Recent News

NZ Herald 7 March 2018
Family First Comment: “The 31-year-old suffers from Ehlers Danlos Syndrome [EDS], a genetic connective-tissue disorder that is progressive and incurable. 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.””
Yep – vulnerable people can live without euthanasia

Kylee Black has already had end of life conversations with doctors.

The 31-year-old suffers from Ehlers Danlos Syndrome [EDS], a genetic connective-tissue disorder that is progressive and incurable.

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.”

Black is talking about the End of Life Choice Bill, currently before Parliament, which if passed into law would make her eligible to choose to die legally.

A video campaign dubbed #MyLifeMyChoice, launched last month to support Act Party leader David Seymour’s bill, focuses on people with terminal illnesses.

However Black wants to highlight how the bill could affect a disabled person.

Of greatest alarm to Black and the disability sector is the inclusion in the bill of people with grievous and irremediable medical conditions.

Black is not alone when she says this term is ambiguous and vague, and opens disabled people up to pressure and even coercion to end their lives early.
READ MORE: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12008219

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

NewsHub 9 March 2018
Family First Comment: An excellent commentary – and a rebuke to the recent comments of ACT’s David Seymour…
“Mr Seymour calls this a progressive bill, but progressive to what end? Progress is, in one sense, just a direction. And the direction of this bill emerges out of, and plays to, people’s fears: fear of a bad death; fear of becoming a burden; fear of losing physical and mental capabilities and social relationships.
Worse, it implicitly affirms that people are right to be afraid. It emerges out of compassion, but it is a misguided compassion that has surrendered to counsels of despair. It is within our power to overcome these challenges if we devote sufficient leadership and resources to them.”

OPINION: Three days after the submissions process for the EOLC Bill has closed, the numbers have already exceeded 25,000. Many thousands will express deep opposition to what David Seymour is proposing.

Can we be clear about Mr Seymour’s approach here: he is a master of spin, and is already stating that the numbers against euthanasia are not important. Nevertheless, contrast this: Mr Seymour says “Parliament’s Finance and Expenditure Committee has received 220 submissions on the Government’s Bill that bans foreigners from buying houses and most of them strongly oppose it.”
So 220 opposition numbers are crucial for the foreign ownership bill, while thousands of opposition submissions are irrelevant when it comes to euthanasia? To dismiss serious opposition to this Bill, just because it doesn’t suit Mr Seymour’s case, is arrogant and patronising.

Mr Seymour says that it is the quality of argument that matters, implying that the submissions in opposition are poorly argued, but not the pro-euthanasia ones. His presumption is staggering. Submissions to the Health Select Committee in 2016 were 80% opposed to euthanasia. They included people from all walks of life and levels of education.

The key elements of this complex and difficult discussion were presented: the question of autonomy; our societal responses to suffering; the outworkings of true compassion; negative implications for disability; to name a few. Some of it came from highly educated people, with nuanced and compelling engagement (including the New Zealand Medical Association and the Australia and New Zealand Society of Palliative Medicine, both of whom are opposed).

Some of it was expressed simply and plainly. People who have worked at the coalface of palliative care for decades were included, as were ordinary concerned citizens with no professional involvement. It is simply unacceptable to dismiss out of hand the views of a vast range of New Zealanders, some of whom have more personal involvement with the intricacies of this issue than he has ever had.

Mr Seymour: deciding on a bill that will fundamentally alter the relationships between doctors, patients, family, and the State is no small matter. At the very least, take the complexity and democratic process seriously. The many thousands of people who have made submissions do.

Mr Seymour calls this a progressive bill, but progressive to what end? Progress is, in one sense, just a direction. And the direction of this bill emerges out of, and plays to, people’s fears: fear of a bad death; fear of becoming a burden; fear of losing physical and mental capabilities and social relationships.

Worse, it implicitly affirms that people are right to be afraid. It emerges out of compassion, but it is a misguided compassion that has surrendered to counsels of despair. It is within our power to overcome these challenges if we devote sufficient leadership and resources to them.

