66 New Zealanders die by euthanasia in 5 months after legalization.

The following New Zealand update was published by the Australian Care Alliance.

Euthanasia and assistance to suicide became legal in New Zealand from 7 November 2021 under the End of Life Choices Act which passed the Parliament by 69 votes to 51 in December 2019 and was endorsed at a referendum in 2020 by 65.1% of voters.

Numbers

66 people were euthanased or assisted to suicide between 7 November 2021 and 31 March 2022 – approximately 0.48% of all deaths in New Zealand in that period.

More women than men applied for euthanasia or assistance to suicide - 114 women and 92 men. No breakdown by sex is given for the 66 applicants who had their lives actively ended. However, if the proportion was the same then this would give a rate of 0.53% of all deaths of women in the period, compared to 0.42% for men – more than a quarter (26%) higher rate for women than men.Eligibility criteria

The key eligibility criteria are that the person is an adult New Zealand citizen or permanent resident who, according to two assessing medical practitioners, “suffers from a terminal illness that is likely to end the person’s life within 6 months”.

Neither medical practitioner needs to have any specialist qualification in a field relevant to the particular terminal illness.

If either or both assessing practitioners are uncertain of the person’s competence to make an informed decision then the person must be examined by a psychiatrist to determine this matter.

Not even one of the 168 people assessed by a first medical practitioner or the 128 people assessed by a second medical practitioner for eligibility between 7 Nov 2021 and 31 March 2022 was referred to a psychiatrist.

Health practitioner

Health practitioners are not permitted to initiate a discussion with or make a suggestion to a patient about accessing euthanasia or assistance to suicide under the Act.

A medical practitioner with a conscientious objection can refuse to participate but must advise a person who requests access of the person’s right to ask the SCENZ Group for the name and contact details of a replacement medical practitioner. The SCENZ (Support and Consultation for End of Life in New Zealand) Group maintains a register of health practitioners willing to provide access to people seeking euthanasia or assistance to suicide.

Administration

If the person chooses to self-administer the prescribed lethal poison it is only supplied to them shortly before a time specified by the person for self-administration (suicide).

Regardless of whether the lethal poison is self-administered or administered by an attending medical or nurse practitioner, the attending medical or nurse practitioner (or a substitute practitioner) must be in “close proximity to the person”, but not necessarily in the same room or area, until the person’s death.
Annual report

The only elements required by the Act to be in the annual report are the total number of deaths and the number of deaths occurring through each of the four methods described in the Act and the number of complaints received about breaches of this Act and how those complaints were dealt with.

The first annual report is not due to be tabled in Parliament until after 30 June 2022.

Download as a (PDF Link)

COVID-19 patients may be eligible for euthanasia in New Zealand

The following article was published by DefendNZ on December 19, 2021.

An Official Information Act reply to The Defender, from the Ministry of Health, which says that patients with COVID-19 could be eligible for euthanasia, has left National MP Simon O’Connor disappointed but not surprised.
In November The Defender wrote to the New Zealand Ministry of Health (MOH) to ask some important questions about the practice of euthanasia and assisted suicide in New Zealand.

In light of the serious deficiencies in the End of Life Choice Act (EOLCA), and concerns that have been raised by healthcare professionals, we felt it was crucial to put some urgent questions to the MOH.

In our Official Information Act (OIA) request we asked the following question:

“Could a patient who is severely hospitalised with Covid-19 potentially be eligible for assisted suicide or euthanasia under the Act if a health practitioner viewed their prognosis as less than 6 months?”

There were several reasons why The Defender wanted to seek clarity from the MOH about this issue.

Firstly, New Zealand is currently described as being in a precarious position when it comes to COVID-19 and hospital resources. In light of this, it would not be hard to envisage a situation in which a speedy and sizeable rise in COVID-19 hospitalisations could result in pressure to utilise euthanasia and assisted suicide as tools to resolve such a serious crisis.

Overseas commentators have raised the prospect of these kind of unethical motivations since early in this pandemic.

Last year’s tragic case of the elderly Canadian woman who had an assisted suicide to avoid another COVID-19 lockdown highlights exactly why caution is warranted in relation to COVID-19 and euthanasia.

“The lack of stringent safeguards in the EOLCA raised red flags with us. Could a patient with COVID-19 find their way into the eligibility criteria? And, if so, what serious risks would this pose to the already often-vulnerable elderly members of our communities?” says The Defender editor Henoch Kloosterboer.

The MOH responded to our OIA request on Tuesday (7th of December, 2021).

Their reply to The Defender started on a more promising note:

“There are clear eligibility criteria for assisted dying. These include that a person must have a terminal illness that is likely to end their life within six months.”

But then their response becomes more disturbing (emphasis added):

“A terminal illness is most often a prolonged disease where treatment is not effective. The EOLC Act states eligibility is determined by the attending medical practitioner (AMP), and the independent medical practitioner.”

This raises serious concerns.

Firstly, there is nothing concrete about the phrase “most often”, in fact, its inclusion in this specific context clearly seems to suggest that the MOH considers the definition of terminal illness to be subjective and open to interpretation.

The very next sentence seems to back this up. It clarifies that the MOH considers the attending medical practitioner (AMP) and the independent medical practitioner to be empowered by the EOLCA to make the determination about what does and doesn’t qualify as a terminal illness.

