I saw our State lie to steal a baby – I don’t trust them with Euthanasia

47
3

I oppose euthanasia because the obligation to save life by the State is a frayed safety net.

Look at the way the State treats beneficiaries, the mentally ill & prisoners.

Look at the way the State steals babies from the poor.

Euthanasia will be used by the powerful against the weak and  as we watch in real time the push right now in Parliament is to widen what the definition of terminal illness is to grievous and irremediable medical condition. Once that’s done, it  will provide the loop holes necessary to start pushing the poorest and most vulnerable into assisted suicide.

TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com

We have seen in the past that when National were in power in the late 1990s, they attempted to create death panels to limit the health spending dollar, my bet is that once this legislation is passed it will only be a matter of time before a Wellington bureaucrat is pushing to ‘inform’ those who have conditions like Alzheimer’s or dementia of their assisted suicide options.

I watched that video of the Oranga Tamariki staff lying and manipulating the truth in their attempt to steal a baby, I have no doubt in my mind if people like that are in charge of euthanasia the exact same abuse of power will occur.

How dare Left wing MPs vote for neoliberal cultural meth like euthanasia from a far right Political Party.

The Greens should be ashamed of their vote block on this issue.

This won’t be about personal freedom, this will be about the State culling the weakest amongst us.

47 COMMENTS

  1. Normally I would never say this but I have to say that it would be poetic justice if you, Martyn, end up on the receiving end of the barbaric and agonising death you are quite happy to consign to be the fate that others suffer.

    • Richard I thought it was quite nasty to wish a death on Bomber that is barbaric and agonising.

      I am very opposed to euthanasia. I have looked at what has happened in the Netherlands over time. The people from mental institutions who have been euthanised has increased yearly.

      I have sat with people dying and been at their death a few times. No one should die an agonising barbaric death of course.

      You of all people having seen terrible stuff should be campaigning for better inclusive palliative care.

      I know messy painful tough stuff from the birth of my 6 kids, birth is not tied up in a neat bundle and neither should death be.

      There are ways of people taking their own lives of course that involve no one but the person making the decision.

      It is we who don’t cope with stuff we see not the person who is going through it.

      I know of people who wish that their aunt who is 90 would die now, get it over with, they have been quite public about it. These people will also be recipients from the proceeds of her will.

      • +100 MICHAL…I know of someone who supported and got a euthanasia kit in their 70s -80s …and then when asked did not want to die in their 90s when they had a lot of pain…(pain at times almost unbearable for those looking after them and their friends)

        …for family and friends supporting them in their own home and helping look after them , despite their incapacity and pain, was a privilege and a joy in their last years…their distilled essence of personality, humour and zest for life shone through

        …although this person did not have dementia, I believe that dementia, like dreaming, is a halfway house between this world and the next…people with dementia must be respected and cared for

      • Michal: “….better inclusive palliative care.”

        You know that’s a sort of straw man argument, don’t you?

        The issue of palliative care is irrelevant to me and others who wish to be legally able to make an informed choice as to the manner and timing of our deaths.

        In my view, people who insist that if only palliative care was better, nobody would want assisted dying, are missing the point. And they are closet we-know-best-ers. You don’t. Know best, that is.

        “…birth is not tied up in a neat bundle and neither should death be.”

        We don’t get a say in being born. Fortunately, given the legal framework, some of us will get a choice in our deaths. It’s not for you or anybody else to make normative pronouncements as to death, when you’re not the one who is dying.

        Nobody is asking you to choose assisted dying. But accept that the rest of us want to have that choice. Stop fighting against it, step aside, and allow the Bill to proceed.

    • Richard, I’m a firm believer in the right for people with a terminal disease to choose the time and plsce of their own demise

      For me, its my body, my life, and no one elses. Just ss its a woman’s right to control her own fertility, body, etc

      But i steer well away from wishing a lingering painful death on anyone. I’ve been in that situation with familty and its nothing to use as a wish for vengeance

      • Mjolnir: “For me, its my body, my life, and no one elses. Just ss its a woman’s right to control her own fertility, body, etc”

        My view as well. I hope that Seymour’s Bill will be passed into law.

        I’d be really pleased if well-meaning opponents would desist from assuming that they know best for the rest of us.

    • Not trusting the state with euthanasia does not infer those genuinely suffering greatly should be stopped from choosing when they end it.

