New Zealand will debate expanding it's euthanasia law.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

The New Zealand government is discussing expansions to their euthanasia law. The primary expansion that is being discussed is the removal of the 6 month terminal illness prognosis in the law to permit euthanasia of people with chronic conditions, similar to what Canada did in March 2021.

New Zealand passed a euthanasia referendum on October 17, 2020 with the euthanasia law coming into force on November 7, 2021. After less than three years of killing, a debate on expanding the law by removing the terminal illness requirement has begun.

Anne Whyte reported for The Press on August 29 that:

The ACT Party is in the process of making moves to widen the scope on euthanasia, launching back into the contentious issue that could have sunk the law when it originally went through Parliament.

The End Of Life Choice law currently has a range of requirements needed to be eligible for assisted dying, including being in an “advanced state of irreversible decline in physical capability” and experiencing “unbearable suffering that cannot be relieved in a manner that the person considers tolerable”.

They also need to have a terminal illness “that is likely to end the person’s life within six months”.

The ACT leader, David Seymour, who sponsored the original euthanasia law called the terminal illness requirement "a political compromise." Whyte reported:

“The six month limit was a political compromise,” ACT leader David Seymour said on Wednesday, at a petition handover in front of Parliament.

Seymour, speaking to CEO of advocacy group Social Justice Aotearoa Jackie Foster who delivered the petition asking Parliament for the euthanasia legislation to also allow those who have degenerative diseases, said he was “sorry that we made that compromise”.

“I never supported it. I never wanted it. I didn't introduce it that way. I had to compromise, because if I didn't get the votes, there'd be no law at all.”

Canada legalized euthanasia in June 2016. In March 2021 Canada passed Bill C-7 that removed the "terminal illness" requirement in the law, created a two-tier law by removing the waiting period for people who were terminally ill and adding a 90-day waiting period for people who were not terminally ill and allowing euthanasia for mental illness alone.

Euthanasia for mental illness alone remains contentious and has currently been delayed until March 2027.

In the United States, nearly every state that has legalized assisted suicide has later expanded their law.

The euthanasia lobby considers legal safeguards as a compromise that can later be removed from the law.

New Zealand doctors group wants "brakes" put on expanding euthanasia.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Dr Bryan Betty

On November 7 I reported that David Seymour, the leader of the ACT party and the MP who sponsored New Zealand's euthanasia law was calling for the law to be broadened.

Isaac Davison reported for the New Zealand Herald on November 6 that Seymour wants the 6 month terminal illness prognosis in the law removed. Seymour indicated that he only included the terminal illness requirement in the law to gain support for euthanasia from the other political parties.

New Zealand Royal College of GP's medical director, Dr Bryan Betty, on November 28, 2022, called for "brakes" to be put on the expansion of euthanasia. As published by Scoop Politics:

The practice of assisted suicide and euthanasia has been happening for little over a year in New Zealand, and already some proponents are calling for changes to the criteria saying many are “missing out”. The main criteria under fire is the 6 month terminal prognosis requirement, which prevents those with only chronic conditions or disabilities from being eligible.

But Dr Betty says broadening the eligibility criteria would not improve equitable choice to those facing end of life decisions. He is adamant that expansion of the End of Life Choice Act should not progress in light of the current palliative care climate in New Zealand, and not without careful analysis.

Dr Betty argues that since there is no strategic plan for palliative care in New Zealand that an inbalance has developed with the legalization and promotion of euthanasia and assisted suicide.

According to Dr Betty palliative care is not properly funded in New Zealand:

The Royal College of GPs includes more than 5,500 GPs, specialist GPs, trainee GPS, and rural hospital doctors who practise a range of different modalities from 1000 practices across the country.

Dr Betty says these doctors are often providing palliative care to their patients pro bono because there is no funding available for end of life care, and it’s a serious failing of the system.

“Palliative care is so dependent on local funding which is traditionally done by DHBs, but there’s a total lack of funding, resourcing and a national approach,”

As I previously stated, since New Zealand legalized euthanasia through a referendum and since the referendum stated that euthanasia would only be for terminally ill people with a six month prognosis, therefore any changes to the law should require another referendum.

New Zealand wants to follow Canada by removing terminal illness requirement from euthanasia law.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

New Zealand protest

David Seymour, the leader of the ACT party and the MP who sponsored New Zealand's euthanasia law is calling for the law to be broadened.

