NZCN|Media Release – Churches urged to organise submissions on euthanasia issue

NZCN|Media Release – Churches urged to organise submissions on euthanasia issue

Media Release

24 November 2015

NZ Christian Network is urging churches and individuals concerned about the possibility of euthanasia being legalised in New Zealand, to make submissions to the Health Select Committee before the due date 1 Feb 2016.

“There has been some very good work done by various groups on the issue. We are particularly impressed by and grateful for the work of the Care Alliance, which has produced a brochure to help people make submissions” – [Glyn Carpenter, NZ Christian Network]

The Care Allliance website contains all the information necessary to make a submission. This can be done online, or by email, or by traditional post.

“We are asking pastors and concerned individuals in churches to make sure the link to Care Alliance is circulated within churches” said Carpenter.

“But more than that … we have been informed by the chair of the select committee that if people are concerned about this issue, they MUST make a submission. Silence could be interpreted by MPs as people not caring.

Submissions can be as short as one sentence, or include as many points as people want to make. We’ve heard of one local church that finished its Sunday service early, handed out pens, paper, and envelopes, and in ten minutes, 130 submissions were written.

The important thing is for people to use their own words, and not to cut & paste someone else’s words.

We are also thankful to the Nathaniel Centre which produced the list of arguments below. People can use the list as a basis for making their own points in a submission.

[ENDS]

 

New Zealand Christian Network is a broad-spectrum network of churches and Christian leaders, with a Board of Reference that includes leaders from all the main denominations. It seeks to present a biblically orthodox position on issues, reflecting the views of the majority of Christians in New Zealand.

Are euthanasia arguments honest?

Are the arguments presented in the current euthanasia debate honest?

This is the question put to me by a person who holds a Master’s Degree in philosophy and who is about to graduate as a medical doctor.

I asked him to write up what he was thinking, and this is what he wrote …

This is in response to the arguments for and against euthanasia typified by the Voluntary Euthanasia Society (VES) and Euthanasia-Free NZ (EFNZ) respectively.

There are two distinct, key issues currently being debated in NZ generally and by VES and EFNZ specifically:

  1. Is active euthanasia (or PAS) ever acceptable?
  2. Is it possible to implement a policy of PAS in some way shape or form that will adequately account for unwanted but predictable secondary consequences?

There are other important issues that are not really in question, that I think should be separated from the current debate. For example:

  1. Is passive euthanasia ever acceptable, and if so in what circumstances?
  2. Are interventions that may hasten death, even predictably hasten death, but are not directly designed to cause death, ever acceptable, and if so in what circumstances?”

Going back to those two key issues, I think they are quite different, in terms of category, and this should be acknowledged.

  1. The first is really a worldview issue. In a sense, one’s position is a fundamental premise that to some extent defies logical examination. One can never “prove” that one’s answer to this issue is right.
  2. The second is a matter of practicality. One can “prove” their case to be better than an alternative.

I believe that in the current debate, both the VES and EFNZ are guilty of eliding the two issues in a manner that is not entirely honest.

  1. Each major player has decided from a worldview perspective what the correct answer to the first issue should be.
    1. VES is closely aligned with the rationalist humanist point of view, one that promotes a very libertarian mind set.
    2. EFNZ is Christian, and believes life is inherently sacred and should not be “taken”.
  2. There is some hesitance to state these worldviews clearly, perhaps because it is so difficult to engage people in debate on that level or maybe it is seen as a turn off.
    E.g. EFNZ says “We have no affiliation with any church, religion or any other secular organisation.”

Because of the failure to make this distinction, the debate slips and slides between the two major issues.

In any case, I think it is obvious that answering the objections raised by each side would do nothing to budge those whose fundamental convictions have already been made.

  1. It’s the classic story that for those who have faith, no evidence is necessary, and for those who don’t, no evidence is enough.
  2. This is why the debate goes back and forth on issues such as legal safeguards, and undermining trust in the medical profession
    (see Arguments and Rebuttals on the VES site)

Furthermore, to have the conversation honestly around the second issue, would need a worldview that would allow PAS, which EFNZ cannot do.