“In light of this vague interpretation, it is reasonable to suggest that COVID-19 could be classified as a ‘terminal illness’ depending on the prognosis of the patient and the subjective judgments of the AMP and independent medical practitioner. This feels like we’ve been sold one thing, and been delivered another.” says Kloosterboer.

In the final paragraph the MOH put this issue beyond doubt when they state (emphasis added):

“Eligibility is determined on a case-by-case basis; therefore, the Ministry cannot make definitive statements about who is eligible. In some circumstances a person with COVID-19 may be eligible for assisted dying.”

If you examine the eligibility criteria for assisted suicide and euthanasia, as stated on the MOH website, it becomes easier to see how, given the right circumstances, a COVID-19 diagnosis could qualify:

• aged 18 years or over 
• a citizen or permanent resident of New Zealand 
• suffering from a terminal illness that is likely to end their life within six months 
• in an advanced state of irreversible decline in physical capability 
• experiencing unbearable suffering that cannot be relieved in a manner that the person considers tolerable 
• competent to make an informed decision about assisted dying
  

It seems to us that the only possible protective factor here, and it’s an extremely flimsy one, is that all of this hinges on the tenuous grounds of how the phrase ‘terminal illness’ is interpreted.

In particular, whether or not the AMP and independent medical practitioner are willing to hold firm to the MOH’s suggestion to us that a terminal illness is a “prolonged disease”.

Even then, the term ‘prolonged disease’ is still extremely fraught due to its highly subjective nature. Who is to say that a medical practitioner who considers an illness which lasts longer than a fortnight to be a ‘prolonged disease’ isn’t actually correct in making such a determination?

The End of Life Choice Act doesn’t offer any clarity or robust safeguards that would put this matter beyond doubt. Instead it does just the opposite, leaving the door wide open for abuse.

When we put this matter to National MP Simon O’Connor, he expressed concerns about what clearly seems to be an expansion of the new law less than a month after it came into force.

“When New Zealanders voted in the referendum in 2020, did they anticipate the law could be used for COVID-19 patients? The wording of the law was always deliberately broad and interpretable, placing far too much into the judgement of the doctor.”

He also said that this development raises serious questions about the problems in the EOLCA.

“In my mind, it is just a timely demonstration of how badly drafted the law is. When you consider the lack of key safeguards, and the risky shroud of secrecy that the EOLCA has thrown over the practice of euthanasia and assisted suicide, you can see that those of us warning about this Act shouldn’t have been dismissed so flippantly,” says O’Connor.

The implications of this are extremely serious.

Not simply because of the potential threat COVID-19 poses to our ill-equipped NZ healthcare system, or the fact that vulnerable elderly people are the most affected by the ravages of this illness.

There is also the fact that an unacceptable lack of transparency has been built into the EOLCA which will cloak all of this in a dangerous veil of secrecy that prevents robust public scrutiny.

In a nutshell, the poorly considered structure of the EOLCA has now made the COVID-19 pandemic potentially even more dangerous for the people of Aotearoa New Zealand.

#DefendNZ, who publish The Defender, are calling on the Ministry of Health to take urgent action to ensure that the End of Life Choice Act cannot be used to provide assisted suicide or euthanasia to COVID-19 patients in New Zealand.

#DefendNZ have created a petition to send a message to Parliament, calling for urgent amendments to the law including required detailed reporting and required independent witnesses – among other things – and are asking concerned citizens to sign and share it.

New Zealand euthanasia referendum: End-of-Life Choices flyer is misleading.

This media release was published by Voxy on July 20, 2020.

Renée Joubert

"The Government’s official information on the End of Life Choice Act referendum is misleading and biased," says Renée Joubert, Executive Officer of Euthanasia-Free NZ.

"The government’s summary misrepresents the End of Life Choice Act. It oversimplifies one of the eligibility criteria and overstates the protections against pressure."

Euthanasia doesn't need to be a last resort

The flyer identifies one of the eligibility criteria as, "experience unbearable suffering that cannot be eased".

"This statement is misleading, because it implies that a person would be eligible only if no treatment exists", says Ms Joubert.

In reality, the Act states that an eligible person needs to "experience unbearable suffering that cannot be relieved in a manner that the person considers tolerable".

"The Act would allow an eligible person to receive a lethal dose if they refused treatment. A person can refuse treatment that would relieve their suffering. The person would not even need to try the treatment. They would only need to say that they don’t consider it tolerable," says Ms Joubert.

"Under the End of Life Choice Act, euthanasia doesn’t need to be a last resort."

Weak protections against pressure

"The government flyer overstates the protections against pressure and does not use the wording from the Act", remarks Ms Joubert.

"The flyer uses the heading, 'Making sure the choice is freely made'. This phrase is not impartial nor factual, because the Act does not use this phrase and makes no such guarantee.

"Whether the Act’s clauses are sufficient to 'make sure the choice is freely made' is a matter of personal opinion, not fact," she says.

The flyer goes on to state, "The doctor must do their best to make sure that a person’s choice to ask for assisted dying is their own." This is an overstatement of what the Act actually requires.

The Act requires only one doctor to only "do their best to ensure the person expresses their wish free from pressure from another person".

"What might 'do their best' mean to a busy doctor? It’s a subjective requirement that cannot be measured or enforced," she says.