Isaac Davison reported for the New Zealand Herald on November 6 that Seymour wants the 6 month terminal illness prognosis in the law removed. He indicated that he only included the terminal illness requirement to get support for euthanasia from the other political parties. Davison reported.

Assisted dying law in New Zealand should be relaxed to remove a requirement that a patient has only six months to live, the law’s architect says....

Seymour said he agreed to the six-month requirement to gain the support of the Green Party to pass the bill.

Davison points out that Seymour's original bill did not include a terminal illness requirement.

Seymour’s original bill would have allowed non-terminal patients with “grievous and irremediable conditions” to get access to voluntary euthanasia.

Some groups felt that definition was too broad, and raised concerns it could make assisted dying available to disabled people or mental health patients.

The amended law, which was voted on in a public referendum, made it explicit that applicants could not get access to assisted dying on the basis of disability or mental illness alone.

Not enough killing. 

Seymour seems concerned that too many euthanasia applications were turned down. Davison reported:

Voluntary euthanasia was legalised exactly a year ago, and so far 214 patients had an assisted death. In all, 596 people have applied and 294 people have been deemed eligible.

A total of 120 people were turned down because they were not eligible.

Seymour noted that a third of the ineligible patients were declined because they didn’t meet the criteria of having a terminal illness likely to end their lives within six months.

Seymour argued that the criteria of the New Zealand euthanasia law should be broadened after the government reviews the law in 2024.

Since New Zealand legalized euthanasia through a public referendum and since the referendum specifically stated that euthanasia would only be for terminally ill people with a six month prognosis, therefore any changes to the law should only be passed by another referendum.

7 ways Belgium doesn’t follow its own euthanasia law

This article was published by Mercatornet on October 7, 2020

So-called “safeguards” are much more window dressing than providing any real protection.

Robert Clarke

By Robert Clarke

As the New Zealand euthanasia referendum approaches, voters could be helped by looking at the experience in other countries before making up their minds on this complex topic. At the end of July, Czechia became the latest country to reject the legalisation of euthanasia following similar rejections in Portugal and Finland. The opposition to the bill was largely based on concerns about the impact on the elderly and vulnerable. The final nail in the coffin was the Ministry of Social Affairs’ assessment that the bill did not contain enough safeguards against human error or violations of the law.

Wherever euthanasia is proposed, its advocates normally try to alleviate concerns by explaining that the system would be carefully controlled and tightly monitored — after all, we are talking about the deliberate ending of someone’s life. In evaluating what they say, we do not have to rely on speculation. Instead, we can look to the way these so-called “safeguards” function in countries that have already legalised these practices.

Tom Mortier's mother

I represent Tom Mortier, a Belgian university lecturer in his landmark case at the European Court of Human Rights. In 2012, his physically healthy 64-year-old mother was euthanised for what the doctor called ‘incurable depression’. After more than six years of research, and close analysis of responses provided by the Belgium government, it is clear that the reality falls a long way short of the promises made when the Belgian legislation was passed in 2002.

1. Myth: Euthanasia is possible only where there is suffering that cannot be alleviated

This was the standard built into the Belgian euthanasia law, but its interpretation has been watered down to the point that it provides no protection. In the case of Tom’s mother, doctors knew that she was struggling with depression, in part because of distance from her family. And yet when she refused to reach out to them, they quickly concluded her suffering was incurable. By this logic, almost anything could be considered incurable.

2. Myth: Euthanasia must be approved by two independent doctors

One of the supposed safeguards is that a doctor’s decision must be confirmed by one, or in some cases two other doctors. And yet in the case of Tom’s mother, the doctors involved were members of the same pro-euthanasia organisation. Hardly an “independent” verification, but it was considered acceptable by the Belgian authorities. Moreover, in the weeks before her euthanasia, Tom’s mother made a 2,500 EUR payment to this organisation, which presents yet another possible conflict.

3. Myth: The paperwork must be completed in a timely way

According to the Belgian law, the official euthanasia form must be filed with the government within four working days. In the case of Tom’s mother, the government admits it was received at least two months late. And yet, when the Commission reviewed this form, it found no cause for concern.

4. Myth: Cases must be reviewed by an independent euthanasia review commission

Not only did the Belgian Commission fail to see the obvious issues with the form in this case, it has reviewed over 12,000 cases and only referred one for investigation to the prosecutor. That statistic is less surprising in light of the fact that the Commission has been co-chaired since its creation by a leading euthanasia activist, who happens to be the doctor who euthanised Tom’s mother.

