Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition
Isaac Davison, reporting for the New Zealand Herald indicated that an investigation was launched into a New Zealand health practitioner who allegedly raised assisted dying with a suicidal patient.
Davison reported:
On July 20, 2022, Davison reported in the New Zealand Herald that there were 143 New Zealanders who died by euthanasia in the first five months of their law. According to Davison there were 4 complaints made at that time.
The report said a complainant had raised concerns about “a health practitioner initiating a conversation about assisted dying with a suicidal young person”.
Under New Zealand’s assisted dying law, a doctor or other health professional cannot initiate discussion about assisted dying. It must be initiated by the patient.There were 8 complaints made to the Disability Commission about assisted dying in the time-frame of the report.
On July 20, 2022, Davison reported in the New Zealand Herald that there were 143 New Zealanders who died by euthanasia in the first five months of their law. According to Davison there were 4 complaints made at that time.
According to the data, there were 471 euthanasia deaths and 12 complaints filed between legalization and March 31, 2023 (17 months).
3 comments:
Under New Zealand’s assisted dying law, a doctor or other health professional cannot initiate discussion about assisted dying. It must be initiated by the patient.
**********
Consider how different that is from Canada where all eligible patients are informed of their "right" to be euthanized, not once, but at multiple stages of interaction with the system (particularly in light of C-7 opening MAID to the non-terminal patient).
This might also be a worrisome difference that our American friends should take heed of. For current legislation under consideration (or already passed) in divers States takes for granted that eligible patients deserve to "be informed" of all "legal options". So if New Zealand policy and that of Canada can be seen as a fork in he road (with regards to the danger of suicidal suggestion), we can already see which fork American death enthusiasts wish to take.
As in the Netherlands evil thrives in the grey areas or even the forbidden areas, under the protection of a 'restricted' provision for killing patients. It's difficult for the police or courts to action if the practice become widespread.
From an “open letter” written by NZ doctors who euthanise patients (NZ Herald, 24 June 2023):
“ Firstly, we need to remove the gag on doctors’ initiating discussion about assisted dying as one in a range of options for care with their end-of-life patients.
Rationale: The current requirement for the patient to raise the topic forces inequity into the assisted dying service. Only well-informed patients know this, and only self-assertive patients feel comfortable to do so.
Denying patients equal access to medical advice is indefensible.”
These doctors who are comfortable killing their patients are already advocating for expanding euthanasia to people suffering from non-terminal (in a given timeframe) conditions and asserting their opinions about being able to bring up assisted death as a “treatment” option for patients.
They include the following conditions as being a potential qualification for euthanasia:
“ Among others these include neuro-degenerative disease such as Parkinson’s, Huntington’s, multiple sclerosis, advanced congenital disease, post infectious conditions such as post-polio syndrome, severe cardiovascular disease and advanced, irreversible lung disease.”
They also advocate for euthanasia being available to people who may lose competence prior to fatal medication being taken by replication of Canada’s Waiver of Final Consent. In regards to dementia they advocate for advanced directives to allow for euthanasia. (Remember the woman who resisted the doctor trying to euthanise her according to her prior consent? Her family members held her down while she was killed. Horrifying, but not enough to dissuade these doctors.)
They support palliative care, but:
“ There is much suffering at the end of life that palliative care cannot relieve or remove. This may be because:
Palliative care occupies itself mainly with the relief of physical suffering, but loss of capability and loss of autonomy can induce suffering that cannot always be palliated.
Some medical conditions are beyond even the best options for physical pain relief. Fungating cancer lesions, bowel obstructions, nerve pain, unrelenting shortness of breath and many other conditions can lead to a “bad death”, despite the best medical attempts at palliation.
Some patients will be unable to tolerate the significant side-effects caused by medications, including loss of mental clarity and cognitive function which increase their symptom burden.”
In other words these monsters want to be able to offer death as a “treatment” option to nearly every patient that they come across who is suffering from a serious or ongoing illness or condition.
I cannot believe that I live in a country that chose this dangerous and immoral practice.
Post a Comment