Why is the NZ Nurses Organisation Supporting the Killing of Patients?
PLEASE NOTE:
After being called out on their social media pile ons, some of the Wellington Twitteratti have attempted to use this press release function on The Daily Blog to somehow suggest this site is anti abortion and is somehow Pro-Life.
The Raw News Feed function on TDB is the collection of political press releases of the day. To attempt to make this proof that The Daily Blog is not Left Wing says more about their need to avoid the criticisms made than any claim TDB is anti-abortion. It’s a nasty smear by people who are being manipulative and know that they are purposely misleading people.
Publishing a press release is not even close to endorsing or supporting that post, it’s done as a service to the news reading audience of TDB to see what different press releases are saying that day. Bloody Scoop, their cherished Wellington Media Bastion of Journalism PUBLISHED THE SAME BLOODY PRESS RELEASE. Are these Wellington Twitteratti screaming at Scoop?
Right to Life is very concerned that the NZ Nurses Organisation has abandoned its ethic to care for it’s patients and has now come out in support of doctors killing their patients or assisting in their suicide. The NZ Nurses Organisation should be at the frontline defending the lives of their patients against the threat of euthanasia and a culture of death. It should also be defending the ethics of the nursing profession which respects the sanctity of life of their patients. The Organisation has produced a chilling document titled, “Guidelines: Professional Challenges- Assisted dying position statement.” The Nursing Council has the role to protect the health and safety of the public. Why then have they chosen to remain silent in response to the threat of euthanasia supported by the Nurse’s Organisation. to the most vulnerable members of our community; the aged, the disabled and the seriously ill?
The nursing profession has the well earned trust of the community based on the knowledge that they will respect the sanctity of life of their patients and will do no harm. The Organisation is unwittingly undermining that trust which is essential for our public health service. Who would enter a hospital if killing you could be a treatment option? Would we place our elderly family members with confidence in a retirement home knowing that the nurses employed there are prepared to assist them in suicide or give them a lethal injection to kill them?
Nurses must be trustworthy and maintain the public’s trust as carers. They will lose it if they choose to become involved in killing patients.
In producing the above document, the Organisation is contravening the profession’s own ethics which state;
“Nurses are privileged in their relationships with health consumers. Nurses need to establish trusting relationships with health consumers to effectively provide care that involves touch, using personal information, emotional and physical support, and comfort. Health consumers need to be able to trust nurses to be safe and competent, not to harm them and to protect them from harm. They need to trust nurses to work in the interests of their health and well-being, and promote their interests. Nurses must be trustworthy and maintain the public’s trust in the nursing profession.”
The Organisation is deceiving its members and the community it serves by euphemistically calling killing, “Assisted Dying.” Euthanasia is about killing and it is certainly not health care. Why then, are they deliberately hiding the truth which is that they are actually now in support of assisted suicide and homicide, both serious crimes. It should be abundantly clear that when a doctor or nurse gives a lethal injection to a patient with the purpose of killing the patient this is murder, it is not a health service.
In the event that the Crimes Act was changed to legalise these crimes, ultimately applicants for nursing would be required to give an undertaking that they were prepared to kill patients or assist in their suicide. There would be no place in the profession for those who believed in the sanctity of life ethic.
Right to Life asks that all members of this NZ Nurses Organisation protest this move and protect our nursing profession from a culture of death.
I reserve my right to choose the time and manner of my death, despite largely religion-based taboos seeking to deny me this.
It is very disappointing to see The Daily Blog join an authoritarian campaign to deny human rights.
Dear Richard,
Are you suggesting that The Daily Blog should only publish articles that you approve of and conform to your point of view? Please tell us what human right Right to Life is contravening when it argues about the dangers of euthanasia. There is no human right to a doctor killing their patient. You also seem to be suggesting that Right to Life is in the minority when it comes to opposing Doctor Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia. We suggest you make yourself familiar with the fact that there were 21,436 submissions made to the Parliamentary Health Select Committee examining this subject and 80% of them were against it.