5. Myth: There is a robust system for dealing with conflicts of interest within the euthanasia commission

Given the Commission is packed with doctors who advocate for and practice euthanasia, you might imagine it has a robust system for dealing with potential conflicts of interest. Instead, the Belgian government has told the European Court of Human Rights that its procedure simply requires a doctor to sit silently in the room while the rest of the Commission discusses whether or not their case should be referred for criminal investigation. It is hard to imagine a more useless system of oversight.

6. Myth: The system is open to external scrutiny

To maintain public confidence, it is important that the decisions of the Commission be subject to scrutiny. In the case of Tom’s mother, the Commission — led by the doctor who carried out the euthanasia — simply refused to release the form to her next of kin. When Tom filed a complaint, the prosecutor initially “misplaced” it. After locating it, he took the next three years investigating it to then conclude with a single-sentence letter stating there was insufficient evidence to proceed. And yet we now know that even a quick glance at the euthanasia form should have raised cause for significant concern.

7. Myth: The patient must have made a settled and voluntary decision

Tom’s mother was suffering from a diagnosed psychiatric condition at the point at which her life was ended by lethal injection. To satisfy this apparent requirement, the doctor simply scribbled on the form that she had been “asking for it for years.” And yet this doctor had only met her months earlier; he specialises in cancer, not psychiatry; and appears only to have been approached because of his unquestioning approach to euthanasia.

To those who would say, “this is just one case.” It is. But that is one life, one mother, and one grandmother too many. She leaves behind children and grandchildren who are still — years on — dealing with the fallout. And the issues identified in this case go much deeper. Who knows how many other tragedies have been nodded through by this defective system? Moreover, once these laws are passed, there is no logical stopping point. Their advocates push for more and more. That has happened in Belgium — where child euthanasia was legalised in 2012 — and in the Netherlands — which is debating making euthanasia available for elderly people who are “tired of life”, after already expanding the law to include those suffering with dementia.

As we grapple with the implications of euthanasia and assisted suicide, we owe it to ourselves, and to the sick and the vulnerable, to weigh up not just the “best case scenario” that some paint, but to wrestle with the dark reality that is revealed when we really pull back the curtain on these practices. The sad conclusion is that these so-called “safeguards” are much more window dressing than providing any real protection. And the reality is that these laws are more likely to harm than to help the vulnerable.

Confused Kiwis line up to vote on a euthanasia law

This article was published by Mercatornet on October 7, 2020

Many think it’s all about saving people from being ‘kept alive’ against their will

By Carolyn Moynihan

Among the roadside billboards canvassing votes for political parties and their candidates in New Zealand’s triennial election on October 17 is one announcing starkly: “LETHAL DOSE with NO assessment for coercion required.” Below that it asks: “Is the End of Life Choice Act safe?”

It’s the kind of silly question you have to ask when parliament has already passed a law allowing euthanasia and all the rest of us can do is vote yes or no to it in a referendum. Deliberately killing yourself, let alone empowering doctors and nurses to kill you, can never be safe; but when the majority of legislators insist that it can, you have to fight them on their own ground.

VoteSafe, the campaigners behind the Lethal Dose billboard, have highlighted an issue that should give everyone with a sense of their own mortality pause.

In a society where elder abuse appears to be common, including by family members, the EoLC Act only requires that a doctor acting on a request for euthanasia “do their best to ensure the person exercises their wish free from pressure”.

Do their best? Isn’t that setting the bar rather low? There is no formal requirement for assessing coercion. How good will that “best” be when the doctor hardly knows you, let alone your family? How much time can he or she invest in the whole process?

Despite open-ended provisions like this, advocates of the law maintain that it’s watertight. According to one recent poll almost two-thirds of New Zealanders would vote yes in the referendum. Leading political contenders from left – Labour Prime Minister Jacinda (Be Kind) Ardern – and right – National leader Judith (Crusher) Collins – both voted for the EoLC Act.

They and other MPs had the advantage of debating it in parliament and having to listen to the opposition’s arguments. It’s a safe bet, though, that 90 percent of Kiwis have never read the legislation that sails under the flags of “choice” and “compassion”, and many will be voting on the basis of superficial – or occasionally more serious but subtly biased – media coverage.

In fact, research shows that the majority of people know next to nothing about the Act apart from the fact that it legalises euthanasia.

