If approved by a majority of voters in the coming Referendum, the End of Life Choice Act will allow eligible terminally ill people to request ‘assisted dying’, either by a doctor or nurse practitioner directly administering lethal drugs (euthanasia) or by a doctor or nurse practitioner setting them up with lethal drugs to take themselves (assisted suicide).
Many New Zealanders like the idea of euthanasia as an option for those terminally ill, and assume the End of Life Choice Act must be okay. They have thoughts like ‘I wouldn’t want to die in unbearable pain. I would like the option to die, in dignity, at the time of my own choice. It’s my own life.’ Or that euthanasia is compassionate, because they feel it could prevent suffering. Or that ‘We do it for our cats and dogs. Why not for human beings?’ These thoughts make it easier to accept the politicians’ claims that similar euthanasia legislation has ‘worked well overseas’, and that the End of Life Choice Act contains ‘rigorous safeguards’.
But here’s a dozen very serious reasons why the End of Life Choice Act is so wrong and dangerous for New Zealand, and why we need to vote AGAINST it.
Legally and practically, New Zealanders already have a ‘right to die’. Nobody is forced to have their lives unnecessarily prolonged. People may freely decline tests, treatment, or surgery. Doctors do not continue treatment or keep life-support going, when there is no hope of recovery. People may sign a ‘Do not resuscitate’ order, and state their wishes for end-of-life care in an Advance Directive. We already have a right to as much pain relief as needed (even if this has a double effect of shortening our lives).
In reality, very few people die in unbearable pain. Many die peacefully, or in their sleep, or having become unconscious. Modern palliative care can control most pain.
Those final days are important. The last week or so of someone dying with a terminal illness can often be a time when both patient and family come to peace with the impending death and bereavement, and is a factor in healthy grieving. Euthanasia interrupts the natural ‘letting go’.
New Zealanders need to realise the chilling long-term risks: we are very unwise to allow anyone (including doctors and nurse practitioners) to legally kill someone else, or to actively help them commit suicide. That is a highly dangerous line for society to cross. It is at our peril that we allow another form of killing to be introduced. It is not just that killing people is regarded by most people as ethically or culturally abhorrent, it is also a matter of safe-guarding the long-term public safety of our society.
It makes no sense at all for society to deplore high rates of suicide, and then to legalise medically-assisted suicide. The legalisation of medical suicide will give another reason for vulnerable people to feel suicide is an acceptable option.
Similar euthanasia legislation overseas has NOT worked well: it has led to a steady increase in inappropriate and wrongful deaths.
The End of Life Choice Act does NOT have rigorous safeguards, and in particular does not protect against coercion. It is loose and poorly-drafted legislation, and would be one of the most liberal euthanasia laws in the world. Many obvious safeguards are missing…
● Above all, there is no effective protection against people being subtly influenced by others into requesting euthanasia. Many older people are very anxious about not ‘becoming a burden’ for loved ones. They may feel obliged to sign a request for euthanasia when it is mentioned as an option by a medical professional (the Act only restricts doctors making the suggestion during appointments), or when hinted at by family eager to receive their inheritance before it is all spent on care, or when euthanasia becomes much more common. ● There is no requirement that euthanasia be a last resort, after treatment has failed. ● There is no requirement that someone first sees a palliative care specialist. ● There is no requirement that one of the doctors actually knows the patient. ● There is no mandatory psychological assessment, for instance for depression. ● There is no mandatory cooling-off period. ● There is no provision for an independent witness at any part of the process. ● There is no requirement for anyone to consult or tell their parents or children. ● There is inadequate protection for those medical staff for who object to euthanasia on ethical and conscience grounds. ● The reporting required is inadequate
Medical diagnoses and prognoses can often be wrong. People with terminal illnesses can live much longer than expected, or recover. Under this law, some will die who would otherwise have survived.
The majority of doctors are strongly against euthanasia: they see it as contrary to their commitment to healing and caring for patients, and want nothing to do with it. Many are also worried that euthanasia will undermine proper funding for palliative care, and that it will erode patient trust. The New Zealand Medical Association is very opposed to euthanasia.
