ETHOS ALLIANCE PRESS RELEASE

ACT wants to expand euthanasia but this would breach fundamental human rights in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.

“ACT’s changes breach human rights and take away freedom of choice,” says Alex Penk, author of a new report for MPs on the End of Life Choice Amendment Bill. “The Bill would stop doctors and care facilities like hospices from using their conscience and making ethical decisions like they do now.”

“Assisted dying is already highly controversial and most doctors don’t want to be involved,” says Penk. “The Bill would introduce euthanasia for long-term conditions and disabilities, like chronic heart conditions, frailty, diabetes, renal failure, multiple sclerosis, and motor neurone disease. This would force doctors and care facilities into more conscience conflicts. Doctors have to use ethical judgment all the time but the Bill sends a message that they’re just supposed to do what the state tells them. There’s a real risk it’ll force ethically-minded people out of medicine.”

“ACT’s bill would also undermine palliative care. It would cover ‘care facilities’, including hospices, disability support facilities, and rest homes. Care facilities would have to be prepared to allow assisted dying even when that goes against their beliefs. Facilities like hospices do an incredible job for vulnerable people but they’re over-stretched and under-funded. They shouldn’t be backed into a corner if they don’t want to be involved in euthanising their residents.”

“This is not what Kiwis voted for,” says Mr Penk.  “David Seymour said that conscience is a cornerstone of the law, and 65 percent of voters supported that law in a referendum. There is no mandate to change such a fundamental part of the law. Let individual doctors and care facilities decide if they want to offer assisted dying, or the government could just do a better job of providing information.”

“It’s ironic that a law about end-of-life choice would limit freedom of choice,” says Penk. “MPs will get a conscience vote if the Bill goes before Parliament. Why shouldn’t doctors and care facilities get to use their conscience too?”

END

For more info check out: https://www.ethosalliance.nz/news-and-views

In an opinion piece (in response to a Stuff NZ article on organ donations and assisted dying), Dr John Kleinsman of the Nathaniel Centre for Bioethics argues against combining organ donation with assisted dying in New Zealand, despite organ shortages. He highlights concerns around coercion, emphasizing the societal pressure that could make vulnerable people feel compelled to choose assisted dying or face societal expectations.

The report indicates that cancer, especially lung, colorectal, pancreatic and blood cancer, was the most frequently reported condition in nearly all age groups of people who died by MAID in 2024, except those 85 and older, “for whom ‘other’ conditions were the most frequently cited.

Interestingly, inadequate pain control was only the sixth most common reason for seeking MAID. The primary reasons for euthanasia deaths were related to autonomy and daily function:

• Loss of ability to engage in meaningful activities (the highest reason, over 95% for both tracks).
• Loss of ability to perform activities of daily living.
• Loss of independence and loss of dignity

Figure: Reported nature of suffering, by track

Source: Sixth annual report: Medical assistance in dying Canada

In terms of MAID deaths across districts, Quebec has the highest number of euthanasia deaths at 5,998.  MAID deaths remain heavily concentrated in three provinces, which accounted for nearly 85% of all provisions: Quebec (36.4%), Ontario (4,944 deaths, 30.0%) and British Columbia (2997 deaths, 18.2%).

Nearly all MAID deaths were performed by a doctor or nurse practitioner. While the law allows patients to self-administer the medication in most parts of the country (except Quebec), this option is rarely chosen. The typical (median) age of a person receiving MAID in 2024 was about 78 years old. Recipients who were near the end of their lives (Track 1) had a median age of 78.0 years, while those whose death was not immediately foreseeable (Track 2) were slightly younger, with a median age of 75.9 years. Overall, the average age of MAID recipients continues to rise slightly each year.

There was a notable increase in track 2 euthanasia deaths, which increased by 17% accounting for 4.4% of total euthanasia deaths and up from 4.1% in 2023. Track 2 euthanasia deaths refer to not immediately foreseeable deaths of people and are more likely not to have a terminal condition, to be women, younger and living with a disability.

Dissecting Track 2 euthanasia deaths a little further, it appears people who die by Track 2 euthanasia deaths are significantly more likely to be poor, live in institutions or poor neighborhoods, and be receiving disability support services than those who die under Track 1. Of the 16,104 people who responded to questions around disabilities, roughly one-third (32.9 per cent) reported having a disability.

Alex Schadenberg, chair of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition (EPC), suggests that MAID for non-terminal conditions mainly targets individuals with disabilities, noting a clear link between disability and Track 2 deaths, as 61.5% of Track 2 recipients identify as disabled.

If that isn’t shocking enough, loneliness and isolation were reported as a factor in 44.7% of Track 2 deaths and 21.9% of Track 1 deaths, suggesting that over 3,800 people listed this as a primary reason. Track 2 recipients were far more likely to be receiving mental health/social support services (31.4%) compared to Track 1 recipients (9.4%), indicating that mental health is a prevalent factor in non-terminal MAID cases.

These statistics are both disturbing and tragic, highlighting pro-life advocates’ concerns about expanding Canadian euthanasia laws to include non-terminal individuals. These vulnerable groups are often affected by factors such as lower socioeconomic status, disabilities, and insufficient social support. The recent MAID data confirms this, showing that social and systemic problems—like loneliness and inadequate disability support—are significant factors influencing requests for MAID.

The most concerning finding in the 2024 Annual Report is not only the total number of MAID deaths but also the speed at which this peak was reached. Despite the growth rate slowing to 6.9% in 2024, this follows years of swift expansion that propelled Canada from having a recently legalized system to becoming a global leader in euthanasia deaths. This trend confirms that MAID is shifting from a last-resort service to a major—and quickly becoming a leading cause of death in Canada.