Peter Thirkell is the Secretary of Care Alliance, an advocacy group aiming to “nurture better conversations about dying in Aoteroa.”
READ MORE: http://www.newshub.co.nz/home/shows/2018/03/peter-thirkell-david-seymour-needs-to-listen-to-nz-about-euthanasia.html

Scoop News 6 March 2018
Family First Comment: “Fundamentally, New Zealanders need accessible, good quality palliative care. The Government should strengthen these services, so we can all experience a dignified, comfortable death.”
Exactly!

College of GPs does not endorse euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide: response to call for submissions on End of Life Choice Bill.

The Royal New Zealand College of General Practitioners has submitted its response to the Justice Committee of Parliament today (6 March 2018). The submission is clear that the College does not endorse euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide, which it considers a matter for individual members’ consciences, within the law.

The submission makes 17 recommendations to the Justice Committee, in light of the state of palliative care in New Zealand, the effect legislation may have on vulnerable people, and the effect euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide has on the doctor-patient relationship. The submission also goes into detail to recommend changes to specific challenges the Bill, as drafted, poses. That includes criteria for assisted dying, conscientious objection, and the role of the medical practitioner.

Dr Tim Malloy, President of the Royal New Zealand College of General Practitioners, said: “Whether for or against euthanasia, the College’s members are motivated by compassion – this is a key tenet of the profession. We believe that each general practitioner in New Zealand will have their own ethical view on whether euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide is right.

“However, whether or not this Bill goes ahead, there are significant challenges that must be addressed. Fundamentally, New Zealanders need accessible, good quality palliative care. The Government should strengthen these services, so we can all experience a dignified, comfortable death.
READ MORE: http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO1803/S00074/college-of-gps-does-not-endorse-euthanasia.htm

Disability Rights Commissioner opposes assisted dying bill
Stuff co.nz 7 March 2018
Family First Comment: The opposition builds…

The Disability Rights Commissioner says the euthanasia bill currently being considered by Parliament undermines years of work.

Paula Tesoriero said David Seymour’s private member’s the End of Life Choice Bill, which was currently before the Justice Select Committee, undermined years of work to change perceptions of disabled people, and posed significant risks to them.

Tesoriero has outlined her concerns regarding the bill in a submission to the select committee. The window to submit a written submission on the bill closed midnight on Tuesday. More than 14,000 submissions were received.

“Much of the discussion so far has centred around the bill allowing people with a terminal illness to end their life on their own terms,” Tesoriero said.

“However, this bill has wider implications for the disability community – it is not just limited to terminal illness.”

Before the country legislated choice in death, it needed to work towards ensuring, to the greatest extent possible, all people had the same freedom of choice in life.
READ MORE: https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/102046196/Disability-Rights-Commissioner-opposes-assisted-dying-bill?cid=app-iPhone

‘There’s a sanctity of life argument’ – Simon Bridges still doesn’t support euthanasia bill, despite pleas from Tauranga constituents
TVNZ One News 5 March 2018
Family First Comment: “[H]e holds concerns around the safeguards which would be put in place for those requesting euthanasia, and also said he believes “a lot of doctors are worried about playing God”.
Correct. Hold the line, Simon
www.protect.org.nz

National Party leader Simon Bridges says he still does not support a bill which would grant people the right to request euthanasia, saying “there is a sanctity of life argument”.

The End of Life Choice Bill passed a conscience vote in Parliament 74 to 44, and its stated intent is to give people “with a terminal illness or a grievous and irremediable medical condition the option of requesting assisted dying”.

He also voted against the gay marriage legalisation bill, but has since said he would probably change his vote on that if it were done today.
https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/new-zealand/theres-sanctity-life-argument-simon-bridges-still-doesnt-support-euthanasia-bill-despite-pleas-tauranga-constituents?auto=5744785143001

Yahoo.com 17 February 2018
Family First Comment: Why would NZ even want to go near this type of scenario….
“Some experts say the case as documented in the letter amounts to murder; the patient lacked the mental capacity to ask for euthanasia and the request for the bedridden patient to be killed came from family members… Although euthanasia has been legal in Belgium since 2002 and has overwhelming public support, critics have raised concerns in recent months about certain practices, including how quickly some doctors approve requests to die from psychiatric patients.”
Make a submission against euthanasia in NZ – submissions close 6 March – www.protect.org.nz

