Category Archives: Euthanasia

Just days before the End of Life Choice Bill is read a third time in Parliament, one doctor told TVNZ1's Breakfast this morning there is no place for euthanasia in New Zealand.

Dr Sinead Donnelly is one of 1500 doctors who has signed an open letter to Parliament, which opposes the End of Life Choice Bill.

"In my view and in our view of the 1500 doctors there is no place for a doctor intentionally ending the life of another person. Our duty is to care, to serve and to advocate for people," Dr Donnelly said.

She said the view is not just isolated to New Zealand.

"We stand with the World Medical Association that actually represents 114 countries and nine million physicians who say it's not the role of a doctor to end someone's life.

"I truly believe that we can care for people who are suffering and facing death very well and can improve all the time."

While she is against doctors taking up the role of ending someone's life, she said someone else could be trained up to do it, but she's opposed to that idea.

"It's very sad for me to even think of that but I can imagine it would be possible."

Read more here:

'No place' for euthanasia in NZ, doctor says as End of Life Choice bill's third reading looms - TVNZ

OPINION: This is personal, so please bare with me.

The euthanasia bill is likely to be passed tonight because Winston Peters and David Seymour got together in a room and nutted out a compromise.

We will have the final say in a public referendum. Seymour didn't want it - but had to accept it.

Constructive, decent, and if that is what it takes to give Kiwis a choice at the end of our lives, then so be it.

Now the personal bit. My patient, loyal Mum nursed my dad through his terminal cancer.

I helped, but nothing like what she did. I was too sad, too upset, too much in denial to be useful on a daily basis.

He died in a hospice after ringing the ambulance to take him on his last ride.

We didn't know it would be his last time at home. We were buggered, and so was he.

Four days later he died. He was uncomfortable, restless, in pain and bewildered, but he was proud.

I was still trying to hold his hand as I lay on his hospice bed at 4 in the morning. Little did I know he had slipped away a couple of hours earlier.

Here's the thing - I actually wouldn't have chosen euthanasia back then.

However, had he gone through weeks and weeks of that, we may have looked at it had it been on offer.

Choice is right. Well done David and Winston.

Duncan Garner is host of The AM Show

Read the rest here:

Duncan Garner: Well done Winston Peters and David Seymour on euthanasia - Newshub

The World Medical Association has reaffirmed its long-standing policy of opposition to euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide.

After an intensive process of consultation with physicians and non physicians around the world, the WMA at its annual Assembly in Tbilisi, Georgia, adopted a revised Declaration on Euthanasia and Physician-Assisted Suicide.

This states: The WMA reiterates its strong commitment to the principles of medical ethics and that utmost respect has to be maintained for human life. Therefore, the WMA is firmly opposed to euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide.

It adds: No physician should be forced to participate in euthanasia or assisted suicide, nor should any physician be obliged to make referral decisions to this end.

The Declaration says: Separately, the physician who respects the basic right of the patient to decline medical treatment does not act unethically in forgoing or withholding unwanted care, even if respecting such a wish results in the death of the patient.

The revised Declaration defines euthanasia as a physician deliberately administering a lethal substance or carrying out an intervention to cause the death of a patient with decision-making capacity at the patients own voluntary request.

It says that physician-assisted suicide refers to cases in which, at the voluntary request of a patient with decision-making capacity, a physician deliberately enables a patient to end his or her own life by prescribing or providing medical substances with the intent to bring about death.

WMA Chair Dr. Frank Ulrich Montgomery said: Having held consultative conferences involving every continent in the world, we believe that this revised wording is in accord with the views of most physicians worldwide.

Read more:

World Medical Association reaffirms opposition to euthanasia and assisted suicide - MercoPress

The third and final reading of the End of Life Choice Bill has been passed in Parliament by 69 votes to 51.

Protesters against the Euthanasia Bill gather outside Parliament. Photo: RNZ / Dom Thomas

The member's bill, in the name of ACT leader David Seymour, allows terminally ill adults to request a medically-assisted death.

It cleared its second reading 70 votes to 50 in June and easily passed tonight after impassioned debate.

However, it will still take a majority referendum result at next year's General Election before the legislation can be enacted.

There were passionate speeches both for and against the bill and holding a referendum.

Of those opposed, National MP Chris Penk warned against the bill going to a public poll.