"The doctor doesn’t need to have met the person before and doesn’t need to speak to the person face-to-face. During an online consultation the person’s abuser could be sitting in the same room and pressuring them to request assisted dying without the doctor being aware of it."

"The word 'decision' has a wider meaning than 'express their wish'. A person could 'express their wish' free from pressure, even if their 'decision' to request assisted dying was influenced by pressure or abuse that occurred earlier. As many victims of psychological abuse know, a skilled manipulator can make a victim mistakenly believe that something is their own choice."

Unlike the Australian, US and Canadian laws, the End of Life Choice Act does not require any independent witnesses.

No independent witnesses are required when the person expresses their wish; when they confirm their wish by signing a form; or when they receive the lethal dose.

"If a health professional put pressure on the person, their guilt could be impossible to prove. The only witness may be dead", warns Ms Joubert.

The doctor is required to check for pressure by speaking to "health professionals who are in regular contact with the person" and to family members who are "approved by the person".

"This is a very weak safeguard, considering the fact that many adults do not have regular contact with health professionals and do not live with family members. Pressure from a boyfriend, girlfriend, caregiver, employer, friend, flatmate or neighbour could easily remain unreported."

Only if the doctor or nurse practitioner suspects that a person is not " expressing their wish free from pressure from any other person", do they need to stop the process.

"The only pressure acknowledged in the Act is pressure from another person. Nobody would be required to check for pressure coming from a group; or pressure due to poverty, homelessness, loneliness, depression; or pressure due to a lack of timely access to medical care or assisted living support."

Ms Joubert laments, "A person who lacks the support they need will not be making a free choice."

Conclusion

"The government’s summary does not represent the End of Life Choice Act accurately", warns Ms Joubert. "We encourage the public to also read the Act for themselves."

"This referendum is not about our personal views on whether euthanasia or ‘assisted dying’ should be legal in principle. We are not voting on a concept.

"We are voting on the details of a specific piece of legislation. Regardless of our personal views, each one of us needs to decide whether we support the finer details of this particular Act."

• New Zealand End 0f Life Choices Act is not what it claims to be. (Link).

New Zealand poll shows confusion about euthanasia bill.

This press release was published by Euthanasia-Free NZ on November 11, 2019.

A new nationwide Curia Market Research poll shows the vast majority of New Zealanders are confused about what the End of Life Choice Bill aims to legalise.

“While many of our supporters welcome the opportunity to vote on this Bill, we are concerned that a referendum result at the next election would not reflect the public’s true sentiments,” says Renée Joubert, Executive Officer of Euthanasia-Free NZ.

In the poll, conducted from 31 October to 6 November, responses demonstrated that:

“even though this Bill has been the subject of public debates and media attention for four years, three-quarters of New Zealanders are still confused about which ‘end of life choice’ it seeks to legalise.

The poll found that 74% of New Zealanders think the Bill would make it legal for people to choose to have machines turned off that are keeping them alive, when in fact this is already legal.

Similarly, 70% of respondents thought the Bill would make it legal for people to choose to not be resuscitated, when again, people can already ask for such a request to be added to their medical file.

Ms Joubert says 75% of those polled thought that the Bill made euthanasia available to terminally ill people only as a last resort, after all treatments have been tried to control their pain.

However, the Bill does not require an eligible person to have tried any pain relief or palliative care before requesting a lethal dose, or to have a consultation with a palliative care or pain specialist to find out what options are available to them. [1]

She says the Bill proposes to legalise ‘assisted dying’, one of many euphemisms for voluntary euthanasia and assisted suicide. Eligible New Zealanders as young as 18 would be allowed to request a lethal dose to end their life instead of seeking treatment or palliative care, were this bill to pass.

“Surprisingly, 73% thought that the bill makes euthanasia available to terminally ill people with less than six months to live, provided that they do not also have depression or mental illness. However, the bill does not categorically exclude terminally ill people who are also mentally ill, because mental illness would not necessarily make someone incompetent. [2]

“This poll demonstrates that the public is not yet aware of the content and meaning of the End of Life Choice Bill. Therefore, polls and surveys that do not specify which choices the Bill includes and excludes may not reflect New Zealanders’ true level of support.

“Furthermore, the poll highlights a real risk that the public will still be unaware of the bill’s proposals at the time of the referendum,” Ms Joubert says. “We doubt that another year would be long enough to adequately inform the public, alongside the contentious debates on cannabis and the general election.

Euthanasia-Free NZ calls on MPs to prevent New Zealand having a referendum on this Bill at the next election by rejecting the End of Life Choice Bill at its third reading.

Farcical euthanasia debate in New Zealand Parliament dismisses doctors and hospices.

Euthanasia-Free NZ Media Release - August 22, 2019

 

Euthanasia-Free NZ is appalled that Parliament spent so little time debating Part 2 of the End of Life Choice Bill and voted to leave it full of holes.

Part 2 is the most extensive and complex section of the Bill, covering coercion, freedom of conscience rights, as well as the process: from making the request to reporting the death.

Despite being three times longer on paper, Part 2 received the same amount of debating time as Part 1 did. No fewer than 18 substantial new clauses were proposed in the amendments to Part 2, of which 5 came from David Seymour. Nevertheless, after only two hours of debate and with several clauses still unmentioned and many MPs asking to speak, some Labour MPs started to call for the debate to be stopped.