VoteSafe ran an online quiz about it that found almost half the 130,000 respondents thought it’s about turning off life support. Campaign manager Henoch Kloosterboer told Radio NZ:

“There’s a lot of confusion out there from people thinking that it’s around legal options which already exist such as turning off life support, do not resuscitate orders, the ability to refuse treatment, and palliative medication that may hasten death. But we’re not actually voting on that, we’re voting on the End of Life Choice Act.”

With voting only two weeks away, a poll by Curia Market Research found similar ignorance on this point, and on other aspects of the EOLC Act. Euthanasia Free NZ, the group that commissioned the poll reports:

Only 21% knew that this Act would not make it legal to have life support machines turned off, while 45% were unsure.

Only 18% were aware that terminally ill people who meet all the eligibility criteria, but also have depression or another mental illness, would indeed be allowed euthanasia under this Act.

Less than a third (28%) knew that this Act would make euthanasia available to terminally ill people even if they don’t have any physical pain. A third (33%) mistakenly thought that a person would need to have physical pain to qualify and 39% were unsure.

The End of Life Choice Act requires that a person experiences “unbearable suffering that cannot be relieved in a manner the person considers tolerable” but doesn’t require that this suffering be physical. A large Australian study found that 53% of people near death did not experience any pain.

About 41% of respondents assumed that the Act would require two witnesses when a person signs their euthanasia request in front of the doctor and about 40% were unsure. Only 18% knew that the Act does not actually include this safeguard. It only requires one “independent medical practitioner” in addition to the doctor assisting the suicide. In the assisted dying laws of Canada; Victoria and Western Australia; and nine US states, two people need to witness a person signing their written request in front of the first doctor.

How many voters know – what an article in the NZ Medical Journal points out – that the person requesting euthanasia doesn’t need to have had access to appropriate medical or palliative care? Or that there is no mandatory cooling off period after a request? Or that the individual, who might be a young adult, does not need to tell anyone about their decision?

In a year of plague and electioneering, Kiwis are being asked to vote on a piece of legislation that deals with the imponderables of “terminal Illness”, suffering and freedom at the end of life, as well as professional ethics.

Sadly, too many will tick a box that they think will save a loved one from dying in unrelieved pain, or suffering the indignity of lying helpless in a hospital bed connected to a respirator.

More articles on the New Zealand euthanasia referendum.

• New Zealand End of Life Choices Act would lead to many, not a few assisted deaths (Link).
• New Zealand End of Life Choices Act is not what it claims to be (Link).
• Claire Freeman was encouraged by the suicide outreach clinic to consider assisted suicide (Link).

Doctors are Saying No to Assisted Suicide in New Zealand.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Dr Sinead Donnelly

New Zealand is having a referendum on euthanasia as part of its October 17 federal election.

Doctors say no is an Open Letter to New Zealanders by doctors supporting the World Medical Association and New Zealand Medical Association position statements that euthanasia and assisted suicide are unethical, even if they become legal.

Doctors say no have more than 1750 signatures from New Zealand doctors for a letter to New Zealand citizens opposing euthanasia and assisted suicide. The letter states:

We are committed to the concept of death with dignity and comfort, including the provision of effective pain relief and excellence in palliative care.

We endorse the views of the World Medical Association and the New Zealand Medical Association that physician assisted suicide and euthanasia are unethical, even if they were made legal.

We uphold the right of patients to decline treatment, as set out in the NZ Code of Health and Disability Services Consumers’ Rights.

We know that the proper provision of pain relief, even if it may unintentionally hasten the death of the patient, is ethical and legal. Equally the withdrawal or withholding of futile treatment in favour of palliative care is ethical and legal.

We believe that crossing the line to intentionally assist a person to die would fundamentally weaken the doctor-patient relationship which is based on trust and respect.

We are especially concerned with protecting vulnerable people who can feel they have become a burden to others, and we are committed to supporting those who find their own life situations a heavy burden.

Doctors are not necessary in the regulation or practice of assisted suicide. They are included only to provide a cloak of medical legitimacy. Leave doctors to focus on saving lives and providing real care to the dying.

‘Doctors say no’ is an Open Letter to all New Zealanders by doctors supporting the World Medical Association and New Zealand Medical Association position statements that euthanasia and assisted suicide are unethical, even if they were to become legal.

More articles on the New Zealand euthanasia referendum.

• New Zealand End of Life Choices Act would lead to many, not a few assisted deaths (Link).
• New Zealand End of Life Choices Act is not what it claims to be (Link).
• Claire Freeman was encouraged by the suicide outreach clinic to consider assisted suicide (Link).

Why is New Zealand considering assisted dying during a pandemic?

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

New Zealand is having a referendum on euthanasia as part of its October 17 federal election.

New Zealand's parliament passed a euthanasia bill in November 2019 by a vote of 69 to 51. To obtain the votes to pass the Act the government agreed to a referendum.

Robyn Hunt, a joint coordinator of the disability rights group Not Dead Yet Aotearoa, wrote an article that was published yesterday in The Spinoff in New Zealand asking: Why are we considering assisted dying during a pandemic?

Robyn Hunt

Hunt writes:

Considering assisted dying in the middle of a deadly world pandemic seems counterintuitive. We are fortunate to live in a country that has worked hard to preserve life, has recognised that certain groups are greatly at risk and tried, largely successfully, to protect them. But we are to vote in a referendum for the End of Life Choice Act in just a few weeks, so it is important to carefully consider its implications in this context.

Hunt explains her concerns:

There is no way to get around the fact that this is bad law, badly written. The worst of it, from the point of view of the disability community, is that of the eligibility criteria. They are very loose. Supporters of the act believe that discounting age, mental illness and disability provides protection for the groups who expressed concern during the inquiry and the progress of the legislation.

But there is no bright line in real life between disability and terminal illness. The supposed exclusion of disability is meaningless, as the disability community understands only too well. Baroness Jane Campbell put it very clearly when she said, “The distinction between disability and terminal illness is a false one: for many disabled people a chest infection is a terminal illness unless treated. The disabled person dependent on a ventilator is terminally ill if the ventilator is switched off. I am many years over my prognosis end date, along with countless others who have a progressive condition.”

Hunt continues with the lived experience of people with disabilities.

Disability and illness easily become conflated. MS and motor neuron disease are impairments that result in illness. Severe illness brings impairment. The two are conflated in the bill and not understood by its supporters or the general public. “Incurable disease” has been described as code for “disability”.

There’s a sort of existential dread surrounding disability, a fear of perceived pain and suffering that causes perfect strangers to approach people I know, particularly those who use wheelchairs, and say, “If I were like you I would kill myself,” with absolutely no thought of the effect those remarks would have on the disabled person.

There’s the “someone else having to wipe your bum” test that makes many non-disabled people think death is preferable. Yet I know people who live such lives already with grace and dignity, and manage full lives on their own terms, when access to quality support allows them. But the negative societal attitudes subtly devalue lives and can grind people down.

She then comments on the subtle pressures.

Societal and personal pressure can be extremely subtle. Can we be absolutely sure that nobody would ever choose assisted dying because of pressure from another person or group of people? Or from constant negative social pressure and the feeling that they are a worthless burden? They are constantly reminded of their precariousness as people who may need considerable support of various kinds, and often have to struggle simply to get what they need.

Disabled people can be made to feel worthless by a deeply ableist society. New Zealand has a very high youth suicide rate yet we have no record of how many of them are disabled.

Hunt comments on native people with disabilities.

The act is highly individualistic. It holds the right of the individual above the rights of the group, a concept that I know makes many Māori and disabled people feel uneasy. As one disabled Māori leader says, “Why should Māori trust the state on the topic of euthanasia, when we can’t even trust the state to provide adequate and equitable health care, education and housing?” Māori and Pacific disabled people have less access to disability services and supports than other disabled people so that level of cynicism is hardly surprising.

She explains how trust has been eroded for people with disabilities.

Disabled people do not trust a system that already allows violence, abuse and deaths to go unreported and often unacknowledged. Families who kill disabled members are treated more leniently by the courts than others who kill family members. There is talk of “mercy” killings. Of course situations like this are complicated, and can’t be “fixed” by a simple solution. But disabled people don’t trust a system that so often fails them.

She explains that mental health and palliative care services are lacking.

Our mental health services are failing people who need them, and months of lockdown and Covid uncertainty have not helped. The health system is also struggling to meet the needs of the poorest New Zealanders, and in particular children and Māori and Pacific peoples.

In some parts of New Zealand, those approaching the end of their lives have access to world-class palliative care. Unfortunately that isn’t the case everywhere. The option of quality palliative care ought to be readily available before we consider euthanasia or assisted suicide.

She then comments on the fear of wrongful death.

I’ve always found it comforting and appropriate that one of the reasons for abolishing capital punishment was the possibility, and proven occurrence, of wrongful death. Ironically, there is no protection against it in this act. The worst criminals have better protection than some of our most at-risk citizens.

Hunt concludes by stating the concerns of the disability community.

Despite what supporters still claim, opposition to assisted suicide in New Zealand is not always based on religious grounds. While some disabled opposition will be based on sincerely held faith-based views, the majority of disabled people here and internationally are opposed on the grounds of hard-fought and hard-won human rights protections that they are desperate to protect from the erosion this act allows.

Disabled people live on the front lines of the health system in a society that increasingly devalues old, ill and disabled people. Most of the reasons people give for wanting assisted suicide are really disability issues like dependence and independence, without understanding that we are all interdependent. Supporters of the act call for choice. Disabled people want social justice.

More articles on the New Zealand euthanasia referendum.

• New Zealand End of Life Choices Act would lead to many, not a few assisted deaths (Link).
• New Zealand End of Life Choices Act is not what it claims to be (Link).
• Claire Freeman was encouraged by the suicide outreach clinic to consider assisted suicide (Link).

Woman dying of cancer urges New Zealand to vote NO to euthanasia.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Vicki Walsh

As New Zealand debates a euthanasia referendum a woman dying of cancer is urging New Zealanders to Vote NO to euthanasia saying people could be coerced into an early death. The New Zealand Herald reported:

Vicki Walsh, who is now 53, was diagnosed with Glioblastoma Multiforme in June 2011.

The aggressive brain cancer is nicknamed "The Terminator" and those who have it typically die within 14 months of diagnosis.

But nine years later, Vicki is still around, living near Palmerston North with her husband and two adult children.

She has been taking the drug Avastin - which has cost her $24,000 - and the mass in her brain has halved.

"I was always told there was nothing more that could be done," she said. "So in eight years, nine years, things have changed, so I got another surgery, I got radiation and now we're having this drug that we're paying for."

There was a time when Vicki wanted to end her life.

She said she watched people, who were battling the same illness overseas, choose euthanasia and felt she should take her own life. 

"I actually felt kind of gutless, I was looking at my husband and we were trying to keep life normal and I had a bit of a stroke and it ended up really, really big and I just felt that this is it for me," she said

"It had been several weeks, it wasn't just an overnight thing, and I just thought, if this is how it's going to be, I don't want to live like this anymore."

But Vicki changed her mind in the last moment.

Had she gone through with it, she said she would have missed out on watching her grandchildren grow up.

"If you'd asked me if I want to live like I am now, I would have viewed my life 15 years ago as not having much of a quality of life now," she said. "I love my life, you know, I love my life."

Vicki is concerned that legalizing euthanasia will lead to coercion

But Vicki's greatest fear is that people will feel pressured to end their lives earlier than they need to.

"The coercion thing is one of biggest concerns for me about this bill. People say it wouldn't happen - well we already have an elderly abuse problem in this country," she said.

"So I already know what I feel like, like my family don't make me feel like a burden, but I also feel like a burden sometimes and I'm not getting that pressure."

More articles on the New Zealand euthanasia referendum.

• New Zealand End of Life Choices Act would lead to many, not a few assisted deaths (Link).
• New Zealand End of Life Choices Act is not what it claims to be (Link).
• Claire Freeman was encouraged by the suicide outreach clinic to consider assisted suicide (Link).

Book Review - The Final Choice: End of Life Suffering: Is Assisted Dying the Answer?

Reviewed by Adrian Rhodes

The book: The Final Choice: End of Life Suffering: Is Assisted Dying the Answer? written by Caralise Trayes and published by Capture & Tell Media, 2020, New Zealand.

This book is a nonfiction work, written by a journalist who is exploring the issue of euthanasia in a series of thematically linked essays. People against euthanasia will find information to use against proponents. People for euthanasia will like this book.

There are two cases presented in the first two chapters; in one case, the person was in favour of euthanasia but changed her mind. In the second case, the person was in favour of euthanasia and campaigned to legalise the practise, but died before this could happen.

The third essay outlines a meeting where a politician – the same one who wrote the euthanasia law in New Zealand – appears at a euthanasia society meeting. He says, in one passage, “I am right and they are wrong…” speaking of people against euthanasia.

That statement summarizes the entitled attitude of anyone I’ve met who campaigns in favour of euthanasia. Notice: there is no room for discussion; the statement as quoted does not include palliative care, hospice or alternatives. Death and that’s the only action offered.

There is another part of this politician’s speech where he encourages people to get bumper stickers for their cars and adds, “…Don’t worry about putting a sticker on your car – I have my face and name plastered over mine and it never gets damaged…” While this is a jest, according to the context, consider the implication: people who are opposed to euthanasia will think nothing of damaging a car to make a political point. Remember, he’s right and people opposed are wrong, without qualification.

Considering I have had four people online wish me a terminal, painful illness so I will “…change my mind…” on the issue, it’s clear that he is not joking. Yes, that might be a stretch, but once more, the statement encapsulates the attitude of people willing to kill the vulnerable.

There is a politician quoted as saying “75 percent of New Zealanders who watched their loved ones die, often badly, feel they need more choice and control.” (36) Look at this quote: “…watched their loved ones die…” removes the action from the person involved and puts the choice in the hands of observers. “…often badly…” so a smaller percentage of the 75 percent have seen people die this way: how often? We don’t know. “…feel…” The people observing feel that the right thing to do is kill the observed. “…more choice and control?…” 

At risk of belabouring the point, whose choice? And why control? The observer is obviously the focal point of this statement, so it’s the observer’s control, not the person suffering. In a very short quote, this parliamentarian gave the game away. It’s got nothing to do with the person dying, it’s about the observer controlling the death.

The essays are peppered with commentaries like this, and the book therefore rewards a close reading. If you skip over details, you will miss cues. The organization of the book moves from legislation, to opponents, to lawmakers in an organized fashion. Yet there are little clues here and there that the person writing this book is not against the practice.

So read this book as a contemporary snap-shot of the issues within the action of euthanasia. Read it carefully, since the writing can come across as subtle. Personally, I saw the same ideas and ideologies presented as in other books showing euthanasia as a socially virtuous act; this is why I suggest caution in the reading of it.

The subtitle: Is Assisted Dying the Answer? Can be answered with a ‘no’, since we see the problems the practice has created in Canada, and in other parts of the world. Is caring or killing the solution?

Having said this, the book is clear, concise and a good introduction to the issues. But it’s an introduction: the defense of life is more complex than this book would have you believe and requires a more cautious consideration than the ease of its reading would otherwise suggest.

Euthanasia leader, Sean Davison, loses his medical license in New Zealand

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Sean Davison

Sean Davison who is the President of the World Federation of Right to Die Societies and a leader of Dignity South Africa lost his medical license in New Zealand yesterday.

In June 2019 Davison was sentenced to 3 years (house arrest) in the deaths of Anrich Burger (in 2013), Justin Varian (in 2015), and Richard Holland (in 2015). Davison was also convicted in 2011 in the death of his mother, Patricia Davison, in New Zealand (in 2006).

An article by Hannah Martin for Stuff New Zealand reported:

An Auckland-born doctor convicted of helping three people to die overseas has been struck off the register. 

Euthanasia advocate Professor Sean Davison appeared before the Health Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal on Tuesday via video link from South Africa, where he lives. 

In 2019 – while holding a provisional registration with the Medical Sciences Council of New Zealand – the medical laboratory scientist pleaded guilty to three murders in South Africa and was sentenced to three years’ house arrest.

Martin reported that Davison had been granted a provisional request to practice medicine in New Zealand but was "struck off" the register because he did not disclose to the tribunal his convictions in South Africa in the deaths of Burger, Varian and Holland, even though he did disclose his conviction in the death of his mother.

Martin reported that the Professional Conduct Committee found that Davison undermined the integrity of the profession:

A lawyer for the Professional Conduct Committee, Jo Hughson, said Davison’s convictions and omissions to the Medical Sciences Council reflected adversely on his fitness to practise, and “undermined the integrity” of the profession. 

Hughson stated Davison’s actions demonstrated he believed he was “above the law”. 

His role in the deaths was a “deliberate breach of the obligation of all medical practitioners” to protect the “sanctity” of life, and would be seen by the public as “unacceptable” of a person registered in New Zealand, Hughson said. 

Davison's lawyer responded that his client did not believe he was "above the law" but recognized that he had not disclosed his murder convictions in South Africa.

After a two hour deliberation the five person panel announced that Davison's registration was cancelled, they also censured Davison and fined him $8500.

New Zealand is debating euthanasia as the country approaches the September 2 - 19 euthanasia referendum which is happening during the election. 

The language of the New Zealand End-of-Life Choice Act referendum is similar to the Canadian euthanasia law.

• Euthanasia leader sentenced to three years house arrest in South Africa (Link).
• New Zealand man charged after euthanasia of his mom (Link).

New Zealand End of Life Choice Act would lead to many, not a few assisted deaths.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

New Zealand is having a referendum on euthanasia as part of its October 17 federal election.

New Zealand's parliament passed a euthanasia bill in November 2019 by a vote of 69 to 51. To obtain the votes to pass the Act the government agreed to a referendum.

Some proponents of the End-of-Life Choices Act (Act) refer to the Oregon assisted suicide model to suggest that legalizing assisted death will not result in many deaths. This argument is false.

The New Zealand Act legalizes Canadian style (MAiD) euthanasia which means that there will be many deaths, not a few.

The New Zealand Act uses the following definition of assisted dying:

(a) the administration by an attending medical practitioner or an attending nurse practitioner of medication to the person to relieve the person’s suffering by hastening death; or 

(b) the self-administration by the person of medication to relieve their suffering by hastening death.

This means that the New Zealand Act is similar to the Canadian MAiD (euthanasia and assisted suicide) model and not the Oregon model. Canada legalized death by (a) administration by an attending medical or nurse practitioner (done by lethal injection) and (b) self-administration (you take the lethal drugs yourself, whereas the Oregon model is limited to (b) self-administration.

Why is this important:

Canada, Belgium, Luxembourg and the Netherlands have legalized assisted death by euthanasia (lethal injection) and assisted suicide (self-administration of lethal drugs).

Canada legalized assisted death by lethal injection in 2016. In 2019 there were 5631 reported euthanasia deaths represented 2% of all deaths in Canada. 

The Oregon assisted suicide law came into effect in 1998, In 2019 there were 188 reported assisted suicide deaths represented about 0.5% of all deaths in Oregon.

The Netherlands euthanasia law which came into effect in 2002. In 2017 there were 6585 reported euthanasia (lethal injection) deaths representing almost 4.5% of all deaths.

Legalizing euthanasia and assisted suicide (a) administration by an attending medical or nurse practitioner (done by lethal injection) and (b) self-administration (taking the lethal drugs yourself) there will be exponentially more deaths than when the law is limited to assisted suicide, as in Oregon.

What is the difference?

Based on human experience, people are less likely to seek death by self administration (taking the lethal drugs) than by administration (lethal injection by another person). In other words, it is easier to have someone lethally inject you, than for you to take those same drugs yourself.

Euthanasia (lethal injection by another person) in most countries is a form of homicide because someone else causes the death, whereas death by self-administration is a form of assisting a suicide.

Abuse of the law.

Legalizing euthanasia will also lead to more abuse of the law. It is possible for someone to feel pressure and ask for assisted suicide, and it is possible that someone, who has the lethal drugs for assisted suicide, will be administered those drugs rather than self-administer. In the case of euthanasia physicians and nurse practitioners become part of the mode of pressure. 

For instance, in August 2016, Candice Lewis (25) while receiving treatment at a Newfoundland hospital was pressured to "request" an assisted death.

No one questions that Candice was very sick, but as Candice's mother told CBC news, the doctor pressured her to request physician-assisted death, Candice never asked for it.

In August 2019, Alan Nichols died by euthanasia, even after his family insisted that Alan was not competent to make this decision and that he was living with chronic depression.

In August 2017, a 5 year study sponsored by the Netherlands government showed significant increases in assisted deaths and continued abuse of the law.

In March 2018, we learned that the public prosecutor was investigating several controversial euthanasia deaths. The public prosecutor was also investigating a euthanasia group in the Netherlands after the death of a 19-year-old woman.

Margreet in the Netherlands was interviewed for the Fatal Flaws Film explaining how her mother died by euthanasia without request.

Then there is the case that Tom Mortier has brought to the European court of Human Rights, after the Belgian courts refused to hear it. The Belgian law appears to have been violated in the euthanasia death of Mortier's depressed mother. How many other euthanasia deaths have violated the law?

Euthanasia laws, whether or not they are called assisted death or Medical Aid in Dying, are designed to provide legal protection for the medical practitioner who is willing to kill another person.

The New Zealand End of Life Choices Act tightly protects medical or nurse practitioners who are given the right in law to kill while providing no effective oversight of the law.

Kiwi's will reject the End-of-Life Choices Act if they examine the experience with euthanasia in other jurisdictions.