The main issue about Euthanasia that its cheerleaders point blank refuse to engage in

27
16

While it’s great to see so many Baby Boomer MPs calling for the right to kill their parents, the reality is that the ‘suffering from a grievous and irremediable medical condition’ part of the Euthanasia Bill creates a loophole you could drive a stretch limo hearse through.

Euthanasia cheerleaders keep painting this picture of ending the suffering of the terminally ill writhing in agony needlessly for 6 months.

That narrative is terribly misleading.

The law will allow assisted suicide for those who have been diagnosed with a terminal illness and have only 6 months to live AND those suffering from a ‘grievous and irremediable medical condition’ – THAT clause is not about the terminally ill being put out of their torturous misery – that clause allows for huge swathes of vulnerable to be pressured into suicide.

TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com

We just watched representatives of the State lie, manipulate, threaten and use falsehoods to steal baby infants from Māori mothers. I have zero doubts that if passed, this legislation will be picked up by some cost cutting Wellington bureaucrat to suggest information campaigns for those NZers who have ‘grievous and irremediable medical conditions’, you know, the expensive ones.

IF this Bill was simply aimed at the terminally ill with 6 months to live, I could accept it because no one wants to see another human being suffer in pain when the inevitable is on the horizon, but that’s not what this bill is and anyone pretending it is, is a liar.

 

27 COMMENTS

  1. “I have zero doubts that if passed, this legislation will be picked up by some cost cutting Wellington bureaucrat to suggest information campaigns for those NZers who have ‘grievous and irremediable medical conditions’, you know, the expensive ones.” This, from my personal experience with both of my parents only a few years ago, were killed by the state to save money. One by starving him to death and mum, by refusing her surgery for a minor issue, an ingrown toenail, that then became life threatening, and killed her. Its that simple.

    • +100 DENNYPAOA…yup public hospitals they deny elderly relatively safe throat widening operations ( which private specialists would do) and hence starve them to death

      …their argument would be too old and too infirm and dementia ( even although they havent ) and then they finish them off with a cocktail of drugs

      …is this ‘euthanasia’ or something else?

      • Red Buzzard, a friend in his late 70’s has just had the throat widening operation done at the Prince Alfred in Melbourne. Good outcome – treating the effects of the effects of an earlier throat cancer.

        I am delighted to say that he is an ex-Otago-ite.

    • We already seem to have a ‘hopefully they will die while they wait’ health care system! Now the tyrants want to be able to slyly use this legislation to cull the retirement liabilities ‘legally’. Imho.

      • Richbuggar: “Now the tyrants want to be able to slyly use this legislation to cull the retirement liabilities ‘legally’. Imho.”

        I remind you: while it has been a politician whose Bill has come to the House, the push for end of life choices has come from the citizens over many years. I know: I’ve followed the debate. Remember Lecretia Seales? This isn’t something that politicians have just dreamed up.

        There have been two previous attempts at getting legislation through the House. This time, it looks as if the Bill will pass into law: a family member with legal training has pointed out that there’s no history of Bills being defeated at the third reading.

    • @ DENNYPAOA … Yes, you are so right. State sanctioned ending of life is happening right now and has been going on for at least 10 years, as far as I know.

      I know of two people who it seems died unnecessarily. One woman in her early to mid 60s at the time of being denied treatment for a grade 2 breast cancer, despite being reasonably well and active in her community at the time of her diagnosis. She was sent home, carried on with life without incident, until 2 years later she was admitted to hospital with severe pain in her shoulders and back. It was found the breast cancer had spread to her bones! Not sure of the time frame, but she died soon after!

      The other a man in his mid 70s being admitted to hospital with a gastric complaint. He died within two days, after not receiving IV fluids or medication, or electronic monitoring throughout his stay, which his family noticed at the time. The autopsy result was his death was caused by a heart attack, through dehydration, as well as a few other issues relating to lack of appropriate care while in hospital.