Some of the MPs who stated that they voted for the Bill in order have a discussion are the ones who are trying to stifle debate.

Eventually it was Seymour’s call that shut down the debate, after Simeon Brown asked him a question on the minimum time frame enabled by the Bill - one Seymour refused to answer. All parties except National voted in favour of Seymour’s motion.

Several MPs proposed amendments to address gaps in Seymour’s Supplementary Order Paper. Although only one MP other than Seymour spoke against these amendments, all of these were voted down.

"It seems that MPs who support euthanasia in principle decided in advance to support David Seymour’s proposals and reject everyone else’s, regardless of their content," says Renée Joubert, executive officer of Euthanasia-Free NZ.

Hon Michael Woodhouse drafted an amendment in consultation with Hospice New Zealand that would allow organisations to opt out without risking losing pubic funding. When Hon David Clark spoke in favour of this amendment, he was jeered by his Labour colleagues and the amendment was voted down.

"David Seymour, NZ First, The Greens and most Labour MPs seem set on rushing this Bill through with little concern for stakeholders such as doctors and Hospices," says Ms Joubert.

"It’s disappointing that a life-and-death issue is being used as a party-political football."

13 Reasons Why Part 2 Has Holes:

1) The only doctor who would need to check for signs of coercion doesn’t need to talk to the person face to face and doesn’t need to have met the person before.

2) A doctor who works as a contractor would be left without protection from discrimination.

3) A healthcare assistant or caregiver who is pressured to participate in the euthanasia process would not be allowed to object on conscience grounds.

4) Every doctor would be forced to participate in the process by steering people towards euthanasia instead of towards treatment. A doctor who believes a euthanasia request is motivated by mental illness would be forced to participate in the person's death by referring them to the SCENZ Group.

5) A health professional may initiate a discussion about euthanasia with a patient, as long as the conversation covers another topic also and happens after, not during a consultation.

6) No evidence is required to show that a person confirmed their death wish before receiving the lethal dose and that they were mentally competent at the time.

7) A person can be coerced to sign someone else’s euthanasia request and doesn’t need to understand what they are signing.

8) A person’s abuser could sign a euthanasia request on the victim's behalf without needing to provide evidence that they were asked to do so.

9) The reasons why an eligible person request euthanasia may be unrelated to their medical condition.

10) Organisations such as Hospice may be forced to have euthanasia administered on their premises.

11) The doctors giving a person a terminal diagnosis and assessing their eligibility for euthanasia don’t need to have any training or experience in the field of medicine related to the person’s condition.

12) Even provisionally-registered doctors, fresh out of medical school with no specialist training, could meet the Bill’s definition of 'psychiatrist'.

13) No proof is required that unused drugs have been destroyed. 

Some issues with the End of Life Choice Bill

• There is no clear definition of ‘terminal illness’. It could be interpreted to include any condition that is life-shortening or life-threatening. There is no bright line between terminal conditions and chronic conditions. Some chronic conditions can become life-threatening in a matter of minutes, for example diabetes, asthma, severe allergies and high blood pressure. There is also no bright line between terminal illness and disabilities, because many disabilities are life-limiting and involve complications that can become life-threatening. Even clinical depression could be regarded as a terminal condition by some, because it could lead to death (suicide), or to losing the will to live and fight a disease. 
• Diagnosis and prognosis can be wrong. It’s impossible for doctors to accurately predict how long a person is expected to live, especially as long as six months out. There have been cases of people who were expected to die within hours or days, but they recovered and lived for months or years. Diagnosis can also be wrong, despite a doctor’s best intentions. Diagnosis and prognosis are not based on certainty, but on probability (the likelihood based on other cases). There is no guarantee that an individual’s disease will progress the same way as others’ have.
• Subjective terminology. Words such as ‘unbearable’, ‘suffering’ and ‘intolerable’ are entirely subjective (up to the individual to determine). If a patient would use any of these words to describe their condition, the doctor would not be able to argue.  
• Involves disabled people. ‘An advanced state of irreversible decline in physical capability’ is just a wordy way of saying ‘disability’ or ‘ageing’. The Bill doesn’t explain what is meant by ‘capability’. Could a person qualify who has become less able to run, walk or read? Could a person’s ‘decline in capability’ become ‘irreversible’ by them refusing medical treatment?
• Includes people who are depressed. The End of Life Choice Bill doesn’t mention depression. Even if it did specifically exclude depression, some depressed people could still access death instead of treatment under such legislation. Depression can be hidden, even from doctors. Depression can be misdiagnosed or dismissed as ‘understandable depression’. Even subclinical depression can still have an effect on a person’s decision making capabilities.

The debate on Part 3 of the Bill is scheduled to continue on 11 September.

Kiwis oppose implications of euthanasia process

Tuesday, 20 August 2019, 2:23 pm
Press Release: Euthanasia Free NZ

Euthanasia-Free NZ urge MPs to consider concerns relevant to tomorrow’s debate on Part 2 of the End of Life Choice Bill.

Part 2 is about freedom of conscience rights and each step of the proposed process: from making a request to reporting the death.

As lawyers would know, it's important to consider the possible loopholes in a piece of legislation: What would it do and allow, even if not explicitly stated?