"Is it responsible for us as lawmakers to hand a loaded gun to fellow New Zealanders and say 'don't worry I have applied the safety catch?', knowing very well that for many New Zealanders the only words of the bill they will ever read before such a referendum will be the title of the bill," he said.

Mr Penk told the house polling showed 70 percent of the public, believed the bill concerns itself with orders not to resuscitate, which are already legal.

He added 74 percent thought to switch off life support is within the remit of the bill.

But New Zealand First MP Tracey Martin defended the bill going to a referendum.

"Because it is such an unusual topic of such a momentous decision for New Zealand we agree that it is right and proper our consciences, which I hear the words of others who talk about the tyranny of the majority, surely this would be the dictatorship of the minority."

Ms Martin told the house the New Zealand public voted MPs to Parliament on party manifestos rather than their individual consciences.

On the front lawn of Parliament this afternoon a protest group of a few hundred people brandished signs opposing the legislation - "caring not killing", and referring to the Bill's "weak safeguards".

Protesters against the Euthanasia Bill gather outside Parliament. Photo: RNZ / Dom Thomas

Labour list MP Jamie Strange told the crowd MPs from across the House would support them in their opposition.

National's Alfred Ngaro, a list MP, told them the Bill was going ahead despite the direct opposition of thousands of New Zealanders, including some in the medical community - "still, here we are today".

He encouraged them to "keep the faith because there are those who believe that this is wrong".

National MP Dr Shane Reti had asked the House, as a medical practitioner and a Mori, to vote against the end of Life Choice Bill.

Shane Reti had said the bill would change the very fabric of the doctor-patient relationship.

Before the vote, Mr Seymour had said he was "quietly confident" the Bill would pass, but would continue working for votes up to the last minute.

"We've had the arguments - I don't think anyone will ever be able to say that Parliament didn't properly scrutinise this bill," he said.

"It's been nearly two years since the parliamentary process started. And over that time we've kicked around every conceivable argument for and against the bill."

Original post:

Final euthanasia bill reading begins in Parliament - RNZ

Quickfire: Inside Parliamentputs politicians from different sides of the House together, asking for their views about the biggest current news stories.

1 NEWS Now's Anna Whyte put the questions to National Party's Mark Mitchell and Labour's Meka Whaitiri.

One of the new Warriors' jersey for the 2020 NRL season has come under fire are you a fan?

Is there anything you dabbled with or tried before health issues came up later?

Green MP Chloe Swarbrick said OK boomer in the House recently, whats the funniest/weirdest comment youve been called in the House (or called someone else)?.

A major overhaul of New Zealands school system is on the way, resetting the governance, management and administration of the way schools are run. Prior to this, do you think school boards had too much power?

The Government are asking the public their view on human rights versus community safety when it comes to Firearm Prohibition Orders what do you think?

Is violence against women a major problem in New Zealand?

Will the new partySustainable NZcross the 5 per cent threshold line?

Watch the answers in the video above.

Previous Quickfire episodes:

Your playlist will load after this ad

We ask MPs for their views about the biggest current news stories. Source: 1 NEWS

Your playlist will load after this ad

Labours Andrew Little and Nationals Christopher Bishop discuss the biggest news stories. Source: 1 NEWS

Your playlist will load after this ad

This week we put the questions to National Party's Chris Penk and Labour MP Ginny Andersen. Source: 1 NEWS

Your playlist will load after this ad

We ask the MPs about the biggest news stories of the week. Source: 1 NEWS

Read the original:

Quickfire: MPs give their view on vaping, euthanasia and recycling labels - TVNZ

A political communications analyst says voters may be overwhelmed by the prospect of two referendums and a general election at the same time next year.

As well as deciding the make-up of the next government, voters will be asked to say whether recreational cannabis use should be legalised and - after yesterday's vote in Parliament - whether voluntary euthanasia should be legal.

Claire Robinson, a political communications analyst at Massey University, said there is a risk that the campaigning on such contentious issues could swamp people.

She said voters find it difficult enough to pay attention to a general election let alone to make decisions on two major issues at the same time.

"I suspect the news media will focus a lot more on the referendum questions because they are actually really interesting and are potentially going to change New Zealand significantly after the referendums."

However, Professor Robinson said it is possible voters may pay more attention to the decision they make instead of the election vote, which could be overshadowed.

Your playlist will load after this ad

Kiwis may soon be able to grow the plant legally in their own backyards. Source: 1 NEWS

"Normally people will vote on habit, if you have always voted for the Labour Party or the National Party or whoever, then it is easy enough just to follow that pattern, but with these two issues there is not many signals you can fall back on.