The inevitable expansion of this new ‘human right’.Once society crosses the key threshold of allowing doctors (on request) to actively kill people with terminal illness, within a few years Parliament will inevitably start extending this ‘right’ to other ‘unbearable’ conditions, such as disability, mental illness, depression, chronic illness, dementia, and old-age frailty. That is exactly what has happened in most overseas jurisdictions that have allowed ‘assisted dying’. Because of that, many disabled people feel very deeply concerned about the End of Life Choice Act.
The inevitable increase of involuntary euthanasia. Once voluntary euthanasia becomes legal and common, instances of involuntary euthanasia will likewise steadily increase. The climate of thought will steadily change, and some doctors will begin quietly euthanising patients who they decide have no ‘quality of life’, and who are taking up costly space in hospitals or care facilities. They will rationalise this as compassion, and as responsible stewarding of public resources. This too has happened in a number of countries, which began with ‘assisted dying’ as in this Act.
As euthanasia becomes normalised, society’s disadvantaged and vulnerable people are those most likely to be euthanised, in increasing numbers. Poor and vulnerable people have less access to financial reserves, to expensive treatments, and to first-rate palliative care, and may feel they have fewer options.
A statement by the New Zealand Christian Network, September 2020
The New Zealand Parliament legalised euthanasia this week by 69 votes to 51, pending the outcome of a referendum next year. On paper, The End of Life Choice Act 2017 looks restrictive. Its architect, libertarian MP David Seymour, claims it permits “one of the most conservative assisted dying regimes in the world.”
Opponents say it is full of loopholes, which would make it like every other piece of euthanasia legislation in the world. Indications are that, once such a law is in place, nobody much cares about how it is working.
As National MP Chris Penk said at the final debate: “The question is not whether some people will die in the way the bill allows, but whether many people could die in a way that the law does not allow.” That is what has happened in the Netherlands and Belgium.
Hospices won’t be exempt
The Act allows assisted suicide by a lethal dose of drugs, either self-administered or administered by a doctor or a nurse practitioner. This option would be available to New Zealand citizens or permanent residents aged 18 and over who have been diagnosed as terminally ill and having less than six months to live.
Originally, the Act also covered people with “grievous and irremediable” conditions, which could apply to depressed and disabled persons, but this was dropped by Seymour to garner more support from MPs.
Conscience protection for doctors and nurses was added. They are not obliged to participate in any part of the assisted dying process or suffer any penalties for opting out. However, an attending practitioner with a conscientious objection must tell a patient that they have a right to ask the group administering the scheme for the name and contact details of a replacement doctor or nurse.
An amendment drafted in consultation with Hospice New Zealand that would allow organisations to opt out without risking losing public funding was voted down.
Other efforts to address weak provisions concerning safeguards and accountability were shut down in successive debates by members impatient to get the bill passed.
The beautiful-young-woman-with-a-tumour factor
In the end, Seymour got 69 of the 120-member Parliament on his side. However, to get the eight votes of the New Zealand First Party members (led by Deputy Prime Minister Winston Peters) he and supporting MPs had to accept the party’s demand that the Act go to a referendum. It will be one of at least two proposals the public can vote on alongside next year’s general election, the other being the legalisation of recreational cannabis.
It has taken four attempts, starting in 1995, to get euthanasia across the line in the New Zealand Parliament. Its success this time is in keeping with social trends such as secularisation, but also owes a lot to the advocacy of Wellington lawyer Lecretia Seales, who died of brain cancer in 2015. As an attractive, clever 42-year-old tragically facing death, she has done for euthanasia in this country what another beautiful young woman with a brain tumour, Brittany Maynard, did for the cause in California.
Ms Seales, who had worked for the liberal-minded Law Commission, applied to the New Zealand High Court for a declaration that she had a “right” to assisted suicide under the NZ Bill of Rights Act. She failed at court, but succeeded in the public domain where the support of her husband and family and influential figures such as former Law Commission chief Sir Geoffrey Palmer – not to mention massive and sympathetic media attention – emboldened politicians to have another go at legalising euthanasia. Seales died peacefully of natural causes in June 2015 and in October Seymour lodged his member’s bill. In December that year the New Zealand Herald declared Lecretia Seales “New Zealander of the Year”.