Washington Post 24 January 2018
Family First Comment: And that’s the key question…
“As bioethicists David Miller and Scott Kim of the National Institutes of Health note in a recent paper , “Dutch physicians . . . report difficulty in applying the [euthanasia] laws,” especially when it comes to judging patients’ volition and deciding whether there is any “reasonable alternative” to euthanasia. Between 2012 and 2016 , Miller and Kim reported, there were 33 cases in which Dutch regulators found that doctors had broken at least one rule while ending a person’s life, though not so flagrantly as to warrant criminal referral. Pro-euthanasia activist doctors were overrepresented in problematic cases. “In some cases, physicians knowingly pushed the limits of [the] law,” Miller and Kim noted.”
Exactly.
Make a submission against euthanasia – www.protect.org.nz

The euthanasia of mentally ill or cognitively impaired patients is inherently controversial. Given the risk of fatal error, how many botched cases would it take to discredit the practice completely?

If you said “any number greater than zero,” you would be interested in the physician-assisted death of a 74-year-old woman with dementia in the Netherlands in 2016. The circumstances were so disturbing, even the Dutch regulatory body that retrospectively reviews, and usually rubber-stamps, euthanasias could not countenance it.

The patient, referred to in official documents only as “2016-85,” had made an advance directive requesting euthanasia in case of dementia. But the directive was ambiguously worded, and she was no longer able to clarify her wishes by the time she was placed in a nursing home — though her husband did request euthanasia for her.

Despite the lack of a clear expression from the patient, a physician concluded her suffering was unbearable and incurable — though there was no terminal physical illness — and prepared a lethal injection.

To ensure the patient’s compliance, the doctor gave her coffee spiked with a sedative, and, when the woman still recoiled from the needle, asked family members to hold her down. After 15 minutes were spent by the doctor trying to find a vein, the lethal infusion flowed.

Neither voluntary, painless nor dignified, this physician-assisted death has become the first ever referred to prosecutors by the Dutch regulatory commission — with, so far, unknown consequences.
READ MORE: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/how-many-botched-cases-would-it-take-to-end-euthanasia-of-the-vulnerable/2018/01/24/bf311400-0124-11e8-8acf-ad2991367d9d_story.html?utm_campaign=6715cb2cfe-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2017_06_16&utm_medium=email&utm_source=Colson&utm_term=.410919295525

We’ve been contacted by a number of supporters saying “Help! We really want to do a submission opposing the euthanasia bill – but we’re not even sure where to start.” We can understand the concern. It can all seem a little too technical and overwhelming.

We want to make it as easy and achievable as possible. So here’s your “Make a Submission Guide for Dummies” – not that we would ever imply that you’re a dummy 🙂 If you just don’t know how to get started, follow these simple steps:
1. Open a New document on your computer, or get some writing paper. Start your document with your name, End of Life Choice Bill, and I oppose the End of Life Choice Bill, and then write as little or as much as you want, sharing your views. If you need some inspiration, check our webpage www.protect.org.nz – but simply tell your story and your personal reasons for opposing the bill. If you wish to appear before the Committee to speak to your submission, then state that also (optional).

2. If you’re emailing your submission, ATTACH your submission document (step 1) to the email, and in the email itself, put the heading: End of Life Choice Bill, and your details: Name of Individual / Family / Organisation, Address, Phone, Signature. Don’t put your personal details in the attached submission document as your submission is posted on the government website.
Send it to: [email protected]

3. If you’re posting your submission, once you have completed step 1, do a covering letter (separate piece of paper) with the heading End of Life Choice Bill, and your details: Name of Individual / Family / Organisation, Address, Phone, Signature. Don’t put your personal details on your actual submission (step 1) as your submission is posted on the government website (but not the covering letter). You do not need to send 2 copies as previously advised.
Post to: Committee Secretariat, Justice Committee, Parliament Buildings, Wellington 6160.

4. Make yourself a cup of tea or coffee.
It’s THAT simple! But it matters. Please don’t delay. Your voice matters. Your submission counts. The politicians need to get a loud strong message that NZ can live without euthanasia. Submissions close in just over a month (February 20).

PS: If you are feeling really brave, you can also make an online submission via the government website CLICK HERE

Nursing Review 1 February 2018
Family First Comment: An excellent commentary from a nurse and cancer survivor:
“surely our government can prevent undignified dying by increasing the palliative care resources.”
Exactly.
Make a submission opposing Euthanasia – www.protect.org.nz

The outcome of last year’s government inquiry into assisted dying left me both hopeful and disappointed that as a society we have not addressed alleviating suffering effectively.