Chris O’Brien
Vice President Right to Life
It might be helpful for TDB readers to see the NZNO Submission to the select Committee.
http://www.nzno.org.nz/Portals/0/Files/Documents/Activities/Submissions/2016-02%20Medically%20Assisted%20Dying%20Final.pdf
Right to Life are being less than transparent here….read the NZNO submission for yourselves and decide if they are pro-euthanasia.
That’s not the position I see…they acknowledge that legislation allowing medically assisted dying is likely to be passed, and want a voice in the construction of such legislation and protection for nurses.
They repeatedly state that nurses have differing opinions on MAD and these ethical choices should be supported.
Not doing your cause any favours with this beef up Right to Life.
Unless the document quoted ““Guidelines: Professional Challenges- Assisted dying position statement.” which I cannot find takes a completely different viewpoint from their submission.
regards, Someone who submitted against Medically Assisted Dying
Rosemary,
I am writing as Vice President of Right to Life in response to your comment on our Press Release.
We believe your comments relate to the original submission by the NZNO to the PHSC and that you have not seen the draft NZNO Guidelines: Professional Challenges- Assisted dying position statement.
It is now clear that the NZNO no longer have a neutral stance on euthanasia and this document can be construed in fact as advocacy.
You say you could not find the document which can be found at
http://www.nzno.org.nz/get_involved/consultation/articletype/articleview/articleid/2397/guidelines-professional-challenges-assisted-dying-position-statement
The link for the PDF file for the draft document is towards the bottom of the page.
Please feel free to contact us via our website at http://www.righttolife.org.nz or you can email us at admin@righttolife.org.nz if you would like to discuss this further.
Chris O’Brien
What’s with this pro-life propaganda on a supposedly left-wing site? R2L are anti-women and it’s disgusting that you would provide a platform for their nonsense.
Kia ora Nicole. You will note the press release was posted in The Daily Blog’s press release section, because we publish political press releases.
You will note that Scoop also published the exact same press release.
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO1701/S00078/why-is-nzno-supporting-the-killing-of-patients.htm
Are you also claiming that Scoop is pro-life supporters as well?
Did you in fact check what was being published and where before you commented or was it just Twitter rage?
Do you publish every press release? It’s disingenuous to compare yourself to Scoop. They aren’t a political blog site which you are.
With all due respect Nicole, have you ever been to this blog before? You’ll note that we’ve been publishing press releases to provide a range of news sources for almost 2 years now. You can personally check all the press releases on this link.
And again with all due respect,t Scoop run huge campaigns for being the new news politics site, they have ‘join Scoop Journalism’ campaigns all the time. Aren’t you just pretending there is a difference between us and Scoop so that you can remain angry and do your angry dance?
Thank you ‘The Daily Blog’ editors for publishing our Press Release. We know you may not agree with our stance on the issue of Euthanasia or a number of other issues, but it is at least encouraging that you are (unlike an increasing number of other news source publishers) prepared to provide some sort of balance.
Sincerely,
Chris O’Brien
Vice President RTLNZ
Thanks very much for clarifying that this is just a reposting a press release! That makes a lot more sense.
Perhaps you would consider in future labelling republished press releases? Something like “Disclaimer: this is a press release put out by (source). Publication does not imply endorsement. For more information about our press release selection policy, click here.”
–I’m assuming you have a selection policy because by golly do a lot of press releases get put out. But perhaps you do publish all of them (!) – in other comments you refer to a link to view all press releases, but the link doesn’t display and I can’t find any section on your site labelled as such. Can you clarify where I should be looking?
Cheers!
Right-to-Life is an interesting name for this organisation.
It implies two things;
1. that medically-assisted euthenasia somehow contravenes my right to life – even when I’m dying of an incurable disease and have weeks, days, hours left in this world.
I look forward to Right-to-Life fighting the Grim Reaper on my behalf, as the Dark Angel approaches my death bed. Good luck with that!
2. That this organisation has a monopoly on placing a value on life. I reject that.
I also reject the implication that because I lean toward the Right-to-Die (notwithstanding Martyn’s excellent, rational, and thoughtful arguments opposing medically-assisted euthenasia) that I somehow do not value a right-to-life.
Any organisation that predicates it’s starting-point on that basis (of a monopoly on morality) is one that I am inherently suspicious of.