Tens of thousands of opposing public submissions binned
The Seymour bill was drawn from the ballot in June 2017 and had its first reading in December. It then went to a select committee of MPs for study and to receive public submissions. More than 39,000 submissions were received, 90 percent opposing it. Over four months touring the country the committee heard over 2000 oral submissions, of which 85 percent were opposed. These included the majority of medical associations and individual doctors and nurses who addressed the committee.
In addition, a grassroots effort saw published a number of excellent video testimonies from people who had faced a terminal diagnosis or lived with a severe disability, as well as professional commentary on the issue. One of the people appearing in these videos, Clare Freeman, who became tetraplegic at 17 and attempted suicide, addressed hundreds of opponents in front of Parliament on Wednesday as MPs prepared for the final vote. She recounted how a psychiatrist suggested that she could get help to end her life overseas.
All of this has counted for very little with the majority of our political representatives. The public opinion they fear is the referendum looming at the election next year and the debate that will precede it. As NZ Herald writer Claire Trevett commented today: “Few MPs will want to take the lead in that debate – for few will want to be defined by it and have it overshadow their campaign.” That is probably truer of those supporting the legislation than those against it.
The “misinformation” spectre
Supporters have already raised the spectre of “misinformation” to ward off inconvenient publicity about euthanasia and the End of Life Choice Act itself. In fact, Minister of Justice Andrew Little (a supporter) is so concerned that the public may be misinformed and misled that he has talked about setting up a unit in the Ministry of Truth – sorry, Justice – to monitor advertising campaigns. This applies also to the cannabis referendum.
Following an interview with Little, however, the NZ Herald reports, “Teams in the Justice Ministry will prepare neutral, factual information for each referendum and make that publicly available, but they will not be tasked with calling out misinformation.” The Minister expects things to get “ugly” and expects the worst of social media, but has indicated that complaints to the Advertising Standards Authority are the way to go for disgruntled members of the public. He will simply do what he can to “call out misinformation.”
It would be foolish to think that the public is already well informed (and could only be misled by further debate), although politicians and the media regularly invoke opinion polls that show a level of public support for euthanasia of around 70 percent. If the public is generally ignorant, what is the value of a poll that asks a superficial question such as, “Parliament is considering passing a euthanasia law that would allow terminally ill patients to die with the help and approval of their doctors. Would you support it?”
Of course people should be allowed to die. Of course doctors should do what they can to ease their symptoms and reassure them as they die. Aren’t they, don’t they already? Yes. But the euthanasia movement fosters the deceitful idea that people are being kept alive against their will by extraordinary means.
Three-quarters of Kiwis don’t know what ‘choices’ the Act allows
A poll commissioned by Euthanasia-Free NZ and released early this week showed that, despite the legislation being around for four years, the great majority of the public do not know what “choices” the End of Life Choice Act would legalise.
70% thought it would make it legal for people to choose to not be resuscitated, when people can already ask for such a request to be added to their medical file.
75% 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,” says Euthanasia-Free NZ.
Like the Act’s supporters. this group is concerned about the referendum. “We doubt that another year would be long enough to allow the public to become adequately informed about the Bill’s content, amid contentious debates on cannabis and the general election,” says its executive officer Renee Joubert. “We are concerned that a referendum result may not reflect the public’s true sentiments.”
There seems, indeed, a real possibility that the cannabis referendum, being a more grass-roots issue (so to speak) and therefore given more media time, will eclipse that of euthanasia. The best we can hope for in any case is a change of government.
Rev Stuart Lange, NZCN Interim National Director, presented our oral submission to the Justice Select Committee on the End of Life Choice Bill on 21 May, 2018. Maxim Institute was also among the list of nine submitters in the afternoon session and shared the link to the video of the session.
I recommend watching the video simply to gain an appreciation of how citizens and organisations can participate in the shape of the laws that govern our nation. The afternoon session was 2h 45 min long but you can use the guide below to find specific submissions.
