something like phenobarbital.

The second method described in the bill is physician-assisted suicide, where the doctor gives the patient a lethal drug that they can take a time of their choosing. This bill allows for both methods which is almost unheard of in any other jurisdiction around the world.

In my role as an MP, I am a law-maker.

I take this role seriously and believe that this bill will forever alter a fundamental pillar of our society. The role of the Parliament is to ensure that we have a set of laws that protect our community. If we are going to change the law, we must ask ourselves: “will this law keep all members of our society safe?” On this matter of life and death the outcomes are absolute.

I understand the pain that many individuals, life-partners and family members face during battles with mental and physical illness. I understand that euthanasia offers an option. The law should apply to those who have carefully and philosophically considered their choice, supported by family and professionals, with a clear view about their choice.

However, it would also apply to those disadvantaged by age, physical or mental disability, sickness and poverty, and sadly those without the compassionate support of family.

Ill health is known to affect mental health, happiness levels and the ability to see a future without pain or despair. In a depressed or affected state I believe that one’s ability to make a definitive choice of this magnitude is compromised. A positive state of mind is regarded by many health professionals as a factor in physical recovery.

A decision to end a human life must be based in categorical fact and I do not believe that diagnosis is always as rigorous as we might like to believe. Over many years the euthanasia debate has brought forward many examples of those diagnosed with a debilitating condition or terminal illness that have ‘beaten the odds’ or survived for much longer than doctors predicted.

Some individuals have even reached a place in which their pain or symptoms were reduced dramatically, their quality of life returned and they were ‘cured’.

In addition, treatments and medical interventions frequently progress, new drug therapies are developed and pain management techniques improve.

The bill compromises the integrity of our healthcare services in New Zealand. Healthcare should enhance quality of life for individuals.

The World Health Organisation describes palliative care in a way that reflects my own thinking – it affirms life and regards dying as a normal process, it should neither hasten nor postpone death.

Health services have a duty of care, not a duty to end life, or a duty to make a decision about a life. The bill impacts the role of the medical professional, as it will place a moral burden on the shoulders of healthcare professionals. I think it will have a profound impact on the relationship between doctors and patients.

I am concerned about a future in which medical professionals and society become more comfortable with euthanasia as an option.

It is possible that judgments will be made about the value of life. For an individual to look to end their life to relieve emotional and financial distress for families is not a place of genuine ‘choice’, and, I believe, that would more likely to apply to those more vulnerable individuals, with less financial and social resources.

As a country, I would like more emphasis and funding to be delivered to palliative and end of life support services. We need to effectively care for individuals and families in their hour of need.

If you feel strongly about this issue, please get involved in this debate by contacting me or through the select committee public consultation process. The views of our local community are important.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/hawkes-bay-today/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=1503459&objectid=11962650 

Daily Mail 31 December 2017
Family First Comment: We can live without euthanasia
www.protect.org.nz

A former Marine who was a vocal opponent of physician-assisted suicide and suffered from brain cancer died on Saturday.

J.J. Hanson died at the age of 36, according to the New York Catholic Conference, who worked closely with him fighting the Death with Dignity bill that seeks to legalize physician-assisted suicide in New York.

‘JJ lived his motto: ‘Every day is a gift, and you can’t ever let that go,’ said Kathleen Gallagher, director of pro-life activities for the Catholic Conference, to New York Daily News.

‘He and (his wife) Kristen are a true testament to living their faith through adversity, and JJ’s death is a loving example of an authentic ‘death with dignity.’

Hanson was once a former aide to both Governor Eliot Spitzer and David Paterson.

He became the president of the Patient Rights Action Fund, a group that despised assisted suicide, in 2015.

Hanson shared with the publication in 2015 that he once supported the bill but then in his final years, he dedicated a lot of his efforts fighting physician-assisted-suicide.
READ MORE:  http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5224165/J-J-Hanson-opponent-assisted-suicides-dies-age-36.html