Two Curia Market Research Polls conducted earlier this year found that the majority of respondents are opposed to circumstances the Bill’s proposed process would allow. None of these concerns are addressed by David Seymour's proposed amendments. Their concerns are noteworthy especially since the majority of the 1,048 respondents are in favour of the concept of euthanasia.

The Bill would allow an eligible terminally ill person to request euthanasia:

1) without telling loved ones (opposed by 73%);

2) instead of treatment (opposed by 60%);

3) because they feel like a burden (opposed by 64%); and

4) because they feel depressed or that life is meaningless (opposed by 55%).

There's a distinction between eligibility criteria and reasons for requesting euthanasia.

“In its current form the Bill would not require a doctor to explore or consider the underlying reasons why an eligible person wants to die,” says Renée Joubert, Executive Officer of Euthanasia-Free NZ.

“The unbearable suffering a person experiences may not be caused by their medical condition. Instead the person may be suffering due to issues such as poverty, homelessness, abuse, neglect, loneliness, mental illness, depression, grief, bereavement or concern about being a burden.”

Part 2 is by far the most substantial part of the Bill, consisting of 17 clauses and almost 11 pages. In contrast, Part 1, which was debated on 31 July, consists of only 5 sections and almost 4 pages.

"We were shocked that the debate on Part 1 was cut short when some MPs still wished to speak and several proposed amendments had not even been mentioned, let alone debated," says Ms Joubert. "And that, after many MPs stated that they voted for the Bill at second reading in order for the House to have an extensive discussion.

"Since Part 2 is about the crux of the Bill, we hope that its details, as well as each of the proposed amendments, will receive discussion and unprejudiced scrutiny.

"Our members and supporters will be watching tomorrow's debate with interest."

END

Euthanasia Society President Charged with Murder of Disabled Man

This media release was published by Euthanasia-Free New Zealand on September 20, 2018

Media Release

Sean Davison, a New Zealand citizen who was convicted of assisted suicide in Dunedin, appeared in a South African court on Wednesday on a murder charge.

The charge is in relation to the death of Anrich Burger, 53, who became a quadriplegic after a motor vehicle accident in 2005. He was not terminally ill.

In 2014 the accused told News24 how he helped Mr Burger, a close friend of his, end his life with lethal drugs in November the previous year. 

• Euthanasia activist charged with murder of disabled man in South Africa.

Mr Burger’s fiancé was not present nor informed of the plan, since she did not support assisted suicide or euthanasia.

After pleading not guilty, Mr Davison was released on R20,000 (about NZ $2,050) bail. He is scheduled to appear in Court again on 16 November.

The State alleges that the murder was premeditated and that new information suggests that the accused may have committed other similar offences.

In 2011 Mr Davison was sentenced to five months’ house arrest in Dunedin after pleading guilty to counselling and procuring his mother’s suicide.

Mr Davison, 57, is the president of the World Federation of Right to Die Societies, the international organisation of which the New Zealand End of Life Choice Society (formerly the Voluntary Euthanasia Society), is a member.

“Not all quadriplegics want to die, but those who do want to, should have the option,” said Mr Davidson after his speech at the Federation’s Conference in 2014.

On its website the Federation supports euthanasia and assisted suicide for “all competent adults with incurable illnesses” – not only those with terminal illnesses and six months to live.

“Mr Davison’s words and actions demonstrate that ‘assisted dying’ advocates don’t really want a narrow law limited to terminal illness, but one that would eventually allow virtually any competent adult with an incurable condition to be eligible, including people with disabilities,” says Renée Joubert, Executive Officer of Euthanasia-Free NZ.

The End of Life Choice Bill, which is currently before the New Zealand Parliament’s Justice Committee, proposes legal assisted suicide and euthanasia for people with terminal illnesses or other “grievous and irremediable medical conditions.”

“Disabled people would be included under both clauses of David Seymour’s Bill,” says Ms Joubert. “Terminal illness involves disability. So do many other longstanding physical and mental conditions.”

ENDS

New Zealand euthanasia committee delays report by 6 months.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director - Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Euthanasia Free New Zealand is working in coalition with many groups to oppose the legalization of euthanasia. 

Yesterday, the New Zealand Justice Select Committee examining the euthanasia bill received a 6 month extension to submit its report based on the reality that the committee received 35,000 submissions for consideration.

Radio New Zealand reported that 10% of the submissions to the committee included a request to present in person and the committee intends to make this possible. RNZ reported:

Raymond Huo

The committee's chair Labour Party member Raymond Huo said the hearings would enable as many individuals and community organisations as possible to be heard. 

"The Justice Committee intends to hear from all submitters who have asked to be heard," Mr Huo said. 

"Hearing evidence in the regions will help ensure that as many individuals and community organisations as possible can present their views and that the committee take account of all of the submissions in an open-minded and balanced way," he said. 

Maggie Barry

Justice Committee deputy chair Maggie Barry said the number of submissions signalled the importance of conducting hearings. 

"The very large number of carefully considered individual submissions reveals just how seriously New Zealanders take the potential change of law to allow euthanasia and assisted suicide," she said. 

