The excellent article “Are We Euthanising Choice?” is written by Maryanne Spurdle from The Maxim Institute and was first published in The Post. The article critiques the implementation of New Zealand’s End of Life Choice Act 2019, arguing that the reality of assisted dying diverges sharply from the promise of autonomy and fairness. While the Ministry of Health claims the system is operating well, a review committee has raised concerns about missing and contradictory information in euthanasia cases. One particularly troubling example involves a non-English-speaking patient being euthanised without a translator present, and had likely suffered from dementia.
The article also highlights significant disparities in access to palliative care, especially in rural areas, suggesting that euthanasia may appear more accessible not because of true choice, but due to inadequate alternatives. Unlike euthanasia, palliative care in New Zealand is underfunded, with hospices heavily reliant on charitable donations and volunteers. The author argues that presenting euthanasia as a compassionate option is misleading when basic end-of-life care is so unevenly distributed.
Finally, the article criticises the Ministry of Health for downplaying cultural concerns, particularly among Māori communities, framing their resistance to euthanasia as ignorance rather than a valid viewpoint. The article concludes by urging systemic investment in palliative care, suggesting that real choice at the end of life requires more than just legal access to euthanasia—it requires a health system that values and supports life-affirming care until the very end.
Read the full article here: www.thepost.co.nz/nz-news/360720421/are-we-euthanising-choice
