The inevitable has happened, with the ACT Party and other pro-euthanasia/assisted suicide proponents calling for the expansion of the system. Euthanasia has been legal for barely three years, and over 1200 Kiwis have ended their lives, and already proponents want more.
Three plus years ago, we were told by euthanasia proponents that there was no slippery slope or push to expand, and that few New Zealanders would take it up. 1200 deaths later, and a push for a new members’ bill in the name of ACT MP Todd Stephenson tells us a very different story.
We were also told that the system would be safe. It is not. As I write, we know of a tragic case where a non-English speaking woman with dementia was euthanised, despite no translator being present. There is also at least one euthanasia case now before the police.
Those put in charge of reviewing euthanasia cases noted that forms were poorly filled out, and that what doctors were saying about their patients did not match what was written on the forms. These reviewers also questioned the lack of information provided to them, and ultimately, as these reviewers asked more questions – and became whistleblowers – they had their roles cancelled (ironically, by the author of the End of Life Choice Act and now government minister, David Seymour).
We also know that Health New Zealand cannot even give New Zealanders accurate numbers of deaths. Its reports frequently get numbers wrong: in one instance, missing nearly half the number of people who died in one quarter.
All this to say, the current system is not working well and mistakes are happening.
We also know that very few doctors and nurse practitioners want to be part of the service. Around 120 are involved, from a pool of 20,000. The response by euthanasia proponents and Todd Stephenson is to remove conscience rights of doctors and nurses to object. You have read that right – a law based on autonomy wants to remove autonomy from medical professionals. The same is true for hospices, with the proposed amendment wanting to force their facilities to allow euthanasia, even though it is the antithesis of palliative care. Autonomy for some, coercion for others!
We also have recent research from Auckland University that noted the main reason people seek euthanasia is fear of losing control of their lives. While clearly underlying health issues, it was people’s fear of future suffering and death that drove the requests. This was further emphasised by the doctors who noted that the ‘unbearable suffering’ criteria is totally subjective.
The same research also, distressingly, highlighted the experience of one doctor being surprised when a patient did not die quickly and instead gagged, choked, and struggled to breathe after orally ingesting lethal drugs.
Despite the rhetoric of a peaceful death, it is not always the case. Just like the reporting mistakes, the inability to objectively identify suffering, and the already simple processes being ignored, Todd Stephenson and others are pushing for an expansion.
They point to Canada, and yet this country’s approach to euthanasia should be a warning. Euthanasia in Canada is now the fifth leading cause of death, alongside the likes of cerebrovascular diseases (think the likes of strokes) and chronic lower respiratory diseases (think the likes of emphysema and chronic bronchitis). One in 20, or five per cent, of Canadians now die by euthanasia. Euthanasia was billed as something rare, and proponents continue to provide the ‘next hard case’, but it is clear it expands and expands. Sticking with Canada, they have even changed the law to allow mental illnesses (though it is yet to take effect) and are discussing euthanising babies and children.
A final observation. Proponents of euthanasia continue to couch their language in terms of compassion and love. Let’s be clear, euthanasia and assisted suicide have nothing to do with ‘compassion’ or love. Quite the opposite. Compassion literally means to suffer with: it does not mean to eliminate the sufferer (which ironically, is more often those watching a loved one die, not the loved one). And love seeks to provide hope and care, not removal.
This article was originally published by Family First New Zealand.