Several legislators have changed their position on the euthanasia bill. SBS news reported:

The bill - drafted by the libertarian ACT Party - passed its first reading in parliament by 76 votes to 44 but may face a tougher time in the second, with some politicians and disability advocates raising concerns about whether it's too broad in its criteria.

Many International groups also made submissions and asked to be given an opportunity for an oral presentation, including the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition. Based on our experience, the more information that is given to legislators, the more likely they are to oppose euthanasia.

The committee hearings started yesterday.

Poll: Widespread confusion about 'Assisted Dying" New Zealand

Wednesday, 13 December 2017, 11:36 am

Press Release: Euthanasia Free NZ

Widespread Confusion about ‘Assisted Dying’ - Poll

A new Curia Market Research poll shows New Zealanders are confused about what ‘assisted dying’ even means.

“This groundbreaking poll challenges the validity of most other polls on the issue. It shows that support for euphemisms such as ‘assisted dying’, ‘aid in dying’ or ‘assistance to end their life’ should not be taken as support for a law change,” says Renée Joubert, executive officer of Euthanasia-Free NZ.

Link to the Press Release.

The more strongly a person supports ‘assisted dying’, the more likely they are confused about what it includes.

Of those who strongly support ‘assisted dying’:

• 85% thought it includes turning off life support
• 79% thought it includes ‘do not resuscitate’ (no CPR) requests
• 67% thought it includes the stopping of medical tests, treatments and surgeries.

In all three cases a person would die from their underlying medical condition - of natural causes.

These ‘end-of-life choices’ are legal and people can make their wishes known via Advance Care Planning.

Dr Amanda Landers is a palliative care doctor in the South Island, caring for people with a range of life-limiting conditions. She also gives presentations to nurses, doctors and the general public.

She says that many patients, and even some doctors, are unaware that stopping life-prolonging treatment and medication is legal and ethically acceptable. This means the person dies from their underlying illness – which is completely different from an intervention which deliberately ends their life prematurely.

“I was caring for a man in his 60s who was on peritoneal dialysis. He thought he would be committing euthanasia/suicide by stopping it. This belief was weighing heavily on his mind as he thought it was morally wrong.

“Once I explained to him that stopping dialysis was acceptable and that it would allow a natural death from his underlying illness, he stopped it.

“His family was unaware of his fears of dying by suicide/euthanasia and that he wanted to stop the dialysis. It was a very emotional moment for them when they heard how he was feeling, but ultimately they supported him in his choice.”

ACT MP David Seymour’s End of Life Choice Bill proposes ‘assisted dying’ by administering drugs to end someone’s life, either by injection or ingestion through a tube (euthanasia) or by giving a lethal dose to a person to swallow or administer (assisted suicide).

There are subtle differences between suicide, assisted suicide and euthanasia: It’s suicide when a person ends their own life. It’s assisted suicide when a person receives help to access the means to end their life but then takes the final action themselves. It’s euthanasia when the final action is performed by another person.

Only 62% of the 894 respondents polled thought that ‘assisted dying’ includes receiving deadly drugs to swallow or self-administer (assisted suicide).

Only 68% of respondents thought that ‘assisted dying’ includes receiving deadly drugs by injection (euthanasia).

New Zealanders are significantly less supportive of the administration of lethal drugs to end someone’s life than the notion of ‘assisted dying’ as a whole.

After hearing which practices the proposed Bill would be limited to, support for ‘assisted dying’ dropped from 62% to 55%, opposition rose from 22% to 26% and unsure/refuse responses rose from 6% to 11%.

“We would expect public support to drop even further when people consider the wider implications and unintended consequences of euthanasia and assisted suicide legislation,” says Ms Joubert.

“A case in point is a 2014 UK ComRes poll which showed that public support for the Falconer Assisted Dying Bill dropped as low as 43% when people heard various arguments against changing the law or were provided with certain facts – for example the fact that six out of ten people requesting a lethal prescription in Washington State said a reason for doing so was their concern about being a burden on friends, family or caregivers.”

New Zealand assisted suicide bill would undermine suicide prevention

Press Release - Monday August 28, 2017

David Seymour's Bill would undermine suicide prevention

The number of suicide deaths in New Zealand have increased for the third year in a row. The provisional suicide statistics released today show:

• 606 people died by suicide in the 12 months to June 2017 – almost twice the road toll (363 for the 12 months to 28 August).
• Males are represented in about three-quarters of suicide deaths.
• The highest number of suicide deaths are among 20 - 24 year-olds.
• Maori continue to have the highest suicide rate of all ethnic groups.

“It is concerning that there is an assisted suicide bill before Parliament, despite our high suicide rate”, says Renee Joubert, executive officer of Euthanasia-Free NZ.

“Essentially the only difference between suicide and assisted suicide is the number of people involved in bringing about the death. In both cases the person likely desires death due to feeling that they’re suffering unbearably and/or have no hope for a better future.

“If suicide is to be prevented, assisted suicide should be prevented also.

“There is definitely a demand for ‘assisted dying’ as a means of suicide”, says Ms Joubert.

“We regularly receive phone calls and emails from suicidal people inquiring about ways to access euthanasia because they can’t bring themselves to executing other suicide methods. They usually start out talking only about their emotional reasons, and later mention physical medical conditions that would make them eligible for assisted suicide and euthanasia under David Seymour’s End of Life Choice Bill.