      Age related? Who knows. No doubt there are already processes in place to save money and families have gone through awful experiences of losing older loved ones, or even much loved family members with mental and physical disabilities, without adequate explanation of why their unexpected deaths occurred.

      In the latter case, the man’s family took the issue further and won their case. However 4 years after the man’s death, the family are still waiting for acknowledgement of the DHB’s failings and an apology!

      I’d hate to think, legalised euthanasia would make it easier to dispose of people who did not conform!

    • I think it’s more complicated than that. There are conditions that while not terminal offer the person who suffers from them no quality of life. They should be able to end their suffering as well.

  2. You do know that clause is very unlikely to make it to the final bill. The Greens want it tightened up, for one. In fact this is one of the few times I’ve heard really constructive debate, in Parliament.

  3. “That narrative is terribly misleading.”

    Martyn, I’m a big fan of yours but what I find misleading is your use of the word “killing”

    Both you and I know if someone is killed it is a criminal offence. This bill is never about killing but the right to choice. Almost like Israel’s right to choose what he says and Maria’s choice to support him. I choose to disagree with their message but my choice to a death without pain should be mine.

    The interesting message from the debate in parliament came from Chris Bishop, euthanasia is happening already, yet it’s a criminal offence as with the abortion law.

  4. Generally enjoy your aggravance, Martyn. Apt. But here I’m all about investigation not party-political conflict. Hence the conscience vote in parliament, reflecting our general feeling. We want to know the reality. Don’t think it will lead to Hitler even if we do pass the bill.

  5. Death with dignity rather than prolonged distress and pain doped up to the eyeballs who would not choose this.
    This is a profound human question not one for manipulative cynicism.

  6. For David Seymour, the ACT party, Treasury and those who administer the state, cost-cutting is one of the main drivers behind the euthanasia bill.
    For the rest of New Zealand there are other more problematic, but not unrelated issues.
    In days past, courage and compassion were our ways of dealing with pain, loss and disability and the value of human life was measured in a plane completely removed from that in which we measure the value of commodities based on their utility and capacity for sensual gratification.
    Neo-liberalism is inherently secular and concerned with the individual pursuit of happiness in the world. That leaves no place for courage or compassion, a lack which becomes most strikingly obvious in the conduct of modern war, modern policing and modern government generally.
    Yet regardless of what laws the New Zealand parliament may enact our doctors will not collaborate in euthanasia, and our people when in full possession of their faculties will not choose suicide.
    The bright red line that divides our people from the Realm of New Zealand will become ever brighter as the regime leads its own into a moral wilderness.

  7. Is it just me? Or is your post flippant and contradictory @ MB?
    And I’m sure there will be monsters who will use the bill to potentially to cull poor people. But it’s up to us to stop them from doing that, surely?
    My mum was assisted in her death by nurses who cranked up her morphine drip. If they’d not done that and given the nature of her cancer, she’d a been in for a terrible and long haul death. My dad suffered a series of micro strokes which left him incapable of functioning other than simply being alive. He lay in a hospital bed unable to wipe his arse, take a pee or communicate for four years then he died alone of pneumonia. Was great!
    It’s my opinion @ MB that your rancour is misplaced. You should be raising a rabble to go and find our money. Look under fay, richwhite, gibb, chandler, hart etc’s beds for a start off. Our tax system gave them our money. Hart just bought a $51 million dollar flat in NYC. Fay is just a scant few million away from being a billionaire. Westpac bank just took $555 million dollars in profit from us over a six month period, no doubt aided and abetted by our tax system to do so. Since you’re worried about how some psychopathic politician may use assisted suicide to cull the poor? Then how about we go and find out why a rich country like AO/NZ has no money yet so many people here live in poverty. Perhaps the poor need to be less poor? Perhaps the poor need to be less ignorant and more aggressive? Isn’t that where you and me and others here come in?