*Written by Family First writers*

This week I found myself up at 4am to speak to the House of Lords in the United Kingdom.  As you may know, they are considering yet another euthanasia/assisted suicide Bill and the Lords are currently holding committee hearings and wanted to know of the New Zealand experience.

There were four of us in total, two supporting life and palliative care and two that either support or lean in support of euthanasia.  I was there alongside Professor Sinead Donnelly, a professor and palliative medicine physician. Naturally, I’m with Family First, but I was also there, having chaired the health committee in parliament when it then undertook the largest ever inquiry, that into euthanasia.

I will admit, it was both a very early and long morning.  The way the House of Lords operates means that just about every vote requires the Lords to be there in person, so bells would ring during the hearing, and they would have to leave!

My message to the Lords was simple – euthanasia laws inevitably expand.  There was a sense from some of the Lords (those in support of euthanasia) that their UK law would be exceptional, that, unlike other countries, their proposed law would be complete and never need to be changed.

I simply pointed out that every jurisdiction that introduces euthanasia laws sees expansion.  I pointed out that we are only three years in here in New Zealand, and already, there is a big push to expand the law.  To remove conscience rights from doctors, nurses, and hospices; to let doctors promote euthanasia to patients; for the Ministry of Health to advertise euthanasia; and to remove the likely 6 months to live requirement.

The key dynamic in play, that I attempted to succinctly explain to the Lords, was the euthanasia moves swiftly from being a health issue to a justice issue.  Debate begins around terrible medical conditions (think neurological disorders such as Huntington’s disease) but swiftly moves to one about rights, not discriminating, and equal access.

I was also at pains to point out the contradictory statements being made by the New Zealand pro-euthanasia witnesses.  On one hand, they were saying New Zealand’s law has important safeguards yet the very next minute they were saying that safeguards are an obstruction and prohibition that should be removed.  Quite extraordinary!

A particularly memorable moment, which elicited loud gasps from the Lords present, was when one of the pro-euthanasia researchers here in New Zealand stated:

“The concerns about palliative care being undermined are more about the palliative care professionals who cannot sit with their own discomfort about assisted dying”

You can appreciate why there were gasps to this dismissive and dangerous statement.  What was being strongly stated is that any moral or ethical concerns around terminating people should be put aside; that palliative care practitioners with concerns should be dismissed.  This New Zealand researcher also appears blind to why people might experience such discomfort, and doubly so when it’s those in palliative care who spend their lives trying to help the dying live well to the very end.

Let’s hope that the Lords see the value of life and vote no to this proposed law.

We’ve just published our latest findings in this Euthanasia Fact Sheet on Global Trends.

As state-assisted suicide is normalised, international evidence reveals a disturbing trend.

Of a total of 252 jurisdictions worldwide, only 24 allow some combination of euthanasia and assisted dying. These jurisdictions are the Netherlands, Switzerland, Belgium, Luxembourg, Colombia, Canada, Portugal, Germany, New Zealand; the US states of Oregon, Montana, Washington, Vermont, California, Hawaii, New Jersey, Maine, and the District of Columbia; the Australian states of Victoria, Western Australia, Tasmania,
New South Wales, Queensland and South Australia.

This means that euthanasia or assisted dying is legal in only about 10% of jurisdictions worldwide.

In this latest Fact Sheet we publish our findings for Canada, Netherlands, Belgium, the US state of Oregon, and Victoria Australia, and of course New Zealand.

Euthanasia in New Zealand

In New Zealand, in just three years, we have already had over one thousand people terminate their life early. This is far more than the ‘tens’ a year that were suggested by pro-euthanasia advocates when arguing for a law change.

We are also hearing calls – as has happened overseas – to
expand the law. This includes:

• widening what medical conditions are included (beyond just terminal diseases)
• how long before you are expected to die (to extend beyond six months)
• removing a protective requirement that limits the ability of medical professionals to publicly discuss euthanasia so that medical professionals can raise the option of euthanasia
• removal of conscientious objection from medical & health professionals as well as facilities like hospices, plus discussions about allowing eligibility for mental illness.

There is concrete evidence from the countries which have introduced euthanasia that the availability and application of euthanasia expands to situations not initially envisaged.

When a newly-permitted activity is characterised as a ‘human right’, the overseas experience is that there is an inevitable push to extend such a ‘right’ to a greater number of people, such as those with chronic conditions, disabilities, mental illness, those simply ‘tired of life’, or even children.

There’s also the elephant in the room. The End of Life Choice Act only provides a ‘right’ to one choice – premature death. There is no corresponding right to palliative care. Good palliative care and hospice services are resource intensive; euthanasia would be cheaper.

There is a new element of ‘financial calculation’ into decisions about end-of-life care. This is a harsh reality.

At an individual level, the economically disadvantaged who don’t have access to better healthcare could feel pressured to end their lives because of the cost factor or because other better choices are not available to them.

Conclusion

One of our concerns expressed during the recent euthanasia debate and referendum was the reality that terminally ill people are vulnerable to direct and indirect pressure from family, caregivers and medical professionals, as well as self-imposed pressure.

They may come to feel euthanasia would be ‘the right thing to do’; they’ve ‘had a good innings’; or do not want to be a ‘burden’ to their nearest and dearest. It is virtually impossible to detect subtle emotional coercion, let alone overt coercion, at the best of times.

Because we’ve legalised it, we’ve normalised it.

No longer is the option of euthanasia ‘off the table’ in New Zealand. It’s clearly on the table and being served up to look like a fine meal, when in reality, it is just about bringing about premature death and putting the vulnerable at greater risk. Similar to the slippery slope trends we see unfolding overseas, there are more attempts here in New Zealand to expand the End of Life Choice Act. This will allow even more vulnerable people to qualify for the state to help end their lives.

So please download this Euthanasia Fact Sheet on Global Trends.