“Even if depression would be explicitly excluded from the eligibility criteria, suicidal people would still be at risk of accessing ‘assisted dying’. Depression and suicidal ideation can too easily be denied, hidden, dismissed or misdiagnosed. Even mild, subclinical depression could still affect a person’s will to live.

‘Assisted dying’ legislation would send the message that death is an appropriate response to suffering – a dangerous message to people who are emotionally vulnerable.

Such a law would change the role of doctors from only helping to prevent suicide, to also facilitating suicide.

Euthanasia-Free NZ call on politicians and the public to reject ACT MP David Seymour’s End of Life Choice Bill in principle.

If you or someone you know is in distress, please phone 0800 TAUTOKO (0800 828 865).

ENDS

Great News: New Zealand Health Committee report on euthanasia does not recommend legalisation.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director - Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

T

Alex Schadenberg debating
Maryan Street in 2013

he New Zealand Health Committee report on euthanasia that received 22,000 submissions over a two year period, and direct input from 1000 people, including myself, did not recommend legalizing euthanasia.

The Committee was formed based on an all-party agreement in response to a petition from Maryan Street, a former Labour MP.

According to the article written by Isaac Davison that was published by the New Zealand Herald, Committee chair Simon O'Connor said that the Committee did not make any formal recommendations to the government but provided a summary of the arguments for and against assisted dying. O'Connor said:

"We've tried to distill all the arguments and our recommendation to both the Parliament and the people of New Zealand is to read this report and come to a deeper understanding of what's been asked around assisted suicide and euthanasia." 

"As I look at it myself, the arguments are quite compelling that while we understand why people ask for this, it's equally an issue for public safety and not a prudent step to make."

Simon O'Connor

O'Connor stated that in his personal view, the report did not indicate that assisted dying should be legalised. O'Connor told Davison:

"It is about actually understanding the arguments for and against and making a decision about which ones are correct."

"It is very difficult to see how there could be sufficient safeguards to actually protect vulnerable people in New Zealand. And that's been the experience overseas as well." 

"It probably comes down to the simple question of 'How many errors would Parliament would be willing to accept in this space?'" 

And while there were some doctors who supported a change, there was strong opposition from some parts of the medical profession who said it was not compatible with their work.

The Committee report concludes by stating that:

"This issue is clearly very complicated, very divisive and extremely contentious. 

"We therefore encourage everyone with an interest in the subject to read the report in full and to draw their conclusions based on the evidence we have presented."

The New Zealand Herald article concludes by stating that the bill to legalize euthanasia that has been introduced by David Seymour is unlikely to be debated before the next election.

Congratulations to the leaders of Euthanasia Free New Zealand and everyone who made a submission to the Committee.

New Zealand Report confirms majority opposition to ‘assisted dying’

Aug 2, 2017

Media release

[Link to the Media Release]

Euthanasia-Free NZ welcomes the Report of Parliament’s Health Select Committee on their extensive investigation of public attitudes to ‘assisted dying’ legislation.

The report seems to be a fairly balanced summary of what the Committee heard from submitters, stating,

“These submissions provided not only a numerical indication of submitters’ sentiments, but also allowed them to explain their position in more detail than could be provided in response to a simple question in a poll.” (p.15)

80% opposed to changing the law

The report confirms the findings of majority opposition to changing the law by the Every Life Research Unit and the Care Alliance. It states,

“Eighty percent of submitters were opposed to a change in legislation that would allow assisted dying and euthanasia. Submitters primarily argued that the public would be endangered. They cited concern for vulnerable people, such as the elderly and the disabled, those with mental illnesses, and those susceptible to coercion. Others argued that life has an innate value and that introducing assisted dying and euthanasia would explicitly undermine that idea. To do so would suggest that some lives are worth more than others. There were also concerns that, once introduced, eligibility for assisted dying would rapidly expand well beyond what was first intended.” (p.47)

Lack of services

The report suggests that there is much that the Government and society should do to address suffering, without changing the law.

The Committee encourage the Government to investigate improving access to grief counselling.

The Committee was also concerned that “there is a lack of awareness about the role of palliative care, that access to it is unequal, and that there are concerns about the sustainability of the workforce.” (p.42)

“Without everyone having access to health services when they need them, a choice to request euthanasia or assisted suicide would not actually be a free one,” responds Renée Joubert, executive officer of Euthanasia-Free NZ.

The risk of coercion

The Report mentions that,

“Submitters were concerned that individuals could be coerced into assisted dying. Submitters also argued that people with life-limiting illnesses are vulnerable, even if they are well educated and have family support. Several submitters spoke about the fear that family members would put subtle pressure on individuals because they wanted to inherit, or to avoid spending money on care. Many submitters expressed fear that if assisted dying or euthanasia were institutionalised, the disabled, the elderly, and the ill could experience greater social prejudice. We heard various stories from overseas in which members of these groups felt societal pressure to end their life. Submitters were also concerned that the option could evolve into an expectation, and that the right to die would soon be seen as a duty to die.” (p.21)

Safeguards vs eligibility criteria

On page 37 the report states, “Opponents and supporters of a law change both identified effective safeguards as an important part of any assisted dying legislation. Many of the safeguards proposed were actually eligibility criteria.”