  • EFNZ may suggest that practical objections point to a higher truth, but again, that is an assertion that cannot be “proved”.
  • A danger for the EFNZ is that if all their practical objections could be accounted for, then one would have to conclude PAS would be acceptable in some circumstances. And most of their objections are those of practicality (8/8 on the pamphlet).

Because of the above points, the arguments from both sides then, are directed at those who do not have a fundamental conviction, and are open to persuasion.

  1. So it does not matter so much if the arguments are valid, so long as they are persuasive.
  2. This is why the arguments for and against PAS can be so weak and illogical, because this is not their primary requirement for each side.
  3. This is akin to telling a children “noble lies” (described by wikipedia as a “myth or untruth, often, but not invariably, of a religious nature, knowingly told by an elite to maintain social harmony or to advance an agenda. The noble lie is a concept originated by Plato as described in the Republic).

Three other points:

  1. I think the approach of groups like Euthanasia-Free NZ is doomed to failure
    1. Perhaps EFNZ thinks that as long as people are persuaded by something to vote against any bill or referendum, then it doesn’t matter how valid the arguments are, as they are achieving a good outcome BUT
      1. If their practical objections can be demonstrated to be wrong, this undermines their position
      2. Debate over practical objections has a tendency to get messy and confusing, this undermines their position
      3. They are on the losing side of a general social thrust towards personal rights (prostitution reform bill, marriage equality bill), and their opposition to this makes them seem callous, and this undermines their position
  2. I don’t think it is so much the Christian’s job to stop what society wants, but rather to change what society wants
    1. We need to address the fundamental world view stuff, the rest will follow
    2. I think the most persuasive augments here are examples.
      1. For me, moving towards a position against PAS was due to a combination of seeing palliative services in action, and Victor Frankel’s book, “Man’s search for meaning”.
      2. People need to see that suffering is not something to fear and necessarily to avoid.
  3. If PAS does become legal, then doctors should be excluded from it.
    1. I agree entirely with the NZMC Code of ethics statement: “Doctors should bear in mind always the obligation of preserving life wherever possible and justifiable, while allowing death to occur with dignity and comfort when it appears to be inevitable. In such inevitable terminal situations, treatment applied with the primary aim of relieving patient distress is ethically acceptable, even when it may have the secondary effect of shortening life.”

The writer wished to remain anonymous. But we think he has raised some interesting points and questions.

What do you think? Would it be more honest, perhaps also more effective, to state that we believe there is a God, that life is a gift from God, and that God alone has the right to end life. Further, we believe that everyone will one day come face-to-face with God and have to account for their actions in this life.

Please let us know your thoughts.

No slippery slope on euthanasia? – Yeah right!

No slippery slope on euthanasia? – Yeah right!

Driving home today listening to a National Radio Worldwatch item about discussions in Belgium about euthanasia for children. Who said we don’t need to worry about a slippery slope?

We can be thankful for the time being that Maryan Street’s euthanasia bill for New Zealand has been withdrawn, but we should also remember that it is “only for the time being”. When advocates think the time is right, the bill will be reintroduced and Kiwis need to be ready and informed.

Having dinner recently with a friend in Wellington who I regard as very clued up in matters of church and public issues, I was surprised to hear him talk about switching off life-support machines as euthanasia. It’s not!

And if people are not well-informed on the issue, there’s a real danger that when a bill to legalise euthanasia is re-introduced, misinformation will determine the outcome rather than facts and the public good.

One group that I have met has set up a website called euthanasiadebate.org.nz which gives some pretty simple facts and arguments against legalising euthanasia. In a one page flyer called “8 dangers of legal euthanasia” they talk about difficulties with so-called legal safeguards, elder abuse, and other reasons why legalising euthanasia is not a good idea. The back page of the flyer provides answers to common FAQs.