"People will actually stop and pay attention to the information that they get."

She said whether the information is good or not is another matter.

"There is no guarantee of the quality of the information that they receive and I think voters will look to reputable providers like the news media, which will be providing good balanced information on both sides."

Some of Professor Robinson's team at Massey University is putting together an online tool to help people make good decisions around the cannabis referendum.

"I'm not sure what is going to be out there on the End of Life Choice.

"David Seymour said ordinary New Zealanders' life experiences is simply enough to make them informed, I'm not sure that that necessarily is going to equate to informing people sufficiently on how to vote."

Professor Robinson said turnout is likely to be higher due to the referendums sparking more interest.

"It's a good idea to combine them. The trouble is it is just such a lot of information for people to have to absorb."

She said if there were done at a different time, then turnout would be lower, probably round about a 40-per cent turnout.

Continued here:

Voters may be overwhelmed by cannabis, euthanasia referendums at election - analyst - TVNZ

A group of US-based researchers have published a detailed review of Dutch cases of euthanasia for patients with dementia. Their findings show that euthanasia doctors in many cases read in what they think an incapacitated patient would say about receiving assistance in dying.

The study was published in August in the American Journal of Gereatric Psychiatry and reviewed 75 case reports submitted to the Dutch euthanasia review committees between 2011 and 2018. 59 of the cases involved a concurrent request for euthanasia and 16 were based on an advanced care directive.

Concerning the concurrent requests, the study authors state that in some of these cases, the patients past conversations were used to confirm competence to request [euthanasia/assisted suicide]. That is, the validity of a patients decision was determined with reference to past statements rather than standard competency tests.

The authors provide an example from a 2014 case report where the physician stated:

[the] patient was not competent at [the time of her evaluation] but she had been until recently. Her desire for euthanasia had been so consistent lately that the reduced competence should not be a stumbling block....

The Dutch regional euthanasia review committees appear to condone this approach, having stated that patients can be competent even when they are unable to present supporting arguments for their request.

The study authors, however, claim that this approach could be problematic as it is based on the potentially confusing process of trying to verify and interpret a patients past statements about euthanasia. It also runs afoul of the idea of informed consent, asvalid consent had not been obtained from many of the patients who were euthanised.

The study authors, furthermore,found significant problems with euthanasia advance care directives. The authors write that advance euthanasia directives often included trigger criteria that could make their implementation difficult, such as losing her dignity.

Furthermore, even when a clearer trigger criterion (e.g., admission to a nursing home) is met, advance euthanasia directives only speak to the voluntary and well-considered criterion and the physicians must still assess the patient is experiencing unbearable suffering. Indeed, the euthanasia review committees have stated that admission to a nursing home is insufficient to meet the unbearable suffering criterion in Dutch euthanasia law.

Xavier Symons is deputy editor of BioEdge

View original post here:

Researchers cast spotlight on euthanasia for dementia in the Netherlands - BioEdge

The World Medical Association (WMA) has reaffirmed its long-standing policy of opposition to euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide.

After an intensive process of consultation with physicians and non physicians around the world, the WMA at its annual Assembly in Tbilisi, Georgia, adopted a revised Declaration on Euthanasia and Physician-Assisted Suicide.

This states: "The WMA reiterates its strong commitment to the principles of medical ethics and that utmost respect has to be maintained for human life. Therefore, the WMA is firmly opposed to euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide."

It adds: "No physician should be forced to participate in euthanasia or assisted suicide, nor should any physician be obliged to make referral decisions to this end.

"Separately, the physician who respects the basic right of the patient to decline medical treatment does not act unethically in forgoing or withholding unwanted care, even if respecting such a wish results in the death of the patient."

The revised Declaration defines euthanasia as "a physician deliberately administering a lethal substance or carrying out an intervention to cause the death of a patient with decision-making capacity at the patients own voluntary request."

It says that physician-assisted suicide "refers to cases in which, at the voluntary request of a patient with decision-making capacity, a physician deliberately enables a patient to end his or her own life by prescribing or providing medical substances with the intent to bring about death."

WMA Chair Dr. Frank Ulrich Montgomery said: Having held consultative conferences involving every continent in the world, we believe that this revised wording is in accord with the views of most physicians worldwide."

