The severe
lack of safeguard
In this
badly written bill
Shows arrogant
disregard
For the
disabled and ill.
To ignore
the concerned voice,
To let one end
‘nother party,
He might've made end
of life choice
For the life
of his party.
The End of Life Choice Bill has not enough effective
safeguard to prevent or detect misdiagnoses and inaccurate prognoses, coercion and
manipulation, cost-cutting and greed.
The Bill allows eligibility for euthanasia and assisted suicide based on
one doctor giving diagnosis and prognosis, and one or two doctors verifying
competence, but no examination from the courts or police. The Bill cannot ensure that the doctors verifying
competence has access to diagnostic tests – it requires only a superficial
examination and paperwork. It is too
easy for the “eligible” person to be influenced (intentionally or not) or even
pushed to take that option, when there are so many gaps in the healthcare
system. The government is not even
funding certain drugs that are funded overseas.
It is not providing CBD to relieve suffering and some life-saving cancer
drugs. Decriminalising things may be a politician’s
popular decision, but is it helpful? What
can you choose? Assisted dying? More pain with less hope? Or rob a bank? Also, the “eligible” person can easily be
made to feel like a burden to their family and society. Look at our shocking elder abuse statistics
and disability discrimination.
I think the Bill needs to earnestly have
the strongest safeguards possible to ensure actual, not just theoretical, free
choice. At the very least, there
needs to be better support for the ill and disabled before enacting assisted
dying legislation. Also essential is additional
oversight from the courts and the police to prevent and detect coercion and
manipulation. In Montana, assisted dying has to go through the court. In
Switzerland, assisted suicide cases are attended to by police as usually
"open and close" cases. In the Netherlands, Belgium and Canada, the
safeguards have not been adequate.
Government must
address its own role in setting policies and practices before having national
conversations about the eligibility of disabled people for legislated assisted
dying. In the spirit of social
justice, our law needs to protect everyone including the vulnerable. Government should not build a road to death
for disabled people before removing roadblocks on the road to a full life.
We should ensure access
to good palliative care for everyone needing it. No person with terminal illness or grievous
irremediable medical condition in a developed country like New Zealand should be
in so much suffering that he/she chooses death over living. When seriously ill patients receive good
palliative care, they rarely want to end their lives. The truly compassionate response is to ensure that everyone has access to the best physical, emotional, social and spiritual care they need, when they need it. We should show that they matter, they are not a burden and we care about them, so that even those with no hope of recovery have the hope of loving and being loved. ‘Assisted dying’ cannot address the non-physical reasons behind such requests.
Government should
legalise and allow access to non-psychoactive medicinal cannabis for people in
chronic pain that cannot be effectively addressed by other pain relief. Many people suffering from chronic pain also
have terminal illnesses and/or grievous irremediable medical conditions. It would be cruel to offer them ‘assisted
dying’ but not allow them to live with higher quality of life and less pain.
Mental health
services need to be improved to address the issue of high rate of suicides and
suicide attempts, including those of ill and disabled people. All suicides are tragedies, whatever the
method and rationale. We need to be
consistent in valuing human life as a civilised society. Government departments
like MOH and MSD could work with non-profit organisations in suicide prevention
and in providing social and spiritual care.
The safe way of
honouring the right to die is to ensure that do-not-resuscitate orders and
refusal of treatment, nutrition and hydration by the patients are honoured. Government could make advanced directives
legally binding, ensure patients have appropriate information on their rights,
and impose significant penalty for artificially keeping patients alive against
their clearly expressed will. More
efforts could be made to prevent healthcare facilities from profiting from artificially
keeping patients alive against their will. We already have the right to die (just not to
choose when and how), so we should not be in a hurry to legalise assisted dying
and, at the same time, sacrifice the safety of the vulnerable.
We should wait for
most of the developed world to demonstrate with compelling evidence a safe way
of allowing assisted dying before we consider legalising it. Any law change that will lead to death must be
carefully investigated. An assisted
dying law is safe only if nobody dies by it under external pressure or
influences. Those who are eligible for assisted
dying ending up dead is not an indication of safety. Granting a tiny and vocal minority the choice
to be killed will undermine the choice of many others to live.
I oppose the Bill because choices are not
made in a vacuum, and there are too many appalling risks. in a time of fiscal austerity, and with an
aging population, with a high suicide rate, and discrimination against disabled
people continuing a problem, we ought not to offer killing (even at one’s own
request) as an acceptable medical alternative. Pressure upon elderly people to get out of the
way, more expensive palliative care being elided in favour of death, and
disabled people’s safety at risk; all of these things become more likely if assisted
dying becomes legal without adequate safeguard.