      • Choosing when to end it isn’t something that the state is qualified to do. The police and NZDF have an operational duty to end some one if it so pleases the rulez and there’s numerous accounts of them not being able to follow their own rulez, because the laws around the state has been written so broadly that the penalties for the state to take a life is so low that extrajudicial murder includes future crimes, these are just thought crimes, not real crimes.

        This is the flaw in Seymours end of life bill. It sucks to broaden definitions so that a broader range of people can end themselves. Which if you’ve been flollwing is a slipper slope and we should just put fences at the top,band make it all about pain management and insure patient care planes are up to code.

        • precisely it is not the states role to sanction death the state already intrudes too much in our lives

  2. I agree with Martyn Bradbury on this:

    “This won’t be about personal freedom, this will be about the State culling the weakest amongst us.”

    Doctors and nurses already choose who they will give life saving operations to and the elderly miss out and are left to die …or they are helped to die against their wishes…and the wishes of their relatives

    https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/world/360123/dangerous-use-of-drugs-uk-inquiry-into-patient-deaths

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/elder/9343428/Elderly-patients-helped-to-die-to-free-up-beds-warns-doctor.html

    https://www.huffpost.com/entry/how-hospitals-kill-our-loved-ones-and-conceal-it_b_58cbd60fe4b07112b6472c7d

    Not all are caught like this guy who deliberately snuffed the lives of elderly.

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jun/06/german-nurse-niels-hogel-second-life-sentence-murder-of-85-patients

    (You are kidding yourself if you dont think this is happening in New Zealand…There needs to be a Commission of Inquiry and an opening of the books of the Health and Disability Commission on the complaints they have received and done nothing )

    • Red Buzzard: “You are kidding yourself if you dont think this is happening in New Zealand…”

      That’s a helluva trip to put on the medical profession here, and without supporting evidence to boot (I note that the links above are all about overseas cases).

      And – as I’ve pointed out elsewhere – a whole bunch of these same doctors are hellbent on telling the rest of us that they know best and we shouldn’t have access to assisted dying, and they’re CERTAINLY not getting involved in any such caper. This doesn’t sound consistent with what you’re claiming here.

      • ‘Prince’s death drug prescribed to New Zealand’s elderly’

        https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/83570824/princes-death-drug-prescribed-to-new-zealands-elderly

        “The drug that killed popstar Prince is being prescribed to New Zealand’s elderly in record numbers, prompting a warning from the Government health watchdog.

        The spike in prescriptions of fentanyl – a synthetic opioid 50 times more potent than heroin – is being described as “opioid rain” by alarmed medical professionals.

        An investigation has found rates of prescribing have doubled in rest homes in four years, while doctors are dishing out strong opioids to already frail over-80s around 10 times more often than to those under 65. ..

        This is despite research showing the effects of strong opioids are worse in the older population, and are more likely to cause falls, mental health problems, constipation, nausea, and overdose…

        It should be used to relieve terminal cancer pain, but there were fears it was being prescribed for general pain relief…

        https://www.hqsc.govt.nz/our-programmes/health-quality-evaluation/projects/atlas-of-healthcare-variation/opioids/

        • Red Buzzard: “there were fears it was being prescribed for general pain relief…”

          Yeah, I know about this opioid business. Fears aren’t the same as fact.

          The report you link to dates back a few years, and GP prescribing practices have changed meantime.

          I’ll take a punt that you’re young(ish). Take it from me: as one ages, chronic pain becomes more of an issue. Just try getting anything that relieves arthritis pain, such that one can comfortably manage day-to-day activities.
          Our GP will no longer prescribe even tramadol routinely. We can’t get cannabis cos illegal – even if it were at all efficacious. Panadol is useless, while NSAIDs aren’t suitable for long-term use, even if one can tolerate them.

          What are we supposed to do? At my age, I’d swap the addiction game of chance for the pain relief, any day.

          And I’ll thank earnest younger people to desist from telling older people such as moi what they believe is best for us.

  3. This is not a left/right thing.

    If I get Alzheimer’s, please let me die. I would no longer be who I am. Unaware, unhappy, not recognising family, wandering off from the rest home, wearing nappies. A walking husk.

    Death is considerably more attractive. If it comes to this, Mr. Wellington Bureaucrat, feel free to send me the info.

      • Alzheimer’s is, in knowledgeable hands, usually readily diagnosable. It is true that a small percentage of “Alzheimer” patients in whom an autopsy is undertaken will prove to have had another form of dementia, but the diagnosis is, nevertheless, of a dementia. I know whereof I speak.

