Nathaniel Centre briefs for parishes on End of Life Choice Act referendum
Be informed about the End of Life Choice Act Referendum:
The Catholic bishops' Nathaniel Centre for Bioethics has provided a series of weekly briefs for parish newsletters about the End of Life Choice Act Referendum, one of two referendums being held alongside the October 17 General Election.
The fourth brief was produced for newsletters dated Sunday 4 October. It says:
• The Act only requires a doctor to “do their best to ensure that the person expresses their wish free from pressure.” However, the Act fails to outline how this happens. Doctors are not trained to detect coercion and are further limited in their ability to detect coercion because, unlike the Netherlands, they cannot interview others without the patient’s permission.
• Requests for an assisted death are often motivated by depression, something that is also extremely difficult to detect. There is no mandatory screening for depression in the Act.
• In the Netherlands and Belgium, disabled people and people who are mentally ill were not initially eligible. However, assisted death is now offered to people with mental illnesses and dementia, and to disabled people. The same changes will likely happen here.
The EOLC Act is badly drafted and seriously flawed. Whatever one’s views about the idea of euthanasia, it is not ‘compassion’ to vote for a dangerous law.
The third brief was produced for newsletters dated Sunday 27 September:
It says:
• Approximately 10 per cent of our elders are the victims of abuse, mostly from their own families. Elder abuse continues to rise in New Zealand. Our elder abuse laws are not able to protect our elders. It is naive to expect that the End of Life Choice Act can keep people safe. Medical groups have stated that it will be impossible for doctors to detect if people are being pressured or coerced, whether by others or by their own feelings of being a burden.
• The End of Life Choice Act is broader than similar laws passed overseas. Key medical groups, including the New Zealand Medical Association, Hospice New Zealand, Palliative Care Nurses and Palliative Medicine Doctors all oppose the EOLC Act as unsafe.
The EOLC Act is badly drafted and seriously flawed. Whatever one’s views about the idea of euthanasia, it is not ‘compassion’ to vote for a dangerous law.
The second brief was produced for newsletters dated Sunday 20 September.
It says:
• The End of Life Choice Act provides access to an assisted death for those with less than six months to live. Yet any prognosis, especially as long as six months, is a guess. Overseas research shows that the choice of euthanasia is not driven by pain but by a range of personal reasons, including the fear of being a burden to their families or society.
• The End of Life Choice Act has no mandatory stand-down or cooling off period (as in other countries) - under the End of Life Choice Act, a person could be dead less than four days after diagnosis, and be under no obligation to inform their families or carers of their decision. The process does not even require the presence of an independent witness.
The EOLC Act is badly drafted and seriously flawed. Whatever one’s views about the idea of euthanasia, it is not ‘compassion’ to vote for a dangerous law.
The first brief was produced for newsletters dated Sunday, 13 September.
It says:
• The End of Life Choice Act is not an option of ‘last resort’. It will not just apply to the ‘exceptionally difficult cases’. It does not require that a person first make use of available treatments or counselling, nor that they first receive palliative care. A person does not need to be in physical pain.
• If euthanasia becomes legal in NZ, people will access it because they think they lack other choices. Even though quality palliative care is effective, there is no corresponding legal right to access palliative care. Under current law, people can already say ‘no’ to treatments and can receive whatever level of pain relief they need. These days, no-one need die in pain.
The EOLC Act is badly drafted and seriously flawed. Whatever one’s views about the idea of euthanasia, it is not ‘compassion’ to vote for a dangerous law.
See www.riskylaw.nz or www.votesafe.nz or https://carealliance.org.nz or www.nathaniel.org.nz
Authorised by John Kleinsman, 15 Guildford Terrace, Thorndon, Wellington