“David Seymour’s End of Life Choice Bill is an example of a bill that claims to have safeguards, but in reality consists merely of eligibility criteria and a description of a legal process, which cannot prevent, let alone reliably detect, a person being pressured or abused,” says Ms Joubert. 

“When making a formal request for euthanasia a person may claim it as their voluntary decision. However, they may have arrived at that point due to pressure or abuse that has occurred behind closed doors,” says Ms Joubert. “How is a doctor, or any third party for that matter, to prevent or reliably detect what happened over time and in secret?” 

“Assisted dying legislation is simply too risky in a society in which elder and relationship abuse are growing concerns, but remain largely unreported.”

Euthanasia-Free NZ encourages MPs and candidates to read the Committee’s report in full and reject the Seymour Bill at First Reading.

Submissions Against Euthanasia To New Zealand Government Committee Shatter Assumptions

Link to the Euthanasia Free New Zealand Press Release 

Friday, 5 May 2017, 2:59 pm
Press Release: Euthanasia Free NZ

77% of submissions to Parliament’s Health Select Committee are opposed to changing the law on assisted suicide and euthanasia, an analysis found. 

“The Voluntary Euthanasia Society touted that ‘the Health Select Committee received a record 21,533 submissions on the issue, indicating intense public interest in a potential law change’, says Renée Joubert, executive officer of Euthanasia-Free NZ. “By their own logic, the results of this analysis demonstrate an overwhelming opposition to a law change.”

“When New Zealanders are given the opportunity to engage with the issue, as opposed to merely responding to a single poll question, most support the current legislation. This is certainly our experience when interacting with people all over the country.

“The public are understandably concerned that the legalisation of assisted suicide and voluntary euthanasia poses risks to vulnerable people, which is why advocates propose safeguards. However, these safeguards are unenforceable in practice.

“Polls often elicit a knee-jerk reaction, especially when the questions are emotive or leading, such as referring to a painful condition. In reality nowadays, terminally ill Kiwis do not need to die in pain. A poll question about euthanasia for pain is inappropriate.

“As the authors of the January 2017 NZMJ study admitted, “the item in our study included the terms ‘painful’, ‘incurable disease’ and ‘request’, which may have influenced participants to express increased support for euthanasia’.”

The Care Alliance analysed 21,277 submissions, excluding duplicates and a small number that could not be coded. An independent research company reviewed a sample of the coded submissions and concluded “with at least 95% confidence that the overall classification percentages are accurate within no more than 0.4% variation”.

The results of the full analysis shatter assumptions about public attitudes to euthanasia and assisted suicide.

• The assumption that the high number of submissions demonstrate overwhelming support for a law change:

The analysis found that 77.1 % of submissions (16,411) were opposed to a law change, 19.5 % (4,142) were in favour, and 3.4 % (724) were neutral or unclear on this issue.

• The assumption that support of legalisation is secular and opposition to legalisation is based on religious beliefs:

63.6 % of submissions (13,539) oppose a law change and also make no reference to religion. Only 18.5% of submissions (3,934) support a law change and also make no reference to religion.

There are religiously motivated people on both sides of the debate. 14.8 % of submissions included religious arguments. The majority of these (13.5% of the total) oppose a law change, and 208 submissions (0.93% of the total) support a law change.

• The assumption that submissions opposing a law change are mostly one-liners:

About 44% of submissions in opposition are between two lines and a page. Even if submissions of a certain length were to be discounted, the submissions opposing a law change would still outnumber those supporting a law change in other length categories.

The Health Select Committee conducted an investigation into ending one’s life in New Zealand, in response to a petition by former MP Hon Maryan Street and 8,974 others in June 2015 requesting Parliament to “investigate fully public attitudes towards the introduction of legislation which would permit medically-assisted dying in the event of a terminal illness or an irreversible condition which makes life unbearable”.

After extensive media coverage about the investigation, especially during January 2016, the Committee processed 21,435 written submissions, a record number of unique submissions received on any issue to date. These, and subsequent supplementary submissions, are published on Parliament’s website.

In August 2016 Dr Jane Silloway Smith analysed a random sample of these submissions and found that 78% were opposed to changing the law while 22% were in favour. The 16000voices.org.nz campaign was launched to highlight some submissions in video and written form. 

Ends

Three-Quarters of Submissions Oppose Assisted Suicide in New Zealand.

Media Release.

Euthanasia-Free NZ welcomes an analysis finding that 78% of submitters are opposed to legalising assisted suicide and voluntary euthanasia.

In an unprecedented number of unique submissions, more than three-quarters have indicated that they don’t think changing the law is the solution to suffering.

“It’s premature and defeatist to suggest that state-sanctioned suicide is the best the government can offer to address the suffering that some New Zealanders experience,” says Renée Joubert, Executive Officer of Euthanasia-Free NZ. “The causes of suffering are complex and a range of possible solutions need to be examined, including better accessibility to existing physical and psychological care options.”

“The legalisation of assisted suicide and euthanasia would affect society as a whole, including people who would prefer to die of natural causes. Emotionally vulnerable people could easily feel pressured to request death, making legal assisted suicide the ultimate vehicle for elder and relationship abuse.”

Euthanasia-Free NZ supports the call for David Seymour to withdraw his untimely End of Life Choice Bill from the ballot and allow the current Health Select Committee investigation to run its course.

ENDS