* World Medical Associationhttps://www.wma.net/

[Ekk/6]

More here:

World Medical Association reaffirms opposition to euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide - Ekklesia

By Peter Wilson*

Analysis: MPs vote to hold a referendum on voluntary euthanasia, the government strikes a deal with farmers and the Greens change their minds on counter-terrorism legislation.

Politicians in the news this week included clockwise from top left: Louisa Wall, Mark Patterson, Andrew Little and Scott Simpson. Photo: RNZ

MPs voted 63-57 on Wednesday to hold a referendum on David Seymour's End of Life Choice Bill after NZ First left them with no choice but to hand the decision to the voters.

The voluntary euthanasia bill still has to pass its third reading, and if it does, the referendum on whether it should become law will be held at the same time as next year's general election.

It will almost certainly get through. The bill had solid majorities on its first and second readings - 76-44 and 70-50 - and is now assured of NZ First's backing.

During Wednesday's debate NZ First's Mark Patterson laid his party's position on the line - all nine MPs would vote against the bill at its third reading unless Parliament agreed to put it to a referendum.

Many of the bill's supporters opposed a referendum but felt they couldn't risk it being defeated if they ignored NZ First's ultimatum. One was Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern, who said on Monday she would consider supporting a referendum if that was the only way to get the bill through. On Wednesday she voted in favour.

Labour MP Willie Jackson agonised over it and finally decided: "I don't want to be the one vote that stops it all".

Labour MP Willie Jackson voted in favour of the End of Life Choice Bill at its second reading in Parliament. Photo: RNZ / DOM THOMAS

His caucus colleague, Louisa Wall, couldn't bring herself to vote for a referendum. "My principles will not let me vote for a referendum - even if it means the bill fails," she said.

Mr Patterson explained his party's stance as "a matter of absolute principle". It was a familiar tactic from NZ First, which also insisted on holding a referendum on the legalisation of cannabis.

It means voters will be faced with two referenda on election day next year as well as having to choose the government.

The Dominion Post sees that as a problem. "This is a crowded menu of hotly disputed moral and social issues," the paper said in an editorial today. "The danger for the government is that its attempts to explain a first term that has so far failed to dazzle the wider voting public will be drowned out by conservative lobbyists and single-issue interest groups, as well as a National opposition embracing a populist mode and an NZ First that will be desperate to amplify differences between itself and Labour."

The government announced yesterday it had struck a deal with farmers that means they have until 2025 to work out a pricing mechanism for greenhouse gas emissions. They will work with the government on that, as well as on finding ways to reduce on-farm emissions.

Environmentalists accused ministers of giving in to the farming lobby, and the agreement is well short of Labour's pre-election pledge to bring agriculture into the Emissions Trading Scheme.

If the pricing mechanism can be successfully worked out, separate from the ETS, the farmers won't have to go into the scheme at all.

But there is a stick as well as a carrot in the government's approach. If they don't do enough to reduce emissions they could be pulled into the ETS in 2022. The government doesn't want to do that and it's unlikely to happen, but the message is clear - there's no time to waste.

Ms Ardern sold the deal as a win-win "historic consensus" and NZ First leader Winston Peters said his party had listened to the farmers. So far, he hasn't claimed all the credit.

All 11 agricultural sector groups support the agreement and it has important implications for the government's re-election chances. National had been getting ready to grab rural votes on the back of farmer discontent with the government's climate change policies, and that has been swept away.

The opposition didn't seem to know how it should react. It couldn't attack the government for reaching an agreement favoured by farmers and it couldn't say the terms were unfair. So it has decided to wait and see the fine print in the legislation that will be brought to Parliament before deciding what to do about it.

Climate change spokesperson Scott Simpson said the government had kicked for touch, but he was pleased to see it was finally beginning to deal with farmers instead of dealing to farmers.

The bill will set out the timeline and carry a provision that farmers will be taxed on their emissions if the 2025 deadline for a pricing mechanism isn't achieved.

Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern is hailing the government's deal with farmers as a "historic consensus" while National is biding its time until it sees the fine print of the legislation. Photo: RNZ / Dom Thomas

Another deal struck this week ended Justice Minister Andrew Little's dependence on National to get his counter-terrorism bill through Parliament, which he hadn't liked at all.

The Greens had said they would vote against it and National was demanding changes in return for its support - Mr Little said he was being "dicked around" by the opposition.

So he negotiated with the Greens and gained their backing in return for assurances that human rights would be recognised in the way the bill's measures were implemented.