A student doctor I know changed his view on this issue after reading the information and meeting with Professor David Richmond, chair of HOPE Foundation, who supports this initiative and is a specialist in this field.

I recommend having a look at the flyer, and if you think it’s useful forward this post to others. If it’s easier, you can even use the Facebook / Twitter buttons below to share it with your friends.

http://euthanasiadebate.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Eight-Reasons-Flyer-1.5.13b.pdf

What might Christians hope for from a new government?

What might Christians hope for from a new government?

This week’s confirmation of the final election results brings closer the dissolution of the caretaker Labour government, and the forming of a new National-led coalition government. Like any government, the Labour Government leaves office with its own share of good and not-so-good policies, its achievements and under-achievements, and its failures.

What does New Zealand need from any new government? We suggest we might hope and pray for a government that is…

  • respectful of God, and of all people whatever their beliefs
  • determined to govern with truthfulness, integrity, justice, humility, and a collaborative spirit
  • working for good law and order, but not in a way that simply punishes without rehabilitating and which tends to entrench criminality
  • carefully managing the economy, for the benefit of all
  • willing to use taxes to better fund essential public services, including our struggling health system
  • committed to the wellbeing of all New Zealanders, to reducing poverty and social deprivation, and to making New Zealand a more just and equitable society for everyone
  • eager to make housing affordable and healthy for everyone
  • carefully seeking to foster an atmosphere of intercultural goodwill, reconciliation and partnership, rather than of fear and division
  • willing to implement measures to significantly reduce New Zealand’s carbon emissions and to reverse other environmental degradation
  • more mindful of the sanctity of human life (and willing to review legislation to provide better protections for the vulnerable in regard to both euthanasia and abortion)
  • more honouring of traditional marriage, gender, and sexual ethics (and willing to pull back the more extreme aspects of some current legislation and of primary school sex education)
  • determined to defend everyone’s liberties of thought, belief, expression, and practice
How should Christians vote?

How should Christians vote?

It is not for us to say who or what anyone should vote for. That is 100% each voter’s own call. We can say, though, that it is really important to vote, and that in a democracy voting is both our right and our responsibility.

No doubt all political candidates and parties want to serve society and to help make New Zealand a better place. But the challenge for us as voters is that politicians greatly vary in their beliefs, ideologies, values, priorities, and policies (and also their obsessions and blind spots). We need to be as discerning as we possibly can about what politicians and parties really stand for, and what they may go along with.

Three crucial areas to consider – in no particular order – are ethics, the economy, and the environment. These categories don’t cover everything, but they should all be important for Christian voters…

  • Ethics: this applies to a very wide range of issues including laws and policies in relation to marriage, sexuality, gender, sex education, abortion, euthanasia, drugs, freedoms of belief and expression, fair wages, a just tax system, and inter-cultural respect and harmony.
  • The economy: sound economic management is always helpful, especially if it enables good public services (e.g. in health and education), lowers the cost of living, facilitates affordable housing for all, and helps everyone in society on an equitable basis.
  • The environment: taking better care of God’s creation is God-honouring, and the deepening climate change makes it increasingly urgent.

The problem for voters is that no political party ticks all these boxes. All parties have strengths in some areas, but deficiencies in others.

In recent years, with the support of a majority of MPs from across both left and right, Parliament has passed a flood of radical social legislation, some of it deeply wrong and abhorrent. At the same time, little has been done to address the widening socio-economic disparities in New Zealand, or the worsening climate crisis – and in neither area is it clear how much real action is now on offer.

We urge Christian people to vote both carefully and prayerfully, seeking to discern what policies align best with biblical truth and righteousness, and which politicians and parties may best serve this country’s overall wellbeing.

Readers may find the following resources helpful…

Rasik Ranchord:

Family First:

Dave Mann:

Finally, do be in prayer that God may bring about some good outcomes in this election, and that among those gaining a place in the next Parliament may be many faithful and capable Christians.