        Yes, in terms of giving consent for assisted suicide, dementia presents a catch22-like difficulty. Partial answers include having an advance directive (I have one); and being sufficiently aware at an early stage of the disease to be able to give informed consent.

    • Tom please tell me you who have not had Alzheimers that you will be unaware, unhappy etc. You cannot possibly make that judgement.

      It is we who don’t have this condition who struggle with seeing our loved ones with it.

      • Michal: “….you who have not had Alzheimers that you will be unaware, unhappy etc.”

        I can, though. My late mother had dementia; we talked about it often in the early stages. She was very unhappy about what was happening to her mind. Well aware of it, too; even later on, when she was far down the path of the disease, she still had occasional flashes of awareness, though she was mostly away with the fairies. It was awful to watch: she had been a clever, well-educated woman, reduced in the end to…well, those of you who’ve been there with family members will know.

        As I understand Seymour’s Bill, an individual seeking assisted suicide must be of sound mind and able to give consent. By definition, this could not apply to people with full-fledged Alzheimers. So: my late mother could not have made that choice, except at the very beginning of her illness.

        Christ….I hope that it doesn’t happen to me. But if I’m diagnosed, I hope that Seymour’s Bill is by then law, because I’ll be making that choice very early on.

      • Agree with you MICHAL…I once worked in an old peoples home and there were two women who shared a room both with dementia ( one a former accountant and the other a housewife…one with a personality sharp as tin tacks , the other sweet and compliant …both had dementia)….they were happy friends and companions and died within half an hour of each other through their own will power

        Just because a person has dementia does not mean that they do not have quality of life or can not be happy

        imo some doctors assume just because they diagnose or misdiagnose dementia the person has no value or quality of life

        …some people with dementia are very much loved and valued by their families

        doctors do NOT know best

        • Red Buzzard: “Just because a person has dementia does not mean that they do not have quality of life or can not be happy”

          I’m wondering if you fully understand Seymour’s Bill. People must give consent to assisted dying: people with dementia cannot do this, except in the very early stages of their illness, at a point when they are still able to make an informed choice.

          A doctor has nothing to do with this aspect: they cannot give consent on behalf of another person. None of us can do that.

          “doctors do NOT know best”

          Well of course they don’t. Surely you have a GP who consults you as to the best way to treat your health problems and takes into account your preferences? If not, I advise you to change GP pronto.

          Yet as we speak, a bunch of NZ doctors is hellbent on telling the rest of us that they do know best what’s good for us. They should remember the Hippocratic oath and – in their capacity as doctors – stay out of the debate.

          • You have never met a NZ doctor who is critical and skeptical of their ‘healing’ profession and colleagues?

            • RB: “You have never met a NZ doctor who is critical and skeptical of their ‘healing’ profession and colleagues?”

              I can’t see how this question is relevant to any of the foregoing.

    • When I was young-ish I had a motor-cycle accident and was put under general anaesthetic at the hospital. “Count to 10 ” said the surgeon. I remember counting to three. They could have cut my head off for all I knew. Since then death has had no fear for me, so long as it isn’t accompanied by extreme pain, but according to most comments here, I would not be allowed to chose my own death unless I was in acute pain. Why?
      I am the only member of my family living in NZ, the rest living in Australia or further afield. If I died unexpectedly, it would create extreme logistic difficulties. If I could pick the time of death it would simplify arrangements and I might see my family before I died. But you wont allow this. Why?
      Later in life I worked for a few years in an old folks home in England. Most of the occupants had dementia (because they are more profitable and the owner was money hungry), so they were walking vegetables, who couldn’t recall their own names. It cost the State more per week to keep them in this vegetative state than the wages I received. Think of that. Someone will now accuse me of showing lack of compassion to the old. Well I am 79, have dementia and am determined to never end my days in an old folks home.
      Apparently I’m not the only one to think like that. When I was there a patient was brought in, aged 93, and sharp as a pin. She simply wanted to die in the home she had lived in for thirty years and begged to be allowed for that to happen. The doctor refused and in protest she declined food. So they tried to force feed her, to no avail, so they put her on an intravenous drip. Late one night she pulled out the drip. By morning she was dead.
      I have read most of the comments here. Most of you haven’t a clue

      • imo…If you want to die at home you should die at home…no one should force you otherwise…certainly not a doctor…I have known someone who refused to go to hospital and died at home

        (get a lawyers letter to say you insist on dying at home)

        …and get Nurse Maude to help you and then later palliative nurses to help you when you are nearing the end to aid your comfort

  4. Euthanasia is one of the most clear examples of why my politics have to be divided into ideological and realistic positions.