  8. What I suggest is that if someone wishes an assisted death then their estate becomes forfeit to Government. I have seen many people contemplate their death so as “not to be a bother” and family better off without them. I have also seen families hovering waiting for death to access estate while playing the “we don’t let our dogs suffer” line. If a person is suffering we are under an obligation as a society to ensure they are aided not removed. If opiates don’t alleviate suffering find a drug that does!

    • “If opiates don’t alleviate suffering find a drug that does!”

      Cue: big pharma. I’m sure they’ll have a drug for you lucy

      Question though: whats the point of existance while being so drugged to the eyeballs your not even aware if its day or night

      Thats not living

      Thats keeping someone alive just to prolong the inevitabl3

      Is that what you want? Ok, thats your right to choose that

      But please keep your damn drugs away from me

    • Lucy, my children know that I support assisted death/voluntary euthanasia; it has been a family conversation off and on for years.

      You are now saying, that if the time arrives when I tell them the time has come for me to sign off, that if they give me the support they have agreed to, then the govt should be the sole recipient of my estate ?

      Why ? This is nuts.

  9. A question that someone might like to answer:
    How many people who oppose this bill, also support abortion?
    I am asking because to me this is a huge paradox.
    Is it consciencable to oppose assisted suicide for a person who IS capable of chosing the decision that they want to die; and at the same time support abortion in which the unborn child does NOT have a choice?
    A fair question, I think.
    And as yet, I have heard virtually nothing on it.

    • Mike the Lefty: “How many people who oppose this bill, also support abortion?”

      Indeed. I’ve raised this issue as well, including with Martyn Bradbury.

      It seems to me that opposition to this Bill must entail opposition to abortion; to oppose the former and support the latter is contradictory. I don’t know how one would reconcile the two.

  10. Lucy – Some people enjoy being a bother – talk to a Southlander – or a Greek -or an Indian – about the great matriarchs of their families.

    Tyranny is a survival technique for some older women- American academics have written papers – and I daresay books – about it -inbetween scraping for research grants to write other tantalising frith-froth to enlighten us.

    Suggesting that assisted death estates be forfeited to the government is absurd, and illogical.

    What you don’t seem to realise, is that VE supporters, often have to work get their offspring onside. With me, it has been an ongoing relaxed conversation over several years, and you are wrong to assume that ve supporters are greedy ghouls waiting for death like the one’s who hover around you seem to be.

    That is not the way it works, Lucy.

    Rarely is any major life event as simple, or as soiled, as you are assuming, or implying or believe. In between your observing of odious behaviour extremes, perhaps you could try not to be so judgmental about people in whose shoes you are not walking.

    In the meantime, maybe tell the medicos to, “find a drug” that works. I wonder why they haven’t done that yet ?

    • Snow White: “Suggesting that assisted death estates be forfeited to the government is absurd, and illogical.”

      Indeed; bizarre. A suggestion based, it seems to me, on a misunderstanding of what Seymour’s Bill will actually allow.

      Assisted death must be freely chosen by the individual concerned: the choice requires informed consent. One’s family cannot do away with one; as the Bill is worded, that cannot happen.

      The debate over Seymour’s Bill reminds me very much of the disingenuousness and viciousness which characterised the debate over the Homosexual Law Reform Bill. Back then, opponents were convinced that the sky would fall. It didn’t, of course. Nor will it when Seymour’s Bill is passed into law.

  11. 5 days before my father in law died of metastized lung cancer he was relatively pain free then he went through the last 5 days in terrible pain that wouldn’t be relieved with morphine.
    The doctor in charge of his palliative care being a very strong Roman Catholic told us he wouldn’t increase pain relief to the stage that it would repress his breathing so he suffered badly. A pill (or needle) 5 days before would have meant he died in dignity and pain free.
    Legalise it.

    And get off the antibaby boomer BS. It’s baby boomers that are in the firing line for cancers more than any other generation at the moment due to age and longer exposure to chemicals and pollutants. It’s not our parents (most who have already gone) it ourselves that we want to be legally done away with when MR Cancer comes knocking with it’s friends Screaming Pain and Agony.