The bill strengthens police powers to deal with returning foreign fighters, and National believes it doesn't go far enough.

The last-minute deal with the Greens gave Mr Little the numbers he needed and the bill passed its first reading 64-52.

*Peter Wilson is a life member of Parliament's press gallery, 22 years as NZPA's political editor and seven as parliamentary bureau chief for NZ Newswire.

Link:

Week in politics: Voters will get the final say on voluntary euthanasia - RNZ

The Minister of Justice has plans in place to combat misinformation and manipulation in any campaigns leading up to, potentially, two divisive referendums at next year's election.

Justice Minister Andrew Little Photo: RNZ / Rebekah Parsons-King

That includes a special team within the Ministry of Justice to direct people to information aimed to be as accurate and neutral as possible, and to be on the look-out for any attempts to deliberately mislead the public.

It's the first time core public servants have taken on this role, and they'll have to walk a tightrope between providing credible public information and getting drawn into any partisan debates.

Voters will not only have to choose the government come 2020, but will also have their say on legalising recreational cannabis, and potentially, voluntary euthanasia.

The latter still has to pass its final reading on 13 November. If it does the referendum will be held.

Minister of Justice Andrew Little said the Electoral Commission would look after the nuts and bolts of running the referendums, whereas the justice team would manage the public information, websites, and respond to public queries.

The team would also have a monitoring role, he said.

"That if someone claims to have a highly authoritative piece of research - it is that, not some sort of highly partisan, highly sceptical or dubious piece of information," Mr Little said.

The Electoral Commission would also keep watch so people did not go "so far wide of the mark" that it crossed over into "misinformation".

The debate was prone to "fairly emotional and irrational responses" but should focus on "real facts, real issues" and in the end the electorate would make its choice, Mr Little said.

Officials operate under strict public sector rules that require them to be politically neutral and non-partisan.

Nick Smith. Photo: RNZ / Alexander Robertson

National MP Nick Smith questioned the ability of justice officials to be able to stay within those rules, saying for the most part the government wanted voluntary euthanasia to become law.

"It's really inappropriate for the justice ministry to have this role ... when the Cabinet manual and the State Services Commission is very clear they are there to follow the instructions of the minister and deliver government policy."

Mr Little acknowledged it would be "a very difficult balancing act" for public servants to avoid being seen as pushing one side or the other or being drawn into the debate.

"I think they are very alert to that, I think we have a very good culture in our state sector ... those in this unit in justice providing this oversight are totally aware of how they may be drawn in to answering questions and queries - I'm totally confident they will discharge their public service responsibilities with great care," he said.

The sponsor of the End of Life Choice Bill, ACT leader David Seymour, put his trust in the "wisdom of crowds" to identify misinformation or manipulation when they saw it.

"A massive information campaign, or should I say misinformation campaign, has failed to shift public opinion."

Part of that was many people based their views on personal experience, said Mr Seymour.

"They've seen bad death, and they've said 'when my time comes that's not for me, I want choice' ... it's very difficult to overturn people's heartfelt feelings with Facebook advertising."

Vocal opponent and National MP Maggie Barry said she was still hopeful the Bill would fail its third reading, as many MPs still held concerns about the lack of safeguards.

If the referendum did go ahead, she and others with similar views would continue to point out what they saw as the "dangers of the Bill and its flaws" so people could make an informed decision.

She hoped any election year debate would be conducted in a "civilised way".

An MP's job was to stand up for what they believed, but also to act with sensitivity, Ms Barry said.

"And I don't think either side has exactly covered itself with glory, upon occasion, but that said it's important everyone realises how important this issue is and we get a formula whereby the public can have as thorough as view of this legislation as possible."

But Dr Smith said the name of the legislation was in itself a form of misinformation.

"The 'End of Life' phrase makes it more acceptable to pass ... 'choice' has got a nice, fuzzy feel about it but if you talk about, actually, providing injections of poisons to kill people, you get a very different response."

Mr Little said government websites would feature what he described as "independently prepared information relevant to the issues".

Part of the advertising and marketing campaign would be directing people to those sites.

The government would be "looking out carefully" for signs social media or other platforms were being used to mislead people as had happened in political campaigns overseas, Mr Little said.

"There will be some things claimed in each case that will be highly questionable and and it's a question that in the course of the debate that stuff gets called out, and we do our best to keep the debate clean."

Visit link:

Plans to combat misinformation in election-year referendum debates - RNZ