    In principle, I would support any proposal that can end the suffering of people in incurable pain; the few but definitely extant individuals for whom death is irrefutably preferable when continued agony is the only alternative.

    However, I agree with Martyn that the holders of power will likely ultimately pervert the policy beyond its magnanimous benevolent intent. I wish humanity could be trusted but am deeply cynical of same.

    • “the holders of power will likely ultimately pervert the policy beyond its magnanimous benevolent intent”

      Then its up to us to stop that

      But we cant use that “what if ” scenario to forestall liberalization if this law

      We didnt use fear to prevent legal abortions for women who need it

      The same right to control our own bodies must be extended to us all

      • Mjolnir: “Then its up to us to stop that

        But we cant use that “what if ” scenario to forestall liberalization if this law”

        Exactly. And we the citizens ought also to reject any “slippery slope” argument put forward by opponents.

  5. Bomber i totally agree comrade with this blog.

    What a sad indictment that we can not trust our politicians with this law that should be protecting people who are terminally ill and their family with being able to say these are my wishes and i have had enough.
    Without the specter of an evil agenda to cull our most vulnerable New Zealanders because the are expendable.
    Nazi Germany did just that with those who they deemed to be ” surplus to requirements ”
    David Seymour has about as much compassion as a person who kicks an animal…none.
    Anybody who supports the policies that ACT aspires too should automatically be excluded from advancing this law.

    With such an emotive issue once again our fourth estate has failed in its investigation into such an important piece of legislation.

    Travesty.

  6. What do Nederlanders think of it?

    I think National MPs are more against it than Labour. No evil intent at the moment and addresses a modern problem. If we’re conservative as a principle in the operation, since we are so far, far along in extending life, it would seem to be a worthwhile offset. It in my mind is a sliding scale but that’s where intelligent law comes in.

  7. Is there some weird group think thing going on with the Greens?
    Doing piss all effective on climate change – just what are you doing?

  8. Martin, the legislation is going to only cover those within 6 months of death due to a terminal condition, so it will not fray the safety net (except of course our safety net has in fact already frayed quite badly because of inadequate health and social support funding).

    The only relevant issue in the future will be that the existing level of support for those dying will be inadequate due to the increasing numbers of the aged (but before then care for the aged will already be in crisis and cases of real hardship which are beyond the remit of euthansia will be endemic).

    • re …”the legislation is going to only cover those within 6 months of death due to a terminal condition…”

      …and who defines/decides that?….doctors?

      …they are very often wrong

  9. Who are you to try to deprive me of the right to end my life with dignity? No one has that right, not you, not the State, not some doctor cashing in on my ill health, no one. You don’t own me, I am not your property, I am no one’s property, that you can decide how I may or may not dispose of my life when it no longer serves me.

    How arrogant of you to presume to tell me I must suffer an interminable illness on account of your moral cringiness! How dare you!

    I have died, and it is nothing to fear. Living in lingering pain is far far worse than death. But far worse than lingering pain is the prospect of living at the whim of greedy doctors, petty bureaucrats, moralising ignoramuses, sanctimonious idiots and religious zealots of any stripe… all of whom seem to swarm out of the drains at once whenever Euthanasia gets debated.

    Whatever gods there may be, spare me from falling into the clutches of you cruel and heartless bastards!

    • Monetary: “Who are you to try to deprive me of the right to end my life with dignity? No one has that right, not you, not the State, not some doctor cashing in on my ill health, no one. You don’t own me, I am not your property, I am no one’s property, that you can decide how I may or may not dispose of my life when it no longer serves me.”

      You’ve nailed it here! I implore you to send that to every MP who has voted against Seymour’s Bill.

      • Noneya: Sorry for the misspelling of your nom de plume above: bloody auto-edit on my phone! It changes my perfectly correct spelling when I’m not looking….

  10. they don’t normally “steal” them, they just borrow them for a bit so their parents don’t kill them.

  11. The state will cull the least of us? Do you know our up-amped city council of a state? And the fellow-feeling of us, extending even to the Right when they’re faced with it. At the most you have an argument against bureaucratic process and some cruel future state from Flash Gordon and Ming the Merciless.

Comments are closed.