    My daughter and I have lived on the firing line all our lives having inherited an orphan genetic mutation that disables the genes that prevent tumour growth.
    Every year and often more frequently we are scanned, tested and sometimes put under the knife by a health system that has never failed us and that has worked tirelessly at some expense to prevent our early deaths.
    But when death comes knocking I want an option. And it’s not going to be like my Father in Law who had none.

  12. “If opiates don’t alleviate suffering find a drug that does!”

    Cue: Big Pharma. I’m sure they’ll have a drug they can peddle you

    Question: what would be the point?? What would be the point of keeping someone alive barely conscious, or unconconscious, doped to the gills with so many drugs they dont know if they’re Arthur or Martha??

    Thats not living. Thats a miserable half-alive existance which might satisfy some perverse sense of “morality”, but I dont understand how that benefits a person close to death

    Please enlighten us

    In the meantime Lucy, you go ahead and choose that option for yourself. Thats your right. Hope it works for you

    But keep those damned drugs away from me. I will go when a I choose, not when it suits the neo-moralists who suddenly want to have power over when & how I exit this life

  13. was chemically poisoned on my job while working in Canada and was treated for several years to be able to return to my home in NZ and 20yrs later at 75 yrs old as a baby boomer I face uncertainty as NZ does not treat anyone with the latent effects of chemical poisoning, so now technically i could be ruled as “uncurable in NZ’s inadequate medical system so I may fall through the cracks if this bill is passed to receive “assisted death as technically I cannot be treated to live any more.

    The people who dreamed up this “assisted dying bill” are not thinking it through as I have had to do, because they have merely said the bill is suited for all but I would not be considered uncurable if I returned to Canada because they have clinics to treat patients that have been chemically poisoned and NZ does not.

    So the ‘assisted death bill’ will give doctors the licence to kill because they have not been given neither the skills and regimen to save those of us that have been chemically poisoned.

    Sad people that vote for this bill.

  14. I have a very simple question.

    Who has the authority to say I that I cannot decide to say when I die?

    Death is inevitable. When and how it happens should be my choice.

    It is personal.

    Governments should butt out.

  15. As someone who saw an expensive private ‘nursing facility’ put his old man down like the dog he so often was by using the horrific “nil by mouth” solution, I have no doubt that any euthanasia bill will be abused by assorted human beings for a plethora of reasons.

    I’m sure that all the highly publicised cases of ‘right to die’ are not exclusively peopled by the self obsessed but it often seems that way.

    There are so many ways for a human to end her/his life without attracting attention. I simply cannot understand why this nonsense idea of state sanctioned killing has made it so far. (btw someone upthread attempts to contend that killing implies illegality when it does nothing of the sort. I suspect murder and/or manslaughter are the terms this person is trying to remember).

    There have been instances of quadriplegics creating the means and opportunity to off themselves although admittedly any assistant could have been found to be in breach of the law.

    A better fix for this issue would be making assisting a suicide legal. That would fix the problem without requiring the sort of state intervention which causes grave doubts among those of us familiar with the amoral corruption of some bureaucrats.

    I have witnessed friends and family burdened with painful and lingering deaths go thru the full gamut of mood swings where they want to end it at one time then later tell us they are determined to wring every last minute out of their lives. Going backwards and forwards – which statement is the correct one? Obviously both are right and both are wrong – as is the case so often when fools try to create order in the chaos that is human existence subjective reality cannot be honestly objectified because the cat can be in the box and not in the box simultaneously.

    Insisting that it is the human themself who must initiate their end to life right before the moment of death has to be the only even vaguely just way of a human legally ending his/her life and even then one would be concerned about gen X and Y offspring bullying an ill or non compos mentis boomer patient into ending it all.

    Note to Martyn – there just aren’t that many pre-boomer folks around anymore. The earliest boomers who cropped up are now 74, making them beginning to be the most targeted by this legislation. So sad when a popular meme goes redundant.

Comments are closed.