Simply click on the video to play it, then drag the slider to the desired start time. Time and name of group or person making their submission
6:50 Motor Neurone Disease Association of New Zealand
21:50 End of Life Choice NZ
51:30 Cordon Copeland
1:03:00 Centre for Science and Citizenship Trust 1:22:00 NZ Christian Network 1:38:30 Maxim Institute
1:56:00 Remote New Zealand Mission Project (teleconference)
2:09:20 Conservative Party NZ
2:20:20 New Zealand Human Rights Commission (Paula Tesoriero – NZ Disability Rights Commissioner)
NZ Christian Network is advising everyone who is concerned about euthanasia being legalised in New Zealand to make sure that they send a submission to the Justice Select Committee. This matter is now very time-sensitive: Submissions to the Select Committee have been extended and close at midnight Tuesday 6 March 2018.
Until very recently, all human cultures believed – and many still do – that, apart from very rare cases of biological intersexuality, all humanity is comprised of two biological sexes or genders, male and female, and that it is not possible to move from one to the other.
In recent decades, however, transgenderism has sprung up, and in many western societies has become extremely prominent. Transgender ideology asserts that gender identity is distinct from biological sex, and that human beings may adopt gender identities that differ from their sex at birth. Many who transition to a new gender identity say they do so because they feel deeply uncomfortable in the biological body and sexual identity they were born into, and undergo chemical, hormonal, and surgical procedures to make their bodies more similar to that of their desired gender identity.
The premises of transgender ideology are not strongly grounded in biological science, but are nevertheless widely accepted and promoted – in education, media, legislation, and corporate policies. Children and young people can be presented with a smorgasbord of sexual preferences and gender identities, with the implication that they should choose. Some children are encouraged by parents to identify with a gender that differs from their biological sex. Some adolescents are given puberty blockers.
Out of deference to “transwomen”, many politicians are now bizarrely unwilling to acknowledge the previously unchallenged and universal truth that a woman is an adult female person. Also, if someone now advises someone else against becoming transgender, they could be acting unlawfully.
Those who question transgenderism are increasingly considered as bigoted, offensive, and inducing harm or suicide among transgender people.
In the face of all this, how might Christians respond? Here’s some suggested approaches to think about and discuss…
On the authority of the Bible, Christians believe that humanity is created male and female, in the image of God, and these are foundational beliefs about both the nature of God and the nature of humanity. In a free society we must continue to be free to hold and articulate such beliefs and to live in accordance with them.
In a free society, we must also accept the right of adults to seek to change their “gender identity” if they so wish, and allow space for them to live their own lives.
In keeping with the biblical mandate to love others as much as ourselves, Christians must absolutely show love and compassion towards all those who for whatever reason have become transgender, and must show them kindness and respect as fellow human beings. A good question to ask ourselves is, how would we want these people to be treated if they were our son or daughter, brother or sister? Would we want them subjected to mocking or hostility?
We need to recognise that it is far from an easy road for transgender people. Some have underlying issues of self-acceptance, anxiety, depression, and mental health challenges. Chemical, hormonal and surgical interventions may change people’s overall appearance, but cannot ultimately change their biological sex. Such interventions will usually affect their ability to have children, and may involve ongoing medical problems. Some later regret their earlier choices, and attempt to de-transition.
As Christians, we utterly deplore all violence or incitements to violence against anyone, including transgender people.
On the basis that children and young people need to be protected against making major life decisions that they cannot possibly fully understand, we have profound ethical concerns about the promotion of transgender ideology among children and teenagers. Parents need to be aware of what their children are being exposed to, protect them, and nurture them well.
Because a very high percentage of cases of gender dysphoria are resolved with the onset of puberty, we do not agree with the use of puberty blockers.*
We empathise with those women who feel unsafe with “transwomen” using women’s facilities, and favour separate facilities being made available where practicable.
On the grounds of freedoms of belief, opinion, and expression, we believe that no one should be placed under pressure or coercion – in law, employment, or the public square – to accept transgender ideology, including the very contestable claims that gender may differ from sex at birth, and that there are many different genders.
We insist that in rejecting many of the premises of transgender ideology we do not in any way “hate” transgender people, but just see some important things differently. In a free society, people’s rights to hold different viewpoints must be scrupulously upheld.
As Christians, we believe that ultimately our true identity, transformation, and meaning are not to be found in sexuality or gender, significant though those are, but in fellowship with God through living faith in Christ.
* American Psychiatric Association: Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition, Arlington, VA, American Psychiatric Association, 2013 (455).