The inquiry’s decision not to recommend law changes allowing legalised assisted dying was welcomed by Palliative Care Nurses New Zealand and Hospice NZ.

Though the concept of suffering is complex much can be said from lived experience. As someone who has been in remission from cancer for a number of years I actually chose to do nursing to help address this issue. Even though I’m hopeful and disappointed I continue to hope that my life can bring courage to others who are suffering.

I have witnessed in my career, the impact of non-physiological issues (e.g. family dynamics, financial, work etc) on individuals who were either dying or living with an irremediable or irreversible condition. I’ve seen these types of issues appear merely non-existent – before the diagnosis/prognosis – to almost devouring the person and their family near the end of the person’s life.

Unfortunately, these are the issues that continue to lack government remedy and have led to many vulnerable persons losing their dignity.

Some have said that suffering is a complex phenomenon that extends well beyond the biomedical model of care. I remember the pain, vomiting, and fatigue from the countless medical interventions I had when I had cancer.

Interestingly, what made me suffer were the broken promises made by close relatives, not being able to interact with my friends, and my classmates being able to write long coherent sentences while I struggled to write my own name. I had to reach the milestone of graduating from nursing school to come to the revelation of how helpless my family had felt and the financial stress they had encountered. Recollection of these events has never ended in a dry eye, especially for my mum (FYI: My mum will never cry in front of anyone – especially her children).

Palliative services running on ‘crumbs’
The topic of end-of-life care without fail brings up the “ineffectiveness” or “effectiveness” of our palliative and hospice Services. I would like to weigh in on this argument as a registered nurse who has seen for seven years the direct impact of resourcing on the delivery of patient services.

Our palliative services have been bandied around the media as being “world class” yet they suffer from the worst resourcing from our government. It astounds me that these scientifically-based professionals who lack resources are meant to deliver their world-class service to every person, every time to every area of Aotearoa with crumbs for sustenance.

In addition, I’ve also heard in debates that these same services are only a means of fulfilling the ethical/philosophical values of certain groups of society. Yet, this argument could be said about all the other specialties in healthcare. The philosophy of palliative care is “improves the quality of life of patients…[provides] relief of suffering by means of identification and impeccable assessment and treatment of pain and other problems, physical, psychosocial and spiritual¹”.

If this indeed is their philosophy, anchored in evidence, then surely our government can prevent undignified dying by increasing the palliative care resources.
READ MORE: http://nursingreview.co.nz/nurses-unique-perspectives-on-end-of-life-choices-must-be-heard/

Asia Pacific Report 31 January 2018
Family First Comment: Another excellent commentary – this time from a legal perspective.
Make a submission against euthanasia – www.protect.org.nz

Two years ago, the Parliamentary Health Select Committee investigating public attitudes to euthanasia and assisted suicide in New Zealand received a total of 21,000 submissions, 16,000 (80 percent) of which were opposed to their introduction into New Zealand law.

Last December, however, our Parliament voted through ACT Party leader David Seymour’s End Of Life Choice Bill at its first reading, 76-44. Seymour’s Bill is now before another Select Committee, which has called for public submissions to be filed no later than February 20.

What is Seymour’s End of Life Choice Bill?
The Bill seeks to legalise in New Zealand the killings by doctors of patients, if a patient requests it (euthanasia). It will also legalise doctors helping their patients to commit suicide (assisted suicide, or, as Seymour calls it, “assisted dying”).

Both of these acts have been crimes under New Zealand law for as long as we have been a country – the crimes of murder and of aiding and abetting a suicide.

If passed into law, the End of Life Choice Bill will allow any New Zealander who is diagnosed with a terminal illness likely to cause their death within 6 months, and who experiences “unbearable suffering” (self-defined by the person), to ask to be killed by a doctor or to be given medication enabling them to take their own life.

This “terminal illness” criterion is the one that we hear most about in the media, but it’s not the only criterion in the proposed law.
READ MORE: https://asiapacificreport.nz/2018/01/31/richard-mcleod-make-our-voices-known-against-the-euthanasia-bill/