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

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 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

Groundbreaking study links legal 'assisted dying' to an increase in suicide rates

Media Release - October 7, 2015

Some advocates claim that the legalisation of physician-assisted suicide (PAS), also known by the euphemisms 'assisted dying' and 'end of life choice', could lead to a reduction in total suicides and delay suicides that do occur. Until recently these claims had not been tested by research.

A groundbreaking study published in this week’s Southern Medical Journal counters these claims. The study examined the association between the legalisation of assisted suicide and state-level suicide rates in the United States between 1990 and 2013.

It concluded that the legalisation of physician-assisted suicide is associated with a 6.3% increase in total suicides (including assisted suicides) and not at all associated with a decrease in non-assisted suicides.

“This suggests either that PAS does not inhibit (nor acts as an alternative to) non-assisted suicide, or that it acts in this way in some individuals but is associated with an increased inclination to suicide in other individuals,” the researchers concluded.

In the New Zealand context a 6.3% increase in suicide rates would represent an additional 35 deaths, based on the 2014-2015 statistics.

“I’m not at all surprised by the study's findings”, says Renee Joubert, Executive Officer of Euthanasia-Free NZ. “Assisted suicide laws communicate the message that the deliberate ending of one’s life is an acceptable solution to life’s problems.”

“There is essentially no difference between suicide and ‘assisted dying’, apart from the number of people involved in the act. Suicide is a person ending their own life without help from anyone else. Assisted suicide, by definition, is a person ending their own life with the help of someone else. Both result in premature death. 

“The slogans employed to justify 'assisted dying' also apply to suicide. Suicidal people may also feel they are ‘suffering unbearably’ and without hope. They may also feel it’s ‘their body, their choice’ and that they want to ‘choose when to die’. They may also feel they are exercising their ‘right to die’. Indeed, rights apply to everyone, regardless of health status or age.

“'Assisted dying’ slogans are counter-productive to our quest to lower the suicide rate in New Zealand,” says Ms Joubert.

The Health Select Committee is currently investigating the legalisation of 'assisted dying' within the wider context of suicide. More information about how to make a submission is available at suicideinquiry.nz.

The 2015 HOPE International Symposium on Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide.

The Fourth International Symposium on Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide is hosted by HOPE Australia on May 22 - 23, 2015 at the Rydges Hotel South Park in Adelaide South Australia.

Register for the 2015 HOPE International Symposium.

The 2015 HOPE International Symposium is hosted by HOPE Australia, and co-sponsored by the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition - International, Euthanasia-Free New Zealand, the disability rights group - Lives Worth Living, and Doctors Opposed to Euthanasia.

Renee Joubert

The speakers include:

• Alex Schadenberg, Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition (EPC) and Chair, EPC - International,
• Paul Russell, Director, HOPE Australia and Vice Chair, EPC - International,
• Renee Joubert, Director, Euthanasia-Free New Zealand,
• Craig Wallace, Convenor, Lives Worth Living, a network of people with disabilities,
• Nic Steenhout, Director, Vivre dans la dignité Quebec.

• 

  Nic Steenhout

  Henk Reitsma, Board member, EPC - International and an expert on the Netherlands Euthanasia statistics.
• Tom Mortier, Chemistry professor in Belgium. His depresed mother died by euthanasia in 2012. 
• Professor Theo Boer, former member of a Dutch Euthanasia Regional Review Committee.
• Nancy Elliott, Board member, EPC - International and a past three term New Hampshire state representative.
• Sue Hanson, co-chair NSW Agency for Clinical Innovation - Palliative Care Network
• Dr Paul Dunne, a leading Palliative Care Medical Specialist in Australia.
• Brendan Malone, from New Zealand, is a dynamic speaker on youth, culture and media.

This is the first International Symposium hosted in the southern hemisphere by EPC - International. Previous symposia were held in Toronto, Washington, Vancouver, Edinburgh.

Register for the 2015 HOPE International Symposium.

Labour Party drops euthanasia bill (New Zealand)

Monday, December 15, 2014

Press Release: Euthanasia Free NZ

Euthanasia-Free NZ congratulates Labour leader Andrew Little and MP Iain Lees-Galloway for resisting sponsorship of the ex-Maryan Street voluntary euthanasia bill.

The End-of-Life Choice Bill proposes legal assisted suicide and euthanasia for anyone over 18 who has either a terminal condition which could end their life in 12 months, or an irreversible physical or mental medical condition that the person feels makes their life unbearable. It would effectively legalise euthanasia for anyone with a chronic physical or mental illness, disability, ageing-related condition or any condition for which a person refuses further treatment.

“

Renée Joubert

Public support for voluntary euthanasia is overestimated and based on unscientific online polls that ask an uninformed public to respond to leading questions couched in euphemisms”, says Renée Joubert, executive officer of Euthanasia-Free NZ. 

“Hence, many people confuse “assisted dying” (a euphemism) with switching off life support, withdrawing or refusing treatment and ‘do-not-resuscitate’ orders. However, euthanasia actually involves a doctor administering lethal drugs by injection in a way similar to overseas executions. Assisted suicide involves a person swallowing lethal drugs prescribed by their doctor.”

Assisted suicide 'a stepping stone'

This article was published on December 1 in New Zealand by Stuff media.

By Renee Joubert

I know first-hand how painful it is to watch a loved one deteriorate and die.

However, I feel frustrated by the emphasis the current assisted suicide debate puts on the terminally ill.

Rhetoric about how the terminally ill need assisted dying is only a way to manipulate our emotions and soften up society for the real agenda: legal assisted suicide for everyone. The pro-euthanasia lobby wants suicide to be regarded as normal, acceptable and rational. Their only objection is that "suicide is violent" - not that it's to be prevented and discouraged in principle. In fact, it should be facilitated for anyone who "wants to die".

Recently euthanasia advocate Philip Nitschke appealed his medical deregistration in response to his involvement in the suicide of a 45-year old depressed but healthy man. Nitschke's lawyer said in his opening address, the case was about "the dangerous idea [of] whether a person who is contemplating rational suicide ought to be required by a medical doctor not to do so".

He implied that if a person had a good reason to want to die, a doctor should not intervene.

Desmond Tutu confuses assisted dying with switching off life support.

This article was written by Renee Joubert, and published by Euthanasia Free New Zealand.

The “Falconer Assisted Dying Bill” will receive it’s second reading in the UK House of Lords on Thursday. It proposes legalising physician-assisted suicide for the terminally ill who has been given 6 months or less to live.

Bishop Desmond Tutu has allegedly voiced his support for “assisted dying”, with reference to the terminal illness of his friend Nelson Mandela, former president of South Africa, during 2013.

According to CNN (27 June 2013) and News 24 (4 July 2013), the 94-year-old Nelson Mandela was in a persistent vegetative state and on life support to help him breathe. Medical staff advised his family that the machines should be switched off. Mandela eventually died on 5 December 2013. It seems that the delay could have been caused, at least in part, by a family dispute.

Some subsequent news reports published elsewhere, such as this one by 3News, claimed only that Mandela had been suffering from a recurring lung infection and that he had been “receiving intensive care at home” since 1 September.

Interesting that Bishop Desmond Tutu now admits publicly that Mandela was indeed on life support and that “prolonging his life was an affront to his dignity”, according to an article on BBC.com.

“I think when you need machines to help you breathe, then you have to ask questions about the quality of life being experienced and